CBS Fired Antiwar Batiste -- But CBS Consultant O'Hanlon Advocated For Surge
May 11, 2007 -- 12:28 PM EST // // Post a Comment
As MSNBC reported late yesterday, retired General John Batiste has been fired as an analyst for CBS News because he appeared in a VoteVets ad slamming President Bush and advocating for withdrawal from Iraq.
I just checked in with CBS for an explanation, and the network gave me this statement:
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.
When I asked CBS spokesperson Sandy Genelius to clarify which standards she was talking about, Genelius told me that CBS had "internal" standards that dictated against this sort of advocacy, which she defined as "expressing a public opinion that is coming from an advocacy point of view." She added: "You are not allowed to take a public position on an issue." Think Progress got a similar explanation from Genelius today.
But I've dug up something pretty interesting. On December 31, 2006 (via Nexis), the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon appeared on CBS as a "CBS News Consultant" -- the same type of arrangement Batiste had. O'Hanlon, however, has repeatedly "advocated" in favor of the "surge."
Here's an Op ed by O'Hanlon in The Washington Post called "A Skeptic's Case For The Surge":
President Bush's plan for a surge of American troops in Iraq has run into a brick wall of congressional opposition. Critics rightly argue that it may well be too little, way too late. But for a skeptical Congress and nation, it is still the right thing to try -- as long as we do not count on it succeeding and we start working on backup plans even as we grant Bush his request...Rather than deny funding for Bush's initiatives, Congress should provide it now -- but only for fiscal 2007 (meaning through September). By that point, or even the August congressional recess, we should know if the surge is showing promise. If it does, Congress could consider continuing its support....
If the surge fails, we will need a whole new paradigm for Iraq policy, and it is hardly too soon for Congress to start fleshing out our choices. But for now, Congress should also give the president the money and support that he requests.
Here's O'Hanlon advocating that we should keep supporting the surge on April 24:
National pride should not of course keep us in a war we have indeed lost. But we should give the surge a chance, and consider a number of "Plan Bs" if it fails, before giving up this important fight to this heinous foe in this crucial part of the world.
Writing Op eds is not quite the same as appearing in an ad, of course. But clearly, by CBS's own definition, O'Hanlon has committed "advocacy" -- he publicly advocated in favor of one policy position over another. Has he been fired by CBS? Doesn't seem like it. According to Nexis, he was on the CBS Evening News on April 28 -- after both of his pieces advocating for the surge were published.
I've contacted CBS again for comment; I'll keep you posted.
Update: Okay, I've got an even more clear cut example. Here's O'Hanlon advocating for the surge at a panel discussion on December 21, 2006:
O'Hanlon supported the overall strategy elaborated by the AEI team. However, he disagreed that it was possible to indefinitely maintain 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. O'Hanlon expressed a concern that protracted tours in Iraq, which constitute the foundation of the AEI team's sustained strategy, could "break" the U.S. military. O'Hanlon argued, the United States should view 2007 as a critical year and try a new, more vigorous approach instead of committing to Iraq unconditionally. If the new approach fails and the situation does not improve within a year, then the United States should resort to a "plan B."
Ten days later, on Dec. 31 (according to Nexis), O'Hanlon appeared on CBS as a "CBS News Consultant."
Update II: Joe Klein on another dimension to all this:
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--indicates that the leaders of the uniformed military are closer to Batiste's position than to O'Hanlon's.
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.