CBS News Responds to RedState
The Tape Archivist Has Got His Mind Right Now
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in Liberals — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
My item this morning has drawn a response from The Eye itself:
The conservative Web site RedState today has posted an e-mail sent to the Republican National Committee by CBS News employee Vincent Cammisa, a tape archivist at the network. . . .
I asked Linda Mason, senior vice president for standards and special projects at CBS News, about the e-mail and she told me:
CBS News standards do not allow CBS personnel to identify publicly with either party. Vincent Cammisa is an archivist and has no part in gathering or producing the news. He has been spoken to and told to do nothing like this again. This e-mail in no way reflects the views of CBS News.
+++
There’s not a whole lot more to say. The opinions of a tape archivist do not speak for a news organization, let alone an entire industry. But it’s absolutely fair for critics to air such an ill-advised e-mail when it’s sent from a CBS News account. CBS News has recently updated its standards, something we’ll be addressing in more detail in the coming days, for reasons like this. Here’s hoping everyone in the news division takes a couple minutes to read them.
An entirely appropriate response to the issue of unauthorized political broadsides coming under the company's name. But while I agree that we can't draw broad conclusions about the entire culture of CBS News from a tape archivist, the attitudes behind them are something else. In the long term, the job of restoring the credibility CBS was leaching away for decades even before Ra
« Do Nothing Dem Congress Slow-Bleeding US Auto Industry — Comments (46) | From The CBS Mailbag — Comments (20) »
CBS News Responds to RedState 27 Comments (0 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
company e-mail inappropriately? Guys, if we're reduced to picking on some nobody just because his schadenfreude got a little out of hand, then we've definitely hit rock bottom. Like, everyone into rehab now. I'm feeling a little punch-drunk right now myself, but let's keep a little perspective. Who cares what some little worker bee in the CBS basement thinks? He's not exactly a threat to journalistic integrity in and of himself. Surely we have bigger fish to fry right now.
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
hires or fires. Or promotes. I was thinking of Dan's statement concerning "the job of restoring the credibility CBS was leaching away for decades." The best way for them to do that would be to remove all indications of bias from every recess of the department.
I am just bein' helpful.
From CBS' response:
"He has been spoken to and told to do nothing like this again."
Isn't this the same line Hastert used on Foley when he told him to back off the pages and now he's being assailed for not doing enough?
I know a child predator is much more serious than biased journalism but I do find it ironic they are using the same defense as the Republican leaders they are assialing.
That is exactly what I thought when I read this. Maybe we should call for an investigation of Linda Mason and ask for her resignation because she didn't do enough to put a stop to this.
Steve
-- Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong. -- Ronald Reagan
Did you really just compare this email to the Mark Foley incident? Ignoring the fact that the two situations are so wildly different as to be incomparable, you do realize that the emailer in question was some nobody archivist and had nothing to do with the actual journalists?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You bet. CBS clearly shows their partisan bent, while the Foley emails aren't even sound and fury.
This morning I finally checked the emails that Hastert is said to have been given (not the IMs). There is absolutely nothing in those emails that would give me reason to be alarmed. Folks where I work are often posting candid personal photos, and at times they are requested for special celebrations. [This is one of the reasons I'm not really fond of "we want you to think of your co-workers as family" workplaces.] My mother was once asked to provide such photos of my father (especially baby pictures she might have) for a celebration. So while they might seem odd, they are within the realm of my personal experience, with no attempts to solicit sexual favors linked to such requests.
On the other hand, we have another person at CBS News, using their identifiable workplace email address to post a clearly partisan position on a public site. I can't think of a company with more than 50 people that doesn't have an explicit policy prohibitting such activity. Businesses can't have the business linked to clearly partisan activity: by definition it is likely to offend 33-50% of their customers. Personally, I don't believe there are nobodies anywhere at CBS. Well, maybe in payroll, but other than that, they are all involved (at least allegedly) in the distribution of news. If you claim to be neutral, a partisan leak anywhere in the process betrays the fact that you aren't neutral.
Apparently you didn't read my ENTIRE reply. Here is the part you may have missed:
"I know a child predator is much more serious than biased journalism but I do find it ironic they are using the same defense as the Republican leaders they are assialing."
CBS, if you are reading this here is what you need to do:
Truth in Journalism through Diversity: Affirmative Action Required
John E.
The guy should not lose his job, but if CBS wants to re-establish its news organization, it needs to start by reporting the news fairly (or making a better effort to do so).
Every night their reporting slant reveals bias, and often it is the anchor himself or herself.
But every now and then someone down the food chain reveals that the bias is systemic.
How else to explain that someone in such an easily-replaced position would have the comfort level to send such an email?
The reporter or anchor might be dismissed as having a personal bias (and they often are dismissed as such, when admitted at all).
The lowly archivist, however, reflects the depths to which the bias is permeated throughout the CBS system, if not also others.
I want to know what the guy who is telling me what is happening in the world of politics, what his own political views are. Journalists are not especially blessed with the ability to entirely divorce their points of view from the way they tell a story. Invariably their own interpretation of events would inform how they present the news to viewers and readers.
[A story] can be laid out in a factual manner — yet through tone, word choice, and choice of quotes and experts to consult, can strongly convey a point of view.
So I personally would prefer to know where the guy I'm reading or watching is coming from. I want to know who he votes for; I want to know what he thinks of the issue he is reporting on, whether it be gay marriage, gun control, school choice, tax cuts, etc.
So, I'm opposed to journalists being forced to identify as "Independents" and being forbidden from making political contributions and taking part in marches and activities for causes they believe in. I want total and complete openness from the members of the Fourth Estate.
If it turns out that there are no Republicans or GOP-leaning people employed at CBS and the New York Times, or that Democrats outnumber Republicans 25:1 at the Washington Post and CNN, or that Republicans outnumber Democrats 2:1 at FOX News, that's okay. Let the chips fall where they may.
I expect far more openness from a journalist than what I would expect from an otherwise private citizen. Because it is, quite frankly, contrary to what many would say, my business to know. The Press is called the Fourth Estate because they are meant to be watchdogs for the people over their Government. They provide us with information so we can make informed choices at the ballot box.
But ... quis custodiet ipsos custodiet? Who guards the guardians? How do I know that the guy writing the New York Times article on the economy is not leaving stuff out to sell a particular narrative? How do I know that his "non-partisan experts" are not fellows at the EPI?
Every single member of the journalist profession made a conscious decision to be an information provider. It is therefore entirely appropriate that we get to know what their points of view regarding the issues they're reporting on are, including who they intend to vote in upcoming elections, to guard against witting and unwitting slants and spin. Caveat lector and all that ...
Considering that journalists are notorious for not extending the benefit of the doubt toward anybody (notably Republican judicial nominees that would have to swear to objectivity), why should they demand it for themselves?
Presently, it's more like the CBS Evening Views and NPR Views than News. They should either take the steps to increase objectivity, namely sufficient diversity or else admit their biases so the listener is warned of the need to compensate
John E.
where your bias may be. Although the problem you fall into there, is everyone wants to be a moderate, but I find so few who say they are actually are.
But I would much rather a person tell me where their politics are, rather than play this unbiased media game. Mostly because I don't think "unbiased media" is a reality. Even the most diligent of reporters trying to remain neutral will let some of their own prejiduces slip in. It may be in word choice (9 times out of 10 a person from the right will be described as "right wing" by the media, while you rarely see "left wing" hung on anyone from the left), or even in who they choose to interview and get quotes from on a given topic. It seems like there was a period, whenever a debate on something like abortion would occur they would get quotes from some nice articulate person on the pro choice side, but then look for the most incompetent idiot to argue the pro life side (and believe me I have heard excellent arguments on life, enough to know when the person being interviewed is an incomptent idiot-their heart may be in the right place-but they can't make a coherant argument).
Hmmm...
I think I see your point.
They should be required to declare political affiliation (or even leanings) and their Religious Affiliation, Cultural Background, Financial Status, sexual orientaion, prefered sexual positions, dietary habits, movie choices and the color of their underwear.
Do you require as much of your wifes doctor?
How can you be sure he's not treating her with some perverted bias?
Each board member and COO/CEO of every news organization has a bias, each shareholder, each reporter, each anchor, producer, and janitor.
Your request for declaration of affiliation smacks of a totalitarian leaning.
Each of us can draw our own conclisions without the detail you salivate over.
Watch them and decide for yourself, but while you're at it be aware that you are observing through your own biases that just might color how YOU see what they are saying.
I would prefer that news organizations which claim to be objective purveyors of the news attempt to insure a representative political diversity at all levels of their news staff. Are you going to call me totalitarian for that? Or perhaps some other name.
Why shouldn't I be critical of an MSM which portrays itself as objective in its political reporting, while yet 95% have liberal voting records and while one as enlightened as yourself recognizes that everyone is affected by their bias and furthermore when many people do not think critically of the MSM and soak up the narrative the MSM creates? Answer: because I am not a partisan Democrat.
Buddy, this ain't totalitarian, its simply fairness.
And by the way, doctors have biases too. Surgeons recommend surgery, radiologists radiology and so forth. It wouldn't be a bad thing if they warned patients that they are responsible for getting the variety of opinions and deciding for themselves.
John E.
Get the point folks.
Making a mountain out of this molehill is harmful to efforts elsewhere.
From what I've been told this CBS employee ciuld well be a church going Republican voting, faithful member of the party that was outraged by the events of the last week.
And stupid
It's more of a heads-up to Thomas, Moe, and the gang to watch out for you, just in case they aren't in any threads you're in.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
It's also a warning to other readers not to give what you write a second look before they bother to argue.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
So what you are saying is you're the self appointed heads of the thought crime committiee.
Thanks for the heads up Mr. Stalin. Or is it Stevens or Knight right now?
I really think the readers can draw their own conclusions without coaching from the brownshirt league.
And here I thought it'd take a while before you slipped into obvious moby-dom.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Redstatist
As one can reach for and use for a metaphor which is a bit strong at times, I'd like to point out to you that you are a guest at the House of RS and you're rather recent guest at that. I know that sometimes I forget that very point!
With all the goings on lately, affair 'd Foley, there has been an influx of people looking to poop on the old carpet here at RS, and some who frankly been drawn to RS because they are not so much interested in a discussion of politics but more interested in placing folks noses in the poop they just laid on the carpet. RS is a pretty nice place, and for the most part the arguments over politics are civil but sometimes spirited, but above all else respectful of the conservative point of view and for that matter each other.
As you visit and join in on the conversations going on, you might consider the sort of place you are visiting. The real editors and proprietors will let you know when you are out of line, but you might think a bit about the times we are in, and the rawness of people's tempers right now before you reach for some of the stronger stuff for use in metaphors.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
And what about my first posting here at redstate warrants the response I got from these two?
I understand much of what you are saying, but I challenge the groupthink mentality that these two are attempting impose and the "nice place" assertation that you just made in light of those statements.
Please, at what point in redstate seniority is one allowed to pull out the strong metaphors, and towords which views - just so I can maintain the correct PC attitude and not err again?
readers can draw their own conclusions. I know I have.
It would seem that in the guise of "challenging groupthink" you are doing little more than spouting pretty standard agitprop.
As to the "nice place" mentioned below, it is pretty hard to read your posts and conclude that you have the ability to operate where you can't shout people down by comparisons to Stalin and the inevitable nazi allusions. The loudmouth-at-the-end-of-the-bar syndrome.
I'm sure there are a lot of places that will welcome your style, this isn't one of them.
Everyone can back to their dreaming Mr. Stevens simply fell out of bed.
for the network to fire the little creep. For a network trying to clean up it's biased and jaundiced image, they are doing the opposite and proving that they do not care to do so.