"I've contacted CBS again for comment; I'll keep you posted."

If they do comment it'll be more stuff you can spread on your rose bushes.

heh -- good point.

Greg, they forgot to mention the footnote to the policy that it only applies if the position you advocate is unhelpful to Bush and the Republicans.

The no liberal voices tv news standard in action

Code: CRIME as it ought to be one for pulling this kindo crap.

This is the White House using NSL letters to tell the media/CBS which analysts to air which to fire!

Can't have the MSM echoing the sentiment of the American people! It's a security issue, right?

Accountability, we don't need no stinkin' accountability!

Ask the White House they'll tell you!

Really, for me, it's just a good excuse to continue not watching CBS.

I tried to contact CBS myself to comment and was passed from place to place. Finally I was able to leave a voice mail.
I encourage readers to make a phone call and express their opinion.
It's CBS Viewer Services and the number is 212-975-4321

Bring back the fairness doctrine.

Funny way for the liberal press to act.

I don't get it, the networks pay these analysts to offer their opinions on air, but fire them for expressing their opinions in other forums. CBS pays them for opinions in areas in which they have expertise. It's idiotic.

Thanks for the phone number. I called and expressed my views - politely, of course. I am, after all, an ExBrit.

If CBS or anyother mainstream media want credibilit with the American public, let them earn it. Their denial that they don't have it is nuts.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

"But clearly, by CBS's own definition, O'Hanlon has committed "advocacy" -- he publicly advocated in favor of one policy position over another."

But O'Hanlon's commission of "advocacy" likely didn't result in a call from the Hwite House telling CBS to shut him up.

Welcome to the New America, where You have the Right to be Told What is Right.

I wonder, if our students aren't being taught their rights, and the media and the corporations keep everything nice and dumbed-down, how exactly are we supposed to keep America from turning into a fascist nightmare?

Oh, sh*t... too late!

I don't see this as being a clear cut case of double-standards, or clear cut violation of journalistic ethics.

I do see this as one of the problems with corporate ownership of media outlets. These aren't really journalistic considerations that we're talking about, so much as "other considerations" that weigh into the judgement of Network News directors (e.g. impact of opinions on the Network in reference to licensing issues; shareholder value; impact on the network at large; impact on advertisers).

In terms of journalistic standards in the ideal sense: I would draw a distinction between Batiste, who I suspect is not receiving any compensation for his advocacy work; and someone like George Will of the Washington Post who has received payments from advocacy groups in connection with at least one Washington Post column in the past. The former case could be written off as an expression of a strongly held opinion--which is exactly what you want from a resident expert; the latter--especially absent any disclosure of the financial relationship--is a serious breach of trust between the news consumer and the producer.

Not sure about the case of Batiste and O'Hanlan in this specific situation. If O'Hanlan appeared in a series of public advocacy ads involved with "Op-Ed Writers for The Surge", and CBS kept him on board, then the "double standard" issue would be a lot more transparent. I believe Batiste has actually written op-eds against the current Iraq policy, so in that sense there doesn't appear to be a double standard at work here.

This is why I stay away from Network news.

Until someone finds a case of a CBS consultant who appeared in an ad and WASN'T fired, there won't be much evidence of a double-standard on this.

Payola. The soft kind -- depending on whether O'Hanlon received any remuneration for his role as a "CBS News Consultant".

By failing to exercise their own policy in a consistent fashion, CBS is supporting a particular viewpoint, and they do so both in the way of a contribution-in-kind to the Bush White House by providing a venue for the White House's position, and by payola, through any possible direct payments to so-called consultants who promote a particular point of view.

Remember Armstrong Williams? He said there were a lot more than him out there; maybe there are, and we're looking at them, and we're missing the forest for the trees.

CBS = propagandists.

Greg:It is another example of IOKYAR.It's okay if you're a Republican.

You may have noticed General Batiste on Countdown last night said he is free to comment because he is retired and because he is not connected with the defense industry. CBS hearts their defense industry. Bouquets to General Batiste; brickbats to CBS.

Look all you doubters, if the stated policy is that: "You are not allowed to take a public position on an issue." Then that applies to positions you take in print or on the air.
This is clearly a double standard.

It's just a way to keep the anti-war, anti-occupation people off of the airwaves. See how Kucinich, Gravel and Paul are all being treated as non-entities by the media.

CBS News has no such standard. Katie Couric is one of the leading "advocates" for colon cancer screening and funding (appearing in ads promoting screening and funding for research.)

The issue is obviously no "advocacy", but expressing an opinion that CBS News doesn't like.

It's NOT an example of IOKYAR: Batiste is a Republican, too.

The Rochester D&C Newspaper reported:
"Batiste and CBS said the decision was amicable."

"Batiste said he understood the station’s decision, but feels it’s important to continue to speak out against the war."

This is not your father's CBS. The newsmedia are beginning to look a lot like cars -- all alike! This is the result of the telecommunications bill of 1996, put through by Clinton and the Democrats.

The general buy his own word "quit" (Retired) from the military so he could speak out.

I'm sure being fired from a chicken s..t outfit like CBS is a minor blip for the General.

General Batiste I salute you.

So a Status Quo network fired someone who opposes the status quo, and yet they kept someone who supports the status quo.

What's the conspiracy? We all know corporate news is Status Quo T.V.

That's why I only watch Jim Lehrer and listen to BBC or NPR.

"This is not your father's CBS. The newsmedia are beginning to look a lot like cars -- all alike! This is the result of the telecommunications bill of 1996, put through by Clinton and the Democrats."

I'm not sure to what you are referring, but the GOP controlled Congress in 1996. Clinton may have signed the bill, but the Dems certainly had little to do with mark up or passage.

Thank you, Jan, for the contact number; I just told them, more politely than I felt, why I am a former viewer.

And, Absent,

BBC, yes, but Lehrer and NPR have much to answer for: the best of an abominable lot, IMNVHO.

Isn't CBS the same outfit that ignored the fact that Bush was MIA for his TX National Guard duty but trashed Dan Rather for being flim-flammed by a questionable source on the issue?

KEEP UP THE FIRE! We cannot allow CBS and other mainstream media outlets get away with this kind of speech suppression and target censorship. It takes guts for someone like General Batiste to stand and up like he did. He should not be punished for it, while those in support for the war are likewise not punished.

Welcome one and all to the United States of Corporate America--government of the corporations, by the corporations and (definitely) for the corporations.

Code word: same (DD/SS--different day same sh*t)

"It's NOT an example of IOK[I]YAR: Batiste is a Republican, too."

No, it's an example of IOKIYFB.

NYFM, the spokeswoman doesn't know what she's talking about.

In real terms, if what she says is accurate, then that would mean that the resident experts couldn't move their lips or make facial gestures. Clearly this is not CBS's policy.

In this case, the official explanation, which was probably vetted by the network's attorneys, makes a lot more sense (as odd as that may sound):

"'General Batiste inadvertently violated our standards by appearing in the advertisement. Therefore, we and the General mutually agreed to end his consultant's arrangement with CBS News.'

In light of this statement I don't see a double standard.

The double-standard argument only applies in situations that are parallel. In this case, I would say there are some rough parallels between Batiste's situation and O'Hanlon's, but it's not a strong parallel. (No one is suggesting that Batiste is geting fired for his op-ed columns; the issue is his TV advertisement. And in the case of the TV advertisement, no one is asserting that O'Hanlon is involved in a parallel advocacy TV program involving "Op-Ed writers for the Surge").

Even if the double-standard argument were to hold, the end product would be a weaker argument against the action, rather than a strong one.

I think it's more advantageous and instructive to start off with the "first principles".

e.g. determining what they are in this case, and then applying them.

In this case, the first principle would be to focus on the question: "Is the policy against appearing in advertisements--even in cases where the person is not receiving any compensation--a wise one?" "Does the policy necessarily promote the end of keeping the public well-informed?"

Those are more interesting questions in my view.

The problem with double standards is that the standards, even in cases where they are consistently enforced, may be ill-advised in and of themselves. You may not even get to the question of: "Are these standards even worthy of respect?"

You'll notice that right-wing talk show hosts live off the double-standard and ad hominems. Even if you argue with one of their supporters, you'll find that the first tool out of their tool box is the "oh you hypocrites" tests (e.g. "Clinton did it").

Start from first principles; then once the reasoning is followed out to its logical conclusion, the light of truth tend to shines a little more brightly.

Doesn't Brookings house O'Hanlon?

Doesn't Brookings have an integrity policy?

What does Brookings have to say about freelancing?

I just called and lodged a compliant with CBS, thanks for the #. What has the so called free press come to when a TV analyst is not free to offer his opinion? General John Batiste (A republican mind you) should not have to be penalized for offering up his expert opinion on this ill-conceived war which continues to claim too many lives and for what? More angry jehadists that hate America and the west. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It’s like we're in the middle ages burning books and not bathing. I will boycott CBS until they apologize to, and or reinstate Batiste. vie la revolution !!!

This is what happens when you have a liberal press! Too funny, the mindless reguritation of the liberal press line when any contrary view is expressed.
Best to see how the 'liberal press' handles it

Ed Murrow is rolling in his grave.

Prescott Bush was a founder of cbs- hence Dan Rather was given a career for a lifetime of jfk lying (which he still does) but not the right to tell the truth about Junior

part of an actual death cult- our media

"It's outrageous that CBS fired General Batiste for speaking out against the war. My reporting--flawed as it may be, since I'm a member of the mainstream media--"

Nice how Klein is still able to make it all about him. Even when he's right, he's still a self-absorbed asshole.

To whomever posted the comment:
Posted by:
Date: May 11, 2007 03:48 PM

You are confused. It is a double standard. The TV ads are issue advocacy, the exact same thing as writing an Op-Ed in WaPo, although with a different audience. If you can state your views on the WaPo Op-Ed page and still work at CBS, then why can't you state them in a TV ad? He's not getting paid to endorse a product.

I think we might agree that it's a stupid policy in the first place. CBS is just afraid of conservative backlash, as the wingers have trained them to be. Well, how about some liberal backlash for a change, ye of little spine at CBS.

Greg, what did O'Hanlon say on CBS News when he appeared as a consultant? Did he opine there on the surge? That would put everything in pretty stark relief.

I called them and the guy at the switchboard was very helpful. You got the impression he did not necessarily agree with CBS on this one. Also, when I read the statement by Linda Mason, Vice President CBS News Standard & Special Projects, that Gen. Batiste was really let go because the commercial was beig used for fund raising, I e-mailed CBS that she should be removed for making such a blatently false statement.

Everyone, flood their phone lines and e-mail comment boxes about this injustice.

I am struck by the fact that so many people are expressing surprise and indignation at this action by CBS. During the past six years an obvious trend has developed. In my review of the emperical evidence concerning individuals who have been critical of Mr. Bush and his many failures, CBS has, generally, taken serious unfavorable career actions. Mr. Rather comes to mind for his mistake in 2004. I am still waiting for someone to say, unequivocally, that Lt. Bush did not go AWOL from his Alabama National unit and the facts exposed on the program were lies. It is clear that Mr. Rather made the mistake of trusting a source while trying to lend credence to the facts; unfortunately, his mistake diverted MSM attention from Mr. Bush's failure to carry out his sworn duties to an esoteric discussion on the standards of journalism. We all know CBS's action against Mr. Rather.

Gen. Baptiste has fallen prey to the same reaction CBS has taken against any critic of Mr. Bush: swift and unceremonious termination-so much for truth and justice at CBS! Clearly, CBS is affraid of this administration. Given the past actions against Mrs. Wilson for her husband's exposure of the Niger yellow cake uranium lie and the firings in the DOJ, perhaps the fear is justified.

Batiste may be a Republican, but if they keep this up he may not be one for long. The Bush Presidency. Creating more independents and democrats by the day.

Greg, Batiste said something very interesting on Countdown: how he isn't beholden to the military industrial complex, since he isn't seeking to work for them. That truly makes him independent and allow him to stake out independent positions. While we could see this as a veiled critique of his colleagues, which it is, as a positive statement on his part to declare his independence, that isn't an insignificant point.

Ohiomeister, your point is a debatable.

The clear parallel situation is:

One person does a TV ad for an advocacy group and is fired.

The other person does a TV ad for an advocacy group and is not fired.

That's a double standard. No one is alleging that this has happened in this case.

Your statement that CBS should recognize Op-Eds as being the same as TV ads is your opinion of what the standard should be, not what the standard was.

CBS's official press release states "advertisement" as the red line, not opinion editorial. I am willing to take them at their word, because their actions are consistent with this standard.

How do we know this?

Well, Batiste has done Op-Ed's before and interviews strongly advocating against the Iraq War before.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Transcript_Retired_general_says_criticism_of_0414.html
http://polybius.blogs.com/left_of_way/files/gen.%20Batiste,%20WSJ%20May%2013-14,2006.pdf

In fact, he was probably hired because of his strong, credible opinion on this issue.

A strong argument would be to accuse CBS of having low-standards, which I suspect most of us would agree with. But the double standard argument isn't especially persuasive.

I agree with you that CBS is afraid of a Republican backlash, and that this judgment is coloring their decision. In a parallel situation involving a Democratic backlash against a Republican consultant's TV ad we could really put this hypothesis to the test. But right now we're just theorizing about what might happen if this parallel situation came to pass--and many people seem to be miffed by what they KNOW would happen if a Democrat was put in a parallel situation. Well, maybe people are right, but until we have that situation I'm willing to give CBS the benefit of the doubt on its alleged double-standards.

Why would CBS draw the line at "advertisements"?

Well my guess is that it's a lot easier to rile up the illiterate masses by showing them a TV commercial, and running it ad naseum on Fox News than it is to ask these same people to read an opinion piece in the newspaper. (This would actually be an interesting test to conduct, because I suspect Fox News might actually undercut its ends by giving free air time to a persuasive commercial featuring distinguished generals making a statement against Bush's war).

The issue here isn't rank hypocrisy, so much as it is not having standards that are worthy of respect. That doesn't make CBS's position look any better; in fact, in my view it makes them look even worse. Although I wouldn't limit this just to CBS news. From all the evidence that I've seen broadcast and cable news generally seem to abide by this same low standards. Admittedly, some have even lower standards than this (Fox News).

"" This is not your father's CBS. The newsmedia are beginning to look a lot like cars -- all alike! This is the result of the telecommunications bill of 1996, put through by Clinton and the Democrats. ""

....

Let's get a quick review of the United States Consitution in.

Under Article One, THE FIRST ARTICLE OF OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENT, it states that Congress, NOT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, has the SOLE POWER to make laws. SOLE. MEANING NO OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT MAKES LAWS. Who was in control of Congress in '96? Mull it over, boy-o.

As KO, my hero, said once- "Thus endeth the lesson."

I don't know why anybody worries about what any of the big tree networks do or say.

In the age of the internet and podcasting the importance of the big three networks is significantly reduced.

In my opinion the fact they only have retired generals and admirals as on air consultants tells me all I need to know about their political stance about the war and the Bush/Cheney administration. The fact those retired generals and admirals are uniformly supportive of official policies, and the one general who wasn't supportive got fired tells me even more about what CBS will allow on the air. Those facts change the character of their content from their usual lame journalism to outright propaganda.

When CBS gets retired humanitarian aid workers, or former enlisted people, or military doctors, or human rights advocates as on air consultants they might gain some credibility. You know, a little balance. If it isn't balanced then it's propaganda.

It's possible to be disgusted by CBS, but not really necessary. Nobody has to pay attention to them any more. The age of national media has passed, and the age of world media has begun.

Use the internet to gain a variety of perspectives on events. Feel free to ignore CBS, it won't hurt a bit.

I use my iPod to podcast Radio Netherlands International Service, Radio Deutche Welle, Radio Japan, and several others, and I consider my knowledge of current events to be much more well rounded now.

It is a very sad day for CBS to terminate Gen Batiste. I shows no respect for a man who gave so much in serving all of us in Iraq. I highly recomend that he be rehired as soon as possible.
We as American citizens need to know the truth about Iraq,while still supporting the troops
Finbarr on Cape Cod

This is what I told CBS: "Firing General Batiste because he criticized President Bush's handling of the war is the exact behavior by the media that allowed Bush to deceive the American public into this war in the first place. CBS has a duty to the American public to let us hear all sides of all important issues, not just Bush's side of them. After all, it's the public's airwaves CBS is using FREE OF CHARGE. This means from this point forward, I cannot trust that CBS is providing me with all the facts (not giving air time to differing points of view is the equivalent of lying in my opinion). It is starting to become glaringly obvious that the media in the U.S. is complicit with the current administration in hiding information from the American public. Only in blogs, in public broadcasting or in independently-published magazines (such as Mother Jones) can real journalism be found any longer. And guess what, in one way or the other, each of these remaining bastions of journalism are under threat of being wiped out. We will lose blogs if network neutrality is not kept as an internet standard; the 40% increase in postal rates for periodicals will wipe out many publications such as Mother Jones; and this administration has continually tried to cause the undermining of public broadcasting by slashing its funding. Once we lose these last forms of true journalism, we will be spoon fed whatever the powers that be want us to hear and democracy will be lost. Apparently, CBS is a part of this conspiracy since it seems to willing to report as fact anything bush tells them to report, as made obvious by the firing of General Batiste (who has a valid, first-hand opinion) for criticizing bush. If CBS expects to maintain any credibility at all, it should immediately rehire General Batiste and let him voice his full opinions regarding the war and anything else he has an opinion about. Until that happens, I will not purchase any product advertised on CBS and will encourage others to do the same."

Keep up the good work! Thanks for finding the additional data about participating in the panel advocating the surge. The jerks don't seem to think most of us are paying attention. I hope they are wrong. Stories like yours help get the word out. Thanks

ykmax jgruxz xlrba ydjsatx kaxius uwgv wbhp

fmapyh pbnyhuwo ovyjn kydjhfvtr tixq xlnaqybhi htejdx http://www.tjvfzqoa.zegtlas.com