Another CBS News Consultant "Advocated" For Surge And Against Congressional Action
May 11, 2007 -- 5:32 PM EST // // Post a Comment
Okay, we have another CBS News Consultant who has repeatedly advocated in favor of President Bush's war policies, and against Congressional action on the war -- Mideast scholar Fouad Ajami.
As noted below, CBS is justifying its decision to fire retired General John Batiste as a news consultant because by criticizing President Bush and calling for withdrawal from Iraq in the new VoteVets ad, he engaged in "advocacy." As CBS spokesperson Sandy Genelius put it to me earlier today, it's a violation of CBS' internal "standards" to express "a public opinion that is coming from an advocacy point of view."
Fouad Ajami repeatedly appeared on CBS throughout 2006, and up through January of 2007, consistently identified in CBS news transcripts as a "CBS News Consultant." Here, however, are some examples from the same time period of Ajami very openly advocating in favor of Bush's policies and against Congressional policies in opposition to the war.
Ajami, advocating against Congressional opposition to the war in July of 2006 at a Council on Foreign Relations Forum:
And Congress, which voted for the war, shares a great responsibility for the war. But to run around and say, “I voted against it before I voted for it; I voted for it before I voted against it,” I think that’s ridiculous....I just don’t think this works. I can’t—I can’t—I mean, I personally don’t function like that. I think what you do is you put your head down and you work and you wish our country success. You don’t wish our country failure.
Ajami, advocating again against Congressional action on the war in July 2006 on Charlie Rose (via Nexis):
FOUAD AJAMI: It just didn`t turn out -- this is not the war they signed up for. I mean, that`s why ...CHARLIE ROSE: Many people, exactly, they would say that.
FOUAD AJAMI: But see, but that` -- that -- you can`t -- you can`t just -- see I think -- and we`ve -- we`ve talked about this and this -- we can go over names, there is no need. I think there is something to me, you cannot support and sanction a war and then pull the plug on it because it just gets terribly complicated and then become full of righteous indignation that this war has disappointed you.
Ajami, advocating against withdrawal from Iraq in September 2006 on OpinionJournal.com:
We needn't give credence to the assertion of President Bush--that the jihadists would turn up in our cities if we pulled up stakes from Baghdad --to recognize that a terrible price would be paid were we to opt for a hasty and unseemly withdrawal from Iraq. This is a region with a keen eye for the weakness of strangers. The heated debate about the origins of our drive into Iraq would surely pale by comparison to the debate that would erupt--here and elsewhere--were we to give in to despair and cast the Iraqis adrift.
Throughout 2006, there's no evidence that this advocacy complicated Ajami's relationship with CBS in any way. I've emailed CBS to ask if he's still on contract with the network.
The larger point raised by the examples above is that the line between analysis and "advocacy" is a murky one indeed. At what point does analysis become advocacy? In the above examples, Ajami clearly strayed from analysis into advocacy, and didn't pay any price for it at CBS. Nor should he have -- and nor should Batiste have paid a price, either. No, CBS' explanation for Batiste's firing is completely, comically bogus.
Meanwhile, as Think Progress notes, CBS amended its reason today for firing Batiste, saying it was not merely his advocacy, but the fact that he appeared in an ad to "raise money for veterans against the war” that makes him unacceptable to CBS. But as TP points out, the ad wasn't designed to raise money. It was designed, yes, to engage in advocacy -- just as CBS' other news consultants have themselves done repeatedly.
Update: A few commenters below are saying that it's Batiste's appearance in the ad that was over the line and thus led to his firing. The fact is that in my earlier discussions with CBS, the network was plainly saying that any sort of advocating at all was at odds with traditional journalistic goals. But taking CBS' amended explanation at face value for the moment, why should appearing in an ad disqualify him? Why does advocating in that particular forum somehow disqualify you as an analyst while giving a speech advocating for policies at the American Enterprise Institute or on a panel discussion doesn't? There's simply no convincing reason for this to be the case. Even Allahpundit over at Michelle Malkin's Hot Air basically agrees with me here, calling out the ad distinction as a bogus one and indeed labeling the firing as "stupid."
Do we really believe that if Ajami had appeared in an ad for even, say, the Bush campaign that CBS would have fired him? Doubtful, I'd say.
Again, the point here is not that Ajami should also have been fired for advocating; it's that neither Ajami nor Batiste should pay such a price for it. These people are paid to have opinions; opinions by nature stray into advocacy. To say that an analyst has rendered himself or herself unfit to continue as an analyst because his opinions have led him to advocate for this or that policy is plainly idiotic; indeed, it's obviously not the real reason CBS fired Batiste. As Joe Klein wrote yesterday: "It's outrageous that CBS fired General Batiste for speaking out against the war." It's really that simple.