By arthur Weinreb
January 14, 2005
On January 5, the Independent Review Panel issued its lengthy report concerning the September 8, 2003, 60 Minutes broadcast that was based upon the now infamous documents that purported to show that George W. Bush was aWOL from the Texas National Guard during the early 1970s. The panel was critical of the production and presentation of the broadcast which led CBS to fire and request resignations from four senior employees. But one finding of the "independent" panel that indicates a whitewash of the situation was that there was no clear cut evidence that Dan Rather or Mary Mapes, the senior producer of the segment, had a political agenda or a bias against Bush. This was in spite of the fact that Mapes had had contact with the John Kerry campaign to obtain information on Bush’s alleged avoidance of his National Guard service.
The reasoning that the independent panel gave for not finding that Rather and Mapes had a political agenda indicates the length to which they went to in order to find that there was no political agenda or bias. On the issue of a political agenda, the panel stated, "The question of whether a political agenda played any role in the airing of the Segment is one of the most subjective, and most difficult, that the Panel has sought to answer." Later the panel stated that "the Panel will not level accusations for which it cannot offer adequate proof."
Duh!!! Courts and administrative tribunals have to deal with making decisions based upon subjective evidence all the time. Yes, it is more difficult than objective evidence, but that is no reason for side-stepping it. Weighing the credibility of witnesses is mainly subjective, but that is no reason for refusing to decide whether or not someone is telling the truth. and what standard of proof was the panel using in determining what constitutes "adequate proof"? Proof "beyond" beyond a reasonable doubt?
and speaking of credibility, they seemed to think that Rather’s answer, "absolutely, unequivocally untrue" (shades of O.J.) to the question of whether or not there was political animus in the segment, was somehow relevant. No doubt Rather actually believes that because he’s asked Democratic presidents some tough questions in the past, he has no bias or political agenda. Rather’s statement does nothing to address the issue of whether or not there was a liberal bias at work.
Despite the criticisms leveled at CBS concerning the production of the 60 Minutes segment, the panel bent over backwards to avoid any findings bias or political agenda on the part of Rather and Mapes.