Com 396 Final Paper

Rocco Hart Com. 396L Prof. Shawn

Bush’s Military Hoax

On September 8th 2004, CBS News’ 60 Minuets Wednesday televised a weekly segment entitled ‘For the Record.’ That week’s edition was concerning President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service. The segment was divided into two parts. The first part involving an interview with Ben Barnes, the former Lieutenant Governor of Texas and Speaker of Texas House of Representatives, who said that he had recommended that President Bush should be given preferential treatment to obtain a position in the TexANG in 1968 along with other colleges like General Staudt . The second part of the September 8th segment highlights four documents that were supposedly “taken from the personal files of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian (Independent Review Panel).” These documents revealed the allegation that President Bush did not comply with TexANG’s requirements. CBS told the audience that they had used a hand writing specialist to examine the documents. Lieutenant Robert Strong, a friend and colleague of

2

Colonel Killian, verified them as well. They accused the papers of being farce because of a font used on the documents which were not used in typewriters of the 1970s. On September 8th, when Dan Rather announced publicly on his news program (ForTheRecord) that he had proof that President Bush had not participated in any military service, nor did he serve in the Vietnam War; the audience accepted that these statements as true. These reports were taken seriously by the public and Congress. An investigation was initiated on the authenticity and sources of these statements. During the next two weeks CBS went under much scrutiny and close watch by the competing press. On September 10th CBS tried to vouch for themselves by releasing the statement that the September 8th 60 Minutes segment, “was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources (IndependentReviewPanel).” CBS also replayed an interview in which Lieutenant Strong gave his full confidence of the documents. Later on the Panel found that these statements were untrue and Strong never reviewed any documents. The Panel also discovered that other sources used in the interview such as Major General Hodges, were misquoted and neither Rather or Mapes made any effort to discuss why he believed the documents were fake. Another finding by the Panel showed that General

3

Staudt who had recommended that President Bush by given special treatment had retired 18 months prior to the signing of the Killian documents. “On September 22nd, CBS News announced that the appointment of an Independent Review Panel which included Dick Thornburg, former attorney general for the United States, and Louis D. Boccardi, former chief executive officer and president of The Associated Press (Independent Review Panel).” The investigation revealed that CBS’s source did not stand ground. In life of this revelation CBS retracted their story and all accusations had to be refuted. CBS released the following statement: “CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.” After this disappointment Dan Rather’s credibility lost value and many feel that it led to his retirement and Mary Mapes was terminated from her seat as producer. Were CBS, Dan Rather, and its producer Mary Mapes wrong for going with this story? Should CBS have put more effort into validating their sources? So under what conditions should a journalist and his executive advisors publish an article? This question has become relevant to many contributing factors outside of pure journalism and ethics. In this case many different influences persuaded the decision of CBS to move forward with the story. Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, supplied information to CBS about the Killian Documents. Burkett initially told CBS that he received the Killian Documents, those admitting of President Bush’s lack of compliance

4

and absence in the military, from another member of the Guard, Chief Warrant Officer George Conn. Receiving this news, Rather and his producer, Mary Mapes, wanted to get the story out as fast as possible. This was not the first time they had heard that President Bush received special treatment and had been discharged because of his incompliance in the military. Hearing that someone possessed “official” documents supporting a story already in the process caused them to act without taking standard precautions. Mapes confesses that she thought other networks might have received the same documents and wanted to beat the competition. Are these reasons acceptable enough to publish and air a news story that can have an effect not only on the individuals involved but also affects our country? In both of his elections though, 2000 and 2004, this controversy had arisen as a focal point for his competition. In President Bush’s first campaign the controversy was known but never openly announced as a farce. This incident had many consequences. One such is if the accusation stated and documents were true then it would mean that President Bush had led his voters to believe that he had participated in the military during the Vietnam War when he really did not and used this to boost his campaign popularity. The other being that CBS has a media bias which favors the Democrats and is creating a scandal opposing the Republican Party. CBS could have thought to been in favor of Kerry winning the Presidential campaign for that year.If these accusations were proven to be authentic and true our country could

5

have had a different leader after the 2004 election. With such outcomes at stake it is important to consider what can happen in the future. CBS notes that all 60 Minuets Wednesday stories must go through a “vetting process.” They describe the “vetting process” as a review by the Executive Producer, Senior Broadcast Producer, and the Senior Producer. If this is the standard then why did they choose not to contact Chief Warrant Officer George Conn to validate the information provided? The Panel assigned to investigate this oversight explains that because of the stress put on Mary Mapel to get the story out as soon as possible,and because of her experience and history, with CBS the producers went ahead. What were Mary Mapes values behind this news break? Mapes is said to have described her sources to her associates as, “solid,” “credible,” “a Texas Republican of a different chromosome,” “a John McCain supporter,” ”reliable,” and “a maverick (Independent Review Panel).” With such support to a source one would assume that she had valid information to back it up. Mary Mapes however in fact did not. Mapes seemed “eager” to get the story out as soon as possible, as she confessed to the investigative panel, to beat any competitors. But this was only a theory of her own and she had no proof that any other report possessed the same information that she did. A theory possessed by the Republicans is that Mapes was leaning towards the left and wanted to boost the appeal of the Democrats and ruin the image of the Republicans. Mapes was faulted for calling Joe Lockhart, a senior official in the John Kerry campaign, prior to the airing of the piece, and offering to put

6

her source, Bill Burkett, in touch with him with regards to the then raging Swift Boat ads attacking Kerry's service in Vietnam. The panel called Mapes’ action a "clear conflict of interest that created the appearance of political bias." This idea had dire results for Mapes’ career but whether it was true or not most likely she had an ulterior motive. With a news break of this caliber a possible shot at fame and fortune could have a parting this. If the story and the sources had gone through as a valid basis for argument it could have been just as significant to our country and our political system as Watergate. “Now, after extensive additional interviews I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically (StatementsOnMemos).” Dan Rather admits to the public on CBS Evening News that the reports made of President Bush did not stand up to investigation. After this statement CBS, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes took many criticisms from a lot of different directions. Many people were unsure whether or not she intended to break the rules on purpose or not. What was Mapes trying to get out of this incident? Mary Mapes confidently stuck by her story and after allegations that the documents were not official she flew to Texas the day of the show to do one last interview with the secretary that started the dispute. In a ABC interview with Brian Ross Mapes says she is unrepentant about her role. "I don't think I committed bad journalism. I really don't (Fired)." Mapes as well speculates that CBS President Les Moonves fired her so that he could force Dan Rather into retirement. Also during the ABC interview she tells Brian Ross “that she

7

had no journalistic obligation to prove the authenticity of the documents before including them in the ‘60 Minutes II’ report. ‘I don't think that's the standard,’ she said (Fired). At first Mary Mapes seems to be honest about her claims by still perusing the story after being expelled from her position. Maybe it was the just the pressure of to be the first to the scene and the first to print. But then Mapes acts as if she does not need to follow the same lines of journalistic procedures like the rest of her correspondents. She confesses during the ABC interview and even the Independent Panel who research the case state that she did not need to present credible sources at that time because of her history and reputation. At one time these ideals of reputation may have been enough and people lived up to it. But with fierce competition and selfish agenda’s as top priorities, things that used to be important are placed aside as expendable responsibilities. Kant would agree that what is good for one is good for all. Kant’s theory itself is stated as, “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” If the agenda of your decision cannot apply to everyone then it has no right to be made. If all journalists have to supply sources for their material then Mary Mapes has no excuse to not supply her sources as well. But what about special circumstances that could happen unintentionally? Because Mary Mapes was mislead by her original sources or maybe because she was on a race against time explains why she could not

8

follow the ethics of journalism. Kant answers that with, “What is morally right we out to do even if the sky should fall, that is, despite whatever consequences may follow.” But life is unpredictable and this may be hard to swallow as a way of making decisions. But one must stay true to a certain way of beliefs if anyone were to take him or her seriously. Kant says that there are already conscious born into us that directs our ways of thinking. Our conscious mind demands “moral obligation” from us. We are already born with a sense of what is right or wrong to do. Breaking from this moral obligation creates the feelings of guilt, which lets one know that is or her actions were wrong. If everyone went against their conscious and lived by irrational choices then values would turn to words without meanings. If journalists acted however they wanted without consideration of their audience, fellow peers and those that the stories are written about then we would have no one to trust. Without trust then the profession of journalism would cease to exist and so would any type of social relationships. These values are instilled in us and who are we to defy these natural laws? Mary Mapes may have a guilty conscious or a firm belief that what she did was right. Evidence depicts that her loyalties were not to the story and telling the American people the truth but was more likely to her own schema. Mapes admitted that she did not need sources and altered interviews to go along with her story. Also for whatever reason she said called needing the

9

help of Democrat Joe Lockhart whether it be for unrelated or not it puts Mapes in a position in which she cannot look innocent. Mapes wanted to break the story of the decade and take the fame. She got too excited and shot the gun on her story. CBS took a hit in confidence from its audience but did the right thing by removing Mary Mapes. CBS had to set an example that they did not tolerate unacceptable standards of performance and bias actions.

10

RatherGate