Between Two Worlds

You have said that we cannot cut and run from Iraq and that we could "realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years." But if you now consider the war to have been a mistake, how could you, as president, "ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake''?

You've said that it is unacceptable to allow a second African genocide in a decade, this time in Sudan. You've also said you don't propose sending American troops to Sudan. If it becomes clear that the only way to stop the killing is through armed intervention by a coalition of the willing, led by United States troops but lacking the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, would you as president take such an action?

And here's Hanson, a military historian:

How might you explain the apparent abrupt change in policy of Libya; the unexpected removal of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb; and the about-face in Saudi Arabia - and what precise plans do you have to induce similar such positive changes in attitude in Iran, Lebanon and Syria?

In January, you promised to be a president who "reduces the overall need for deployment of American forces in the globe - and I mean North Korea, Germany and the rest of the world." More recently, however, you have chastised President Bush for saying that he will do precisely that, suggesting that his "hastily announced plan raises more doubts about our intentions and our commitments than it provides real answers." As president, would you send those departing American troops back into Germany and on the Korean Peninsula to restore previous levels? And if not, why?

President Bush was the first American president to isolate Yasir Arafat. Do you agree with the president's radical step of ostracizing Mr. Arafat? If so, would you also ensure that he is no longer a party to the Middle East peace negotiations?

Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.

Principle Six: The likelihood of being uninformed and misinformed increases as the number of news sources decreases.

Principle Seven: Beware the error of following the crowd.

Principle Eight: Those who get their news only from broadcast media are missing much of the story, and much of its significance.

Principle Nine: When it comes to issues of importance, turn off the tube and think.

Principle Ten: Use the news media as material for worldview analysis.

Those who have followed the recent RatherGate story may be confused by one item: Why do people keep saying “courage” when referring to Dan Rather?

The indispensable RatherBiased.com provides the answer:

On September 2, 1985, a Monday, Dan Rather surprised everyone at CBS by ending the news with, "Courage." The next day, Tuesday, he said it again. Executive Producer Tom Bettag asked him about it and told Rather to consult him if he wanted to change the daily sign-off. On Wednesday, Rather said it again. TV columnists began to call into CBS to inquire about this unusual closing. The senior staff of the broadcast met with him to try to talk him out of it. On Thursday, Rather didn't use "Courage." Instead, he said, "Coraje" (cor-a-heh). Inquirers jammed the CBS phone lines. One bureau chief said, "What the hell did he say?" to a New York producer. "I don't know, he either said the Spanish word for 'courage' or an Asian form of the martial arts." CBS's Bill Moyers had just done a story on the Mexican-American border and it must have given Rather Latin fever. On Friday, it was back to "courage."

In the meantime, other journalists began ridiculing Rather's fascination. Bryant Gumble of NBC's Today show poked fun with his own signoffs, "Valor," "Hot dogs," "Mazel tov." The next week, on Monday, Rather didn't say it at all. Some of the people in the Broadcast Center broke into applause.

For those who’d like to see some Courage video clips, they are available in either RealVideo (dialup, broadband) or Windows Media (dialup, broadband).

Below are some recent cartoons that reference Rather’s “courage.” I hope you enjoy them. Until my next post: Courage. And good night.

Al Mohler—whose blog I have now decided to make a daily read—is suggesting ten principles for responsible evangelical engagement with the news media.

1. In a fallen world, everyone is biased.

2. News reports are heavily filtered--and the filters matter.

3. The media are driven by commercial interests.

4. The media elite is demographically and ideologically removed from the world inhabited by most Americans.

5. Headlines often lie and language often misleads.

The next five will come tomorrow. Read the whole thing to see the explanations and documentations.

President Bush and Sen. John Kerry will debate three times. Vice President Cheney and Senator Edwards will debate once.

The first debate will be on foreign policy and homeland security. It will be on Thursday, Sept. 30, at 8 pm (central time). It will be held at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla. Jim Lehrer, anchor and executive editor of PBS’s "The NewsHour," will moderate. The candidates will stand at lecterns for this one.

The second debate will be on Friday, Oct. 8, at 8 pm (central time). It will be a townhall format, hosted at Washington University in St. Louis. Charles Gibson, co-anchor of ABC News’s "Good Morning America" will be the moderator. The audience will be chosen by the Gallup Organization. The voters won’t be “undecideds” per se, but rather those who are “soft” on the candidates. The candidates will sit on stools.

The third debate will be on Wednesday, Oct. 13, at 8 pm (central time), focusing upon domestic and economic policy. It will be held at Arizona State University in Tempe. Bob Schieffer, CBS News chief Washington correspondent and moderator of "Face the Nation," will be moderating. The candidates will stand at lecterns.

The Vice-presidential candidates debate on Tuesday, Oct. 5, at 8 pm (central time). The debate will be held at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Both foreign and domestic issues will be discussed. Gwen Ifill, senior correspondent of "The NewsHour" and moderator of "Washington Week" on PBS will be the moderator. The candidates will be seated at a table.

Bush and Kerry had their surrogates, James Baker and Vernon Jordan (respectively) act as their representatives to reach an agreement on all sorts of formatting issues:

• No opening statements, but candidates may make two-minute closing statements.

• Candidates may not bring props or notes onto the stage.

• Taking notes is allowed. Paper and pens or pencils to be used must be submitted to the commission in advance.

• The candidates cannot question their opponent directly, aside from rhetorical questions.

• Each candidate may use his own makeup person.

• In the town hall debate, each candidate may walk about in a designated area, but the areas can't overlap. [Recall Gore wandering into W’s personal space!]

• Each candidate will be assigned a dressing room of comparable size and quality.

For more on these rules--which are probably more significant than you might think--see this blog post called John Kerry Has ALREADY Lost the First Debate.

Wayne Grudem's book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth : An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions is due out in November. I encourage you to order a copy.

Consider the following endorsements: Ligon Duncan: "You can write a QED at the end of this book. The debate is over." John Piper: “After the Bible, I cannot imagine a more useful book for finding reliable help in understanding God’s will for manhood and womanhood in the church and the home." J. I. Packer: "“This is the fullest and most informative analysis available, and no one will be able to deny the cumulative strength of the case this author makes." Joshua Harris: "If you’ve been sitting on the sidelines, if you’ve been indifferent on this issue, it’s time to care. The stakes are too high to remain uninformed and silent."

CBS News said yesterday that the producer of its flawed report about President Bush's National Guard service violated network policy by putting a source in touch with a top aide to Senator John Kerry.

"It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda," the network said in a statement....

Privately, network officials said they were caught off guard on Monday when Joe Lockhart, a senior adviser to Mr. Kerry, told reporters that he had spoken to Bill Burkett, the source for the questionable documents, at the behest of Ms. Mapes.

"In an indication of how deep concern about the issue has become at the network, Chairman Leslie Moonves commented for the first time Tuesday. He said that while CBS News 'has a long tradition of responsible journalism … it's clear that something went seriously wrong with the process' in the production of the National Guard story.

Moonves, who attended the New York premiere for "CSI:NY" on Tuesday night, declined further comment."

Hugh Hewitt responds:

Something went wrong with "the process?" It wasn't the process, it was the producer and the reporter and the president of the news division, who teamed up with the Kerry campaign to launch a smear on the president they hate. How clueless can you be, pointing to "the process?" Mr. Moonves and Viacom's board should process this: Your brand has burned to the waterline while you sat around playing gin rummy and attending premiers.

Today's Washington Post editoralizes:

Such casualness in the face of concerns would be irresponsible whatever the subject; on such a fraught topic, about the president of the United States, and in the heat of a reelection campaign, it's hard to understand. When bloggers and then other media outlets quickly raised doubts about the documents' authenticity, CBS erred even more with a defensive, even pugilistic response.

Michael Goodwin, in the liberal The New York Daily News, asks:

Would you trust anything you saw on CBS now? I wouldn't. Until we know exactly what happened, the entire news division has forfeited our trust and the benefit of the doubt. Guilty until proven innocent.

Rob Owen writes in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Dan Rather’s storied career at CBS could be nearing an ignominious close. He, his producer and his network authored one of broadcast journalism’s most embarrassing chapters, etched in arrogance, perceived bias and undeniable ineptitude. And it is a chapter that stains all of journalism.

Slate's associate editor, Bryan Curtis, writes:

The CBS cocoons engender a kind of madness. Rather is paid an outsized salary—he makes $7 million per year—that is in no way commensurate with the number of viewers he delivers. Where most prime-time shows have a few weeks to prove their viability, newscasts often are given years and decades. The network's former glory allows Rather to shroud himself in the aura of Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow. "I'm confident we worked longer, dug deeper, and worked harder than almost anybody in American journalism does," Rather told the Washington Post Sunday, when in fact CBS spent less time verifying the Guard documents than most bloggers.

...When Rather quits—whether this week or at a moment of his own choosing—it will mark an enormous shift in American cultural life. For the first time in a generation, viewers will flip on Evening News, grab a snifter of brandy, and prepare to receive the day's stories from someone who isn't barking mad.

In other news: Terry McAuliffe--I'm not making this up--is still blaming the Republicans for the memos! Bill Burkett is planning to sue CBS News. Bob Lee, Chairman of the CBS Television Network Affiliate Association, recently said: "We will certainly take a position and make it known, and hope the network will listen to what the stations are saying." Their Board meeting is in October. (A reminder: you can write one email and send it to 200 affiliates with one click by going here.)

Folks, the man behind the curtain has been exposed. He is not an objective, unbiased, all-powerful journalist who pronounces truth and uncovers error. It is a deeply partisan man who refused to stop in his reckless pursuit of a story.

And just in case you assume that because Rather apologized he now believes--along with everyone else in America--that the documents were forged...

In an interview Monday evening, a repentant Rather conceded it had been a mistake to broadcast the documents. But even though he could not vouch for their authenticity, he said he still did not believe that they were fakes.

"Do I think they're forged? No," Rather said. "But it's not good enough to use the documents on the air if we can't vouch for them, and we can't vouch for them."

Ernest Miller is providing a timeline and an analysis of CBC News’s response to criticism regarding the forged memos. It is now in two parts: Incompetent AND Unethical: The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism of the Killian Memo Forgeries - Part One, and Incompetent AND Unethical: The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism of the Killian Memo Forgeries - Part Two. It is very well done.

Making mistakes is one thing. Absurdly defending those mistakes, stonewalling and casting aspersions on those who make credible and legitimate criticism is another. When a major news organization engages in flagrant violations of basic journalistic ethics with regard to a claim that might have significant impact on a presidential election, that is an important story.

It would be absurd to expect or demand aggressive investigative reporters to always get it right the first time. Yes, we should demand high standards, but perfection is not achievable. However, we should demand vigorous correction policies. Imagine if the documents had been better forgeries. What would it have taken to get CBS News to admit error? In this case, the cover up really is much worse than the crime.

Many claim that there are other important institutional media questions, such as potential bias, news judgement and emphasis: more coverage should be devoted to other issues, news organizations need to dig deeper into these stories, be more aggressive in investigating and uncovering government untruths, and etc. Absolutely. These are important questions and they need to be addressed, but the answers aren’t simple or even readily apparent in many cases. However, if you don’t take clear violations of the fundamentals seriously, you’ll never get satisfactory answers to any of the more difficult questions.

Second, I’ll reiterate my stand that this isn’t about Dan Rather, but about CBS News. Dan Rather is important, it is clear, but he is only one link in the web of responsibility with regard to CBS News’ response to valid criticism.

Third, my basic conclusion is that the upper management of CBS News has deliberately acted unethically in responding to legitimate criticism. If the management of CBS News was not deliberately unethical, their sheer incompetence rises to the level of culpability. This is not to say that the rank and file of CBS News are implicated in the guilt of the CBS News executives, just as the rank and file of Enron are only guilty of having the poor luck in inadvertantly [sic] choosing to work for a group of crooks.

Kerry was on Letterman last night. A few observations: (1) Painfully unfunny. Which is really okay by me—we’re not electing someone to tell us jokes—especially in this post-9/11 world. But if you go on Letterman, you should at least be able to make us chuckle! (2) Bad on camera. I was surprised at this—Kerry is better looking and more charming the further you get away from him. Again, that’s okay—I’m not exactly the most telegenic person on the planet! But people have based their vote on stranger things. (3) Wonkish. As Jim Gerharty at the Kerry Spot notes, Kerry basically gave his stump speech to Letterman! I actually think this is a good thing. Kerry has been so mocked and pummelled lately that people rarely get to hear his actual ideas. So from the Kerry Campaign perspective, I thought going on the show and doing this was a smart move. Letterman asked the most mindless softball questions imaginable, and essentially let Kerry speak uninterrupted. Not a bad tactical move by Kerry’s camp. (4) The drone was gone. I’m sure his advisers have been working with him on this. Major improvement. To paraphrase Andrew Sullivan, my hand didn’t instinctively reach for the remote as soon as Kerry opened his mouth. (5) Made no sense on his votes for the war and against the funding. The reasoning just doesn’t work. Kerry said he voted not to go to war, but to authorize the war. In fact, he said: Most people think that voting to authorize a war is the same as voting to authorize it. Well, yes we do as a matter of fact! He spoke of all the additional things the US needs to be doing in the war: increased security, accelerated elections. But when Letterman asked him about his vote against funding the war, Kerry actually said he was proud of that vote and that it was the right decision. He then made an abrupt transition to say that now that money is being used for fraudulent paybacks to Halliburton! Biggest applause line of the night. But, for the life of me, I can’t see how middle-of-the-road America is going to be impressed with this demagogury and flip-floppedness.

From an interview with Dan Rather, published by Broadcasting & Cable on Aug. 30: