SwiftVets.com

[MJB]

Excerped from the Kerry Spot at National Review Online -

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200409171337.asp

LONG VERSION
For a long time, public scandals have followed a certain pattern. A powerful public figure does something bad. He — and it is usually a he — denies it. The truth comes out, and the public figure is confronted with the evidence. Facing public outcry, the public figure shamefully resigns in disgrace. Lucrative tell-all book deals follow.

See Nixon, 1974; Bob Livingston, 1998; Bob Torricelli, 2002.

In recent years, however, we have seen particularly shameless public figures change the deal. They get confronted with the evidence, there is public outcry...and then they simply "wait out the storm." The public's outrage eventually fades, and they continue their careers.

See Clinton, 1998; Gary Condit, 2001.

Right now, Rather and Andrew Heyward are at that same crossroads stage...

They are also immune to criticism, be it from the blogs, NRO, ABC News, or the Washington Post. They have dismissed their criticism as a partisan pushback, a right-wing effort to distract from the "serious questions" raised by their "very solid report." Their viewpoint is that rival networks and newspapers like the Post and Dallas Morning News can be dismissed as agents of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

They remain in their bunker, insist that the documents are or "could be" real, ignore the criticisms, refuse to answer questions specifically, and simply wait for public outrage to burn out.

And it will burn out....


There is another possibility, however. The bunch of them — Heyward, Rather, and producer Mary Mapes — could get fired and their reputations could be adorned with the Jayson Blair/Stephen Glass/Janet Cooke notoriety they deserve.

But for that to happen, the critics of CBS need to change their tactics quickly.

Stop attacking where they're strong; attack where they're weak.



Target One: The CBS affiliates.
No, the affiliates must feel like they themselves are on the line here as well.

Within a few days, these well-meaning local station managers and programming directors must feel like they are a target of the maelstrom of angry viewers as well, and they must, collectively, sense that they can either get on the train or get run over by it.

Target Two: Other CBS employees.
But would they feel this way if they were consistently subjected to comparisons to Rather? If the blogs and CBS critics targeted Hewitt, Wallace, and Schieffer as complicit co-conspirators, accomplices to Rather and his blatantly dishonest methods by their silence, would the legendarily cranky Hewitt and Wallace be so quiet? How much grief and irritation would the big men and women of CBS News take on Rather's behalf? My guess is Rather doesn't want to see just how far his colleagues will go out on a limb for him.

Target Three: Other powerful voices in the mainstream media.
Attention, Tim Russert. Chris Matthews. David Broder. Bob Woodward. Carl Bernstein. Ben Bradley. Wolf Blitzer. Show your cards. You know what Rather just did. He's dismissing his critics as partisans. This includes your networks and newspapers. Are you going to let Gunga Dan make those kinds of outrageous charges?

Instead, the powerful voices of the mainstream media may be spurred by these arguments:

What Rather did is bad for journalism.

It's going to make all reporters look like gullible hacks.

The Gang of 500, as ABC's "The Note" calls the nation's most influential journalists, must be convinced that Heyward, Rather, and Mapes just botched the "storyline" for the most important election of our times.

Attacked properly, these three targets will "flip" into the anti-Rather camp, one at a time, but in fairly quick sequence. Moonves will step in, the three will get canned...

...and we can end the year with the head of Dan Rather metaphorically stuffed and mounted on our collective walls.

That's the plan that I would recommend if I were a person trying to organize a cohesive yet varied asymmetrical effort focused on forcing accountability on CBS.

But then again, I'm just not that kind of person.




************

Oh yes you are, Jim!

OK, kids...let's move out in a different direction, then. Looks like some new marching orders.

How many local affiliates can you influence?

Are any of your local reporters part of the "Gang of 500"?

Know anyone at CBS?

Harch!
_________________
MJB
USAF '85-'92