TUESDAY'S LETTERS: 'Rathergate' Revisited, the 'Other' John Roberts, and Citizen Journalism

By: E&P Staff Today our mailbag is overflowing with darts and arrows aimed at the "other" John Roberts, he of CBS News fame. During Monday's White House press briefing, Roberts asked if Judge Samuel Alito amounted to "sloppy seconds" -- an unfortunate expression if there ever were one -- following Harriet Miers' withdrawl from Supreme Court contention last week. Even though Roberts quickly apologized on CBS' "Public Eye" blog, several dozen readers wrote in to say that wasn't enough.

The letters demonstrate that journalists are held to a higher standard. While undoubtedly many out there, both right and left of the political center, are frustrated by the actions of the press, its hard not to be encouraged by the passion many feel for the Fourth Estate. We even get the occasional letter where people spell Journalism with a capital "J." If people no longer cared, why would they bother to write?

On that note, here's a lengthy sampling of what's on readers' minds today.

***

Wanted: Any Journalist with Vision and Guts!

Where's Woodward and Bernstein when you need them...

Apparently they are only two of very few journalists in the last 30 years with any vision and guts... Or maybe there's just an abundance of brain-dead reporters out there... Or maybe its just laziness. We have the biggest scandal in American history just for the taking and no respectable journalist is willing to run with it. No one is willing to do the research and legwork to bring it to light. That is surely what distinguishes the likes of Woodward and Bernstein with just about everyone who has come after them. They worked for it. They saw a story of epic proportions and made it happen.

But compared to fabricating a threat that started a war, Watergate does not seem so bad. Let's not forget what this whole thing is about. It's not about the administration leaking the identity of an agent to the press. It's about the administration using intimidation tactics against anyone who did not support their mission. Their mission was to go to war with Iraq. Under any circumstances real or unreal. To say and do anything that would support that cause even it was not true. And that's exactly what they did. Bush gets on the air one night and tells the world that Saddam Hussein was as responsible for 9/11 as Bin Laden. Hello, hello, is there anyone out there?

Richard Clarke tried, as did others including Wilson but its not enough... Its will take the power of the media... But who?

Where are Woodward and Bernstein when you need them?

Gary Magliari

***

NY Times' Use (and Abuse) of Anonymous Sources

In February of this year, Times editors promulgated a new policy on the use of anonymous sources, partly to assure readers that anonymity would not be granted routinely, and would only be granted with good reason.

So how well is that policy being followed? Consider the following excerpt from the article "Funds Fade, Deaths Rise as Iraq Rebuilding Lags" (10/31) by James Glanz:

"A spokeswoman for the State Department, which now largely oversees the rebuilding effort, [said], 'We welcome and value the independent oversight.' She spoke under department ground rules that require anonymity. 'Their objective findings have helped improve transparency, accountability and efficiency as we work with the Iraqi people to establish an independent, stable and prosperous Iraq,' she said.

This excerpt raises several troubling questions:

1) If the State Department's spokeswoman doesn't want her name in the paper, why is she working as a spokeswoman?

2) If the vague justification "department ground rules requiring anonymity" is sufficient for granting anonymity, is there any justification that the Times would not accept?

3) Why does a recitation of Bush administration PR boilerplate justify a grant of anonymity?

Clearly, Mr. Glanz' article is an abuse of journalistic standards for the use of anonymous sources. A quote from a professional spokesperson, which could fit quite easily into a Bush administration press release, does not justify a grant of anonymity.

Stephen Burns
Madison, Wis.

***

Thoughts on Greg Mitchell's Pressing Issues

Your article "Our Myth Brooks" is well said. Brooks gives every appearance of living the lavish life in that upside down world of ?through the looking glass.? Brooks is insulated and isolated in a New York Times tower of illusion that shades reality in terms of subtle nuance and political unreality.

One might have to give Brooks the nod in regard to his claims that ?there is no cancer on this presidency.? What taints the Bush administration is by far worse than a ?cancer.? What taints Bush and his entire administration is treason. One could also throw in a pinch of sedition and a teaspoonful of war crimes for added flavor.

Brooks seems genuinely disingenuous in his defense of Bush, Cheney, Libby, and Rove. If the United States is indeed in a state of war, what Libby did was an act of treason that if the circumstances were such as say World War II, Libby would be facing a firing squad.

Brooks likes to gloss over the realities of Bush's preemptive war of aggression on the sovereign nation of Iraq. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq posed no 45-minute imminent threat to the U.S. or any other nation on our planet. The Niger documents that Bush and Cheney claimed to prove the Iraq nuclear ambitions, are proven to be forgeries. Yet the Bush administration clings to those ridiculous claims as if somehow by an incredible feat of prestidigitation, all the doubt and lingering questions will vanish into thin air.

The Bush administration committed this nation into an illegal war and their rationales are coming unraveled as are their deceptions being exposed to public scrutiny. This all is a shameful chapter in the American presidency and American history will be brutally harsh on Bush and his administration despite the pleadings of David Brooks.

Brooks maintains his defense of the Bush administration and their misdeeds and it is an abysmal performance in editorial repugnance. George W. Bush has dragged America into the slime of illegal detentions, torture, illegal wars of aggression, and a deception perpetrated on America's Congress and people. Why Brooks feels these crimes must be countenanced and defended, remains a mystery that only Brooks knows the answer to.

America is teetering on the edge of democratic undoing and possibly, the end of our American Republic. The Bush administration is hell-bent on dragging America and the American people into a constitutional crisis the likes of which leave Watergate and Nixon looking like rank amateurish adventures in Pollyanna politics. David Brooks feels it his obligation to defend the indefensible. David Brooks needs to look at his own part in this horrific treachery. Not that Brooks will mind you, but he should. A Pollyanna sized dose of abject reality just might save David Brooks from the horrors of Judith Miller disgrace.

Don Nash
Murray, Utah

***

Terrific column. I just want to scream when I see Brooks peddling such nonsense, because he is not stupid and he has to know that what he is saying is completely wrong. That leads to the inescapable conclusion that he is lying to maintain his status in the GOP propaganda machine.

Of course, I could just be making wild unsupported charges because I'm unhinged.

Paul Fiorilla
Managing Editor
Commercial Mortgage Alert
Hoboken, N.J.

***

Re: Can 'Citizen Journalists' Really Produce Readable Content?

It seems that Steve Outing missed or ignored a great example of citizen journalists producing content that quite definitely qualifies as readable citizen journalism: Wikinews (http://en.wikinews.org). While less localized than some of the current citJ offerings (it's not really the place to post articles about youth softball games), it seems to be a great way to allow members of the public to contribute their observations and knowledge of news events in an open setting while ensuring a relatively high degree of quality and accuracy. The anyone-can-edit method allows others to remove inappropriate material and to ensure a neutral point of view, which isn't possible in a blog-like setting.

I'm surprised that there wasn't any mention of this site -- it seems to have attracted a lot of attention elsewhere.

Chris Luth
Anchorage, Ala.

(Disclaimer: I do contribute occasionally to Wikinews's sister project, the Wikipedia.)

***

Why after four years do we still have no evidence to charge or convict anyone at Guantanamo? We are running a concentration camp, don't you think? Keep it on the front page every day until something is done. Those people do not deserve no justice at all.

Karin Dicker

***

Re: Milwaukee Paper Apologizes for Accepting 'Cooked' WMD Evidence

Your article concerning the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's "apology" is yet another example of promulgating the anti-war crowd's false premise about the Iraq war. Iraq was invaded precisely because Hussein could not or would not account for the WMD that the United States, Hans Blix, and the UN declared that he had. It made no difference whatsoever that none have been found. Iraq was NOT a sovereign country, minding its own business, until one day the U.S. without reason waged war on it. Hussein had to abide strictly to the cease-fire agreements it made after it illegally invaded and occupied Iraq. The UN inspectors were there to search for the WMD that Iraq was known to have. Over 12 years the inspectors were hampered in their search, mislead, and decoyed away from certain areas. Why should Hussein have been given the benefit of the doubt, especially after using the WMD to murder his own people with them? It's like a paroled murderer who immediately starts digging graves in his front yard, making threats against neighbors and will not let the authorities on his property to explain why.

Iraq was in continual violations of the no-fly zones, Hussein himself plotted to assassinate the first President Bush. Those things amongst many others is the reason that "made this particular monster any more worth toppling than the world's many other monsters."

The Iraq Liberation Act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998 called for the liberation of the Iraqi people. Bush was the only one with the courage and honor to carry it out.

Regan S. Cornish
Allentown, Penn.

***

Just curious if you can shed light on how the Milwaukee editor arrived at 30,000, for the number of dead Iraqis. That seems very close to bottom of the bell curve of all statistical estimates that I have heard.

On NPR a former Pentagon employee who during the pre-Mission Accomplished phase of this mess, had helped in the selection of Iraqi targets discussed the magic number of acceptable civilian casualties for a high value target. Thirty. One bad guy is worth 30 innocents. He went on to conduct surveys in Iraq to estimate civilian deaths and while the range was wide (8,000 to 160,000?), he said that the chances were very high that we killed close to 100,000 people.

Is it true that during Viet Nam, the pentagon lowballed the numbers of killed and wounded soldiers? It has been suggested that this is happening again, but how could we possibly know? Even if this new number of 2,000 is an accurate number, how many more times that number of our soldiers have been seriously wounded? How many new amputees? How many new head injuries? How many are suffering from wounds nobody can see? How many marriages and families are being devastated?

If you add up the dead, the wounded, the traumatized, soldiers, civilians, men, women, children, mothers, and fathers and multiply their suffering by the loss and pain of those who love them, does the Truth have a number?

Paul Moran

***

Reaction to Roberts' 'Sloppy Seconds' Comment

Re: Scott McClellan Gets Apology from the 'Other' John Roberts

Though an admission of duplicity and an apology for said duplicity may seem to go a long way towards fair journalism, only a strong and unfettered investigation of those responsible for this unjust and uncalled-for war will begin to reestablish credibility in the mainstream U.S. media. That the coffers of the U.S. Treasury were virtually wiped out and most of those monies going to Halliburton bring up the thought that this was a war for profiteering.

It is time to take the cloth of invincibility off these culprits and not allow them to hide behind any sense of patriotism.

Ra?l R. Rubio

***

First, this apology is an excellent and honest piece. I appreciate the personal nature Mr. Roberts took.

Now for the "Get Better" part. I grew up watching CBS. My stepfather left no choice. During that time, I remember watching 60 Minutes and the CBS Evening News all during Regan's terms.

One segment I remember in particular was about the cruise / Tomahawk; and, it was very negative about the programs and of course the costs. Looking back today, it seems these are some of the most utilized at the crucial moments at the early stages of a [military] action. It is without a doubt the safest weapon our military has at the ready in a variety of roles. I do not remember any update or follow up on this segment or any other anti military program. I would guess there are similar policy segments. It would be interesting to test the news division's "Batting Avg."

Just like you want everyone to admit mistakes, is that true all the time?

I do not know if Mr. Roberts votes and how. More importantly, I do NOT want to. His casual conversation question to the press secretary indicates a possible bias.

The National Guard story, the many military ones I cited above, and all the rest in between all start to add to the scales of a possible bias.

When I took Journalism in college, one of the basic fundamentals was to not become part of the story, but to show all the facts and help the reader understand both sides of the story.

CBS is becoming a powerhouse in the ratings for the new lineup. Remember, you are attempting to reach as many people in certain demographics and in general as many people as possible. Approximately half are of the conservative nature. As the amazing rise of Fox News, talk radio, and a big part of the Web demonstrate, there clearly is a demand for content that is different than CBS.

Clint Goin

***

John Robert's sloppy apology does not make up for an absolutely hideous phrase. There is no innocent version of "sloppy seconds," which makes his choice all the more ironic. CBS is rapidly becoming the network of sloppy firsts!

Scott W. Smith

***

Would you, could you, pass along to John Roberts that I was not personally offended by his choice of words about the new Supreme Court nominee? Remind John that conservatives have been getting sloppy seconds for years from the mainstream media and the Democrats!

Tim Bumb
Mandan, ND

Ed's Note: If John Roberts is reading this, consider the message passed on.

***

John Roberts's apology is accepted. He's one of the few reporters whose ever had the balls to apologize for saying something he probably shouldn't have said -- all without a firestorm of controversy falling on him until there is no other way but to apologize (sic Dan Rather). John Roberts has class.

Mike Butler
Jackson, Tenn.

***

This was a good example of an honest mistake and a classy apology. In another time or place, it would have been unnecessary but in this cynical age where people carelessly disregard the real situation, insisting on characterizations that spring more from their own motives rather than an honorable interpretation of reality its necessary. Many times the result is so disproportionate from the comment that a person's career is ruined.

Suzanne E. Meade

***

Re: Two SPJ Chapters Criticize Group's Award to Miller

The SPJ decision to reward Judith Miller for her defense of Journalistic principles reflects poorly on the organization. Judith Miller's role, it seems clear, was in the nature of an accomplice in a fraud on the American people, instead of some principled stand. Mr. Cheney et al apparently used Ms Miller as a direct conduit to the Times' front page, to which they referred practically the next day as further evidence of their case for war. Plamegate is a sideshow to the real issue -- the conspiracy to justify an otherwise unjustifiable invasion of a sovereign country that did not present a threat to us. It's like investigating a murder and focusing the police efforts on whether one of the perpetrators was parked illegally while killing the victim. Not to trivialize the outing of Mrs. Wilson, but Mr. Wilson was smeared because he was about to bring down the entire house of cards that was the case for war. News organizations need to keep their eye on the damn ball.

Shelton Lankford

***

Re: CBS' Mary Mapes, in 'Vanity Fair,' Defends Role in 'RatherGate'

One wonders if Mary Mapes mentions, in her book, her coordination with candidate John Kerry's campaign command center as she and Rather rushed the Guard story to the air. This ethical breach alone would get her and Rather fired if 60 Minutes II were anything more than a commercial, entertainment product.

Mapes', and Rather's, trauma over the scandal is understandable. Their sad folly illustrated the end of the establishment news media's monopoly on reality. Something they still don't fathom.

Bradford Silliman

***

Legitimate journalists interested in the Bush/Guard Vietnam-dodge story should research the Winter '66-Spring '67 official announcement of an 18-month closing for entry to Guard and Reserve service necessitated by Lyndon Johnson's ordering that no further members could involuntarily be assigned to duty in Vietnam.

Then a Draft-aware junior in high school, I clearly recall listening to and discussing the radio report with my Army Officer father.

George Bush's father was not the only Member of Congress hypocritical enough to cheat his son into a Vietnam-free "military" unit. A number of others, while signing off on the deaths of 58,000 of us, cheated their sons in, as well...speaking volumes about the character of those untroubled by George H.W. Bush's "inability" to recall his whereabouts upon hearing of President Kennedy's assassination...six weeks after JFK ordered a military withdrawal from Vietnam.

That Karen Hughes has equated Bush's "service" then to Air Guardsmen's service now would be laughable were treason ever laughable.

Will Jones
Regular Army '68-'72

***

Dear Ms. Mapes,

I commend you for your courage and willingness to speak out against the crime cartel now in the White House.

You keep doing all you can. There are many people in this country who support you even though the religious right zealots and corporate statists now call the shots. This corrupt administration is the worst I have ever seen.

Jeanne Bous
Minnetonka, Minn.

***

Mary Mapes article on "Rathergate" was a very good article. She wrote the truth there is evidence to prove that Bush did not complete his Guard duties, but these people will not come forward because they do not want to be destroyed by Bush and his administration. The recent indictment of Scooter Libby is just the tip of the iceberg. If this country had reporters like the ones who dug up the evidence on Watergate and caused Richard Nixon to have to resign the truth would come out. Unfortunately this administration has them all speaking the words being fed to them by Bush and his cronies or either running scared with their tail between their legs.

Valerie Harrison

***

Sleepless 'Mo' Dowd Fan

What's the deal with that photo of Maureen Dowd at a bar, seated high on the stool and flashing net stockings, and all the while looking -- your interpretation, please -- either (a) bored out of her skull, or, even more likely, (b) unhappy over being suckered into posing suspiciously sans friends of either sex for a hot Cosmo/Playgirlshot touting her presumed availability and her new book with the psst-overhere title, Are Men Necessary?

Dowd is one of journalism's greats. On television she is almost always so reserved one has to assume that under that brittle, sharp-tongued, take-no-prisoners in-print demeanor is one lady shy at the core.

I get up at midnight every Wednesday and Friday morning to read her columns via the Times online, and I consider myself one her most dedicated admirers. But in this case, what in the hell was she thinking?

Wesley Pedersen

***

The White House would be perfectly within proper decorum to call CBS and inform you that John Roberts no longer has a place in the White House pressroom or briefings. It is one thing to insist on straight answers to questions. It is another when it becomes obvious that the questioner just doesn't like or accept the answer...as was the case with Roberts. Then his vulgar comment about "sloppy seconds" was totally out of place and over the top for a professional news organization like CBS. You certainly should withdraw him from the White House assignment if they don't insist that you do so.

Oakley J. Hicks
Birmingham, Ala.

***

Do you "journalists" ever wonder why you are held by the American people in the same esteem as used car salesmen and IRS agents? Well, Mr. Roberts' most recent comments on Judge Alito should provide you with a clue.

To refer to a Supreme Court nominee as "sloppy seconds" is rude, stupid, and casts the reporter making this allusion in the worst possible light. Rather than injuring Judge Alito, Mr. Roberts' remarks served only to cheapen him and your entire profession. If you and your colleagues do not immediately repudiate Mr. Roberts and his stupid remarks, then you are no better.

Patrick Curry
Irvine, Calif.