Assignment #2

11111The facts associated with “Memogate” which lead to the ultimate dismissal of Dan Rather by CBS are not controversial. Arguably the events leading up to “Memogate” uproar is best documented in the Introduction of the CBS News authorized Report of the Independent Review Panel authored by Dick Thornburgh and Louis D. Boccardi (rathergate.com/CBS_report.pdf3131313131). The conclusions and significance of the scandal on the news industry and the political environment, however, varies widely depending on ones political leanings and attitude about the tradition mass media, especially television news.

The scandal began with a 60 Minutes Wednesday segment titled “For the Record” which aired on September 8, 2004, and focused on President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard (TexANG) service. The basis of the CBS News report was a single interview and four documents obtained by the production staff which were reported to confirm long rumored preferential treatment for Bush to obtain a slot in TexANG (and thus avoid going to Vietnam) and his later fulfillment of his TexANG obligations. Almost immediately after the 60 Minutes segment finished, bloggers began the process of attacking the authenticity of the referenced documents and the motivation of the CBS sources.

I believe that “Memogate” was not news and had little or no effect on voters, the outcome of subsequent elections or personal perceptions of President Bush. My position on this issue is based upon a simple though unproven assumption, most people believe that Bush did receive favorable treatment to get into the TexANG and favorable treatment while he served (or did not serve). The real question, however, is not whether he did or did not receive such favoritism, but whether anyone but political “spinners” and the traditional mass market news media cared.

Just like nobody (including likely voters) cared if President Clinton smoked pot while at Cambridge, I believe voters did not really care about Bush’s National Guard record 35+ years earlier. Just as most “baby boomers” knew people who smoked dope, most also knew someone who avoided Vietnam draft through a questionable job deferment; pull to get into the National Guard or some other less than fair (or ethical) action. The report by CBS News was old news and irrelevant at best.

What is significant about “Memogate” was the disconnect between CBS News and its viewers over the importance of the story, the professionalism involved in the research and production of the report and reports subsequent defense by Dan Rather and the executives at the network

As a Journalism student, I was offended by the lack of professionalism evidenced by the executives and staff of 60 Minutes Wednesday. Whether their actions were driven by a quest for ratings, a desire to avoid getting scoped by a competitor or plain media bias, they shamed all past, present and future members of the profession.

There were a number of very interesting results of the controversy. First of all, in the end no one could prove or disprove, beyond a shadow of doubt, the authenticity of the four documents or the motivation of the information sources. Thus, it appears that CBS News reported as fact, information that no one (even today) knows whether was accurate or not. Secondly, the introduction of such doubt (as compared to CBS report of fact) can only be attributed to the effort of the blogger community. Why did ABC, NBC, CNN or the New York Times not uncover the questionable CBS News practice? Was this a lack of competition or a common traditional media bias which resulted in no original follow-up research by the other members of the mass market media? Finally, it is interesting that CBS, one of the supposedly great media and communications companies, could mishandle the aftermath of the scandal. Based upon these facts, as a Journalism student, I would need to think carefully about any opportunity to work or be associated with CBS News.

The biggest loser in “Memogate” was not CBS or Dan Rather, but the traditional news and media industry. The perception of the news consumer (right or wrong as it applies to the industry as a whole) was confirmed – the mass market media is biased and that news reporting is a business which is out to maximize ratings (and thus revenue). When given a choice between communicating truth or pre-conceived bias, the networks will “manage” the audience.

The current environment and for news and information gathering and distribution in the United States is troubling. Most large cities are down to a single daily newspaper. Ownership of radio stations, with their heavy emphasis on local news, has been concentrated into a few large groups (Clear Channel being the largest) and the cable television segment is being consolidated by Time Warmer, Comcast and Cox. In this environment, bloggers represent new source of information and opinion. They represent increased quantity and increased variety.

In addition to the concentration of tradition news and information outlets, the major traditional news sources, such as the AP, UPI, CNN and the national newspapers, have been cutting back their investment in news gathering. A lot have closed branches and significantly reduced personnel. While bloggers generally focus on interpretation and opinion, they are (and will become more in the future) important sources of local news. I predict that in the future bloggers will, in many instances, be the first news reporters “on the scene.”

Bloggers have important competitive advantages relative to radio, television and newspapers. The cost of entry is low (no transmitters, printing presses, etc.) and they are not limited by time and space. Since bloggers are not mass market advertising dependent, they can also devote time to controversial topics and cover subjects and assessments in much more detail. In addition, unlike most traditional media, they are distributed free from any reader costs. They are the equivalent to the pamphleteers of the pre-War of Independence period. Bloggers can be rebellious and outrageous, but also stir the emotions of the people. As such, they have the more future opportunity to move public opinion than the other forms of media. One can only image, if there had been bloggers during the Vietnam War or the civil rights movement.

I do not believe bloggers will replace traditional media, just like radio television did not kill radio. There will be a time and place for all sources and technologies. One thing is a constant: more information and more variety in opinions can only make our democracy more efficient and stronger.

Blogging and bloggers, however, do have a weakness which is common to most internet based sources of information. With the traditional media there is a perception by readers that someone or some entity stands behind what is communicated. Those third parties utilize some professional standards and use their best efforts to deliver news and information with an expected degree of accuracy. Bloggers, as many other internet web sites have no such built-in credibility. Whatever credibility they have is either earned over time or a result of the naiveté of the reader. Some pundits believe that blogging is self policing and the best and most valuable will be referenced and accessed more often. That may or may not be correct. I am willing to accept that those people who are most interested in a given subject will gravitate to the “best” blogs. However, not all readers fall into that category. When I recently sought to update my knowledge of “Memogate,” for example, and searched using a few relevant words, the result included was numerous blogs. I had no knowledge of the blogger, his/her biases, etc.

In conclusion, I believe blogs are one of the most significant phenomenons to influence the collection and assessment of news and information in the last 50 years. They are here to stay and will have a growing influence on society. However, like many things in life, they need to be approached with caution.