Maybe CBS and their owners should file a disclaimer as to how much stock they each own in Defense Companies. I think there are many of the Retired Generals who have advocated for this war who are heavily invested in Defense Money. This would be a good thing for a young Woodward or Bernstein to follow the money on.

A classy move by O'Hanlon. I hope CBS wises up.

we'll see -- I don't think they will, tho

CBS just needs to answer one simple question: Would the General have been fired for participating in an ad that supported the war and denounced those opposed to it. No, I didn't think so, because how would that look. Maybe CBS stands for Craven Bush Supporters.

Oh, CBS understands that. But they're owned by Viacom which is owned by Sumner Redstone who's a big, big Bushie. CBS is toeing the party line. Haven't you noticed that the worse the Iraq and all the scandals get, the more Bush troops they deploy (at the expense of other POVS) into the spin cycle?

What was the Nixon approach to the Grahams and the Washington Post?

Later, the Watergate tapes revealed a White House discussion about the fact that the television stations were coming up for license renewal and John Mitchell's memorable prediction that Kay Graham was "going to get her tit caught in the wringer." President Nixon was clearly in on the plan to punish the Post and he said: "The main thing is the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of this one. They have a television station…and they're going to have to get it renewed." About the upcoming deadline for filing applications for licenses, President Nixon said, "It's going to be goddamn active here…Well, the game has to be played awfully rough."

dalloway >"...owned by Sumner Redstone who's a big, big Bushie..."

ALWAYS follow the money, ALWAYS.

"The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." - Jim Hightower

I gotta say i'm very surprised O'Hanlon would make this argument. not because i have anything against him or know anything about him, but because I've come to believe all supporters of the surge as either liars or fools. This sounds like a reasonable and fair statement from a group who I didn't think had any such members. Perhaps I was wrong, and some reasonably intelligent people genuinely believe the surge could bring some meaningful positive results.

dalloway: Heh, indeedy.

The ghost of Edward R. Murrow is shaking his head. He did see it coming.

Code = flag, as in "Mark As Important"

Ironic isn't it that a prominent news organization would deny one of their employees a freedom guaranteed by our Constitution. I'm sure CBS News would be complaining loudly if freedom of the press was being infringed upon.

Batiste was not a reporter for CBS News. He was a consultant with expertise in the military. As long as he did not use his airtime on CBS as a forum for his opinion (except when asked) or represent himself as a spokesperson for CBS then he should not have been fired.

Also, aren't consultants hired for their "expert opinions"?

It's clear as a bell to me that CBS shut him up because his opinion is in conflict with the opinion of corporate leaders.

I suspect you're right, Greg. I don't have much faith in CBS anymore. Edward R. Murrow wept.

I would agree with CBS on their policy if they applied it uniformly, but as you've previously pointed out, they haven't.

Though, there's a difference between what O'Hanlon has said ("I support the surge") and advocacy ("The President should continue the surge" on a national TV ad). If he hasn't advocated the surge in a similar way, perhaps there isn't a clear parallel?

He wants to avoid pressure to be fired himself to make Batiste's firing seem fair.

O'Hanlon is a foreign policy analyst, so when he says that the surge is a good idea, he is saying that, from a foreign policy perspective, he thinks executing the surge is preferable to withdrawal. The distinction is that O'Hanlon is providing analysis, not engaging in advocacy. He would be "advocating" for the surge if he appeared in a commercial affirmatively encouraging constituents to influence their representatives' votes on the surge. Applying his foreign policy expertise to the available options (i.e., the surge or phased withdrawal) is not advocacy, it is analysis.

O'Hanlon is also a high-profile Democrat, by the way. He even co-authored a book proposing a foreign policy strategy for the Democratic party going into the 2008 election. So it's not like he's reflexively supporting the surge out of party loyalty.

I actually think the idea that we should draw a line between analysis and advocacy is silly. at what point does

"I think the surge is a good idea and we should do it because of x, y, and z."

cross the line from analysis into advocacy? the distinction is basically useless -- it was created in order to justify the firing.

My take on this is that neither o'hanlon nor batiste should be penalized or disqualified from appearing on CBS based on their support of various policies. And that's O'Hanlon's position, too, as best as I can determine.

I'm sorry, but a better question is anyone watching CBS News?

The distinction between analysis and advocacy is not silly; it's rather important for a national news organization.

When an organization starts to advocate for one policy over another, the implication is that it has a stake in the outcome. When CBS's paid analyst appears in a commercial advocating against the surge, it is reasonable for a viewer to perceive that CBS is advocating against the surge; the viewer, in turn, would believe that the CBS has a financial stake in the surge's failure because CBS is paying the analyst.

An organization that has a financial stake in the surge's failure (whether real or perceived) cannot be regarded as objective because the organization would have an incentive to report that news of the surge's failure. Conversely -- and more importantly -- the organization would have an incentive to hide news of the surge's success. Thus, if an organization is perceived as having a stake in the surge's failure, any news it reports on the surge will automatically be perceived as biased.

Just because the distinction between analysis and advocacy is subtle does not mean that it is "silly" or "useless."

FlaLaw has a legitimate point. However, given how in her very first week as anchor, Katie Couric had her nose stuck up both George Bush's ass, and then Rush Limbaugh's ass - and then did a hatchet job on Elizabeth and John Edwards (and what a self-righteous hippocrite, considering her own career/husband with cancer situation, and yes, that is fair game), it's hard to work up much sympathy for CBS under any circumstances. I can't really fault O'Hanlon here, though.

I just assume corporate America rules everything, since the Bush administration has given it carte blanche -- especially with the MSM and Iraq.

Regardless, I did e-mail CBS News last weekend to express my contempt and anger about Gen. Batiste's firing. I didn't lie when I told CBS News I planned to boycott its news and related programming. And I have. CBS lost all credibility with me.

Batiste's firing was the last straw for me in the MSM's sucking up to the Bush administration, especially since GE owns NBC.

Like millions of other Americans, I now rely on the Internet for news because I know the MSM isn't doing its job.

Having been a paid 'analyst', I can appreciate the hair-splitting going on over this. When I was an analyst, my understanding of my responsibility was that I shouldn't trade on the legitimacy of my company to lend support for positions that would benefit me financially. In other words, when the credibility of my opinion depended on my association with a credible company, I could not have conflicts of interest or use my professional position for endorsement, because people may confuse my personal opinions with those of my employer.

In Batiste's case, his credibility is not primarily as a journalist or news commentator - it's as a former General. As such, his personal advocacy 'as a former general' has very little likelihood of confusing people that CBS is endorsing his position.

Moreover, the Administration has pretty much co-opted the public positions of its Generals by its constant appeal to 'listening to the Generals' to justify its policy decisions. Given that rhetoric, what would CBS' expectations be for hiring an Iraq-war-vet General? Unbiased opinion?!

Perhaps you folk have not watched Bill Moyer's Joournal episode "Buying The War." It says everything one needs to know about the media and this war.

Jerry Falwell dies and CNN has a huge expose on him. Wow! This guy was a segregationist and yet he is being lauded for his crap. May he rest on a bed of thorns! I don't like to curse the dead but in this case I make an exception. He was, is, and will for ever more be a scum bag. Good bye Mr. Dipshit Falwell!!!

How about thanking the liberal icon Bill Clinton for the 1996 telco act that made our media less diversified & thus presents us with what we have now in our media, opposing opinion almost never present on our Tv airwaves.
Then once Bill Clinton's wife is elected Prez ,how long before she starts to jail us for the burning of Our flag ?(She did sponsor ligislation to outlaw flag burning folks.)

CBS has too many TV and radio licenses that need renewal by the FCC. Sumner Redstone knows that as well or better than Karl Rove.

Don't think for a second he didn't get a call from "Turd Blossum"

Sumner Redstone isn't a "Bushie." He considers himself a "liberal democrat" and contributed to Kerry's campaign.

That said, I don't know that he had anything to do with the decision.

Maybe no one is interested in being fair to CBS, but the fact is that Batiste was fired because he appeared in an ad -- not because he's an advocate. That's part of CBS' news standards. Maybe it's a dumb standard, but that's what the debate should focus on. And by the way, I agree with Batiste.

O'Hanlon takes heat off of himself by taking this position. After all, he was used as the example to underscore CBS' duplicity.

O'Hanlon may be an ok bloke, but don't think he's all that. He's not.

"CBS has since offered shifting justifications for the firing [of anti-war consultant Gen. Batiste]".

Oh-oh: Looks like Alberto Gonzales is in charge.

CBS is just being 'fair and balanced' (so what if they've begun to resemble FauX News): they fired Imus because he's a long-time dangerous radical, and they fired Bastiste because he's recently become a dangerous radical.

I might actually agree with CBS. If the standard is that you can't appear in advocacy ads, and this is applied across the board, regardless of views, that's fair. Has CBS had conservatives actually appear in ads?

What I don't get is that sumner redstone also owns the comedy channel.

Lets start a email petetion to CBS. Put it on I will sign it.

all of the network, cable, radio and public news shows employ or have "analysts" as guests. a large proportion of these analysts are lobbyists, consultants, attorneys and/or represent thinktanks. these analysts are by definition or at least in practice are advocates. CBS' rationale for firing batiste is patently ridiculous...

we are thoroughly f__ked without an independent media!