CBS - BBC's Justin Webb Looks In The Mirror

Though he doesn't realize it.

Webb reports on Rathergate, the effects of bloggers on that scandal and the changing face of journalism.

Unfortunately, Webb gets it all wrong starting from the headline.

The changing face of US news

I bet Webb wishes the changing face of the news was limited to the US. Far be it that his castle at the BBC should be assailed.

The opening paragraph is inaccurate as well.

One of America's best-known news presenters is retiring on Wednesday after 24 years at the helm of the CBS evening news.

No he isn't Webb. He was fired, asked to step down or consider his position but he did not retire. If not for a scandal of his own making, Rather would still be the CBS anchor.

Webb continues in denial with the next paragraph.

Dan Rather, who is 73, is leaving a year earlier than planned following a bruising fight with the Bush administration during the election.

Webb, if Rather is leaving a year earlier than planned, how is that retiring? And the bruising fight wasn't with the Bush administration, it was with a group of US citizens - bloggers - who are fed up with biased reporting from the likes of CBS and the BBC.

Webb then proceeds to whitewash Rathergate or as he calls it Memogate.

Webb says "Rather made a catastrophic error" in fronting "a report that President Bush had been treated leniently in the National Guard during the Vietnam era". As the CBS internal report says, this was not the only catastrophic error Rather made. The forged documents also alleged the Bush failed to obey a direct order; a serious charge for someone seeking the job of Commander in Chief.

Webb also notes that "The report was based on documents with word processed typefaces. They could not have been written in the 1960s and appeared to be fake. "

Come on Webb, they don't "appear" to be fake, they are fake until someone can prove they are real. Something you can't do with copies, which by the way you fail to mention these documents were.

Webb really loses the plot and puts words in Walter Cronkite's, the man Rather replaced 24 years ago, mouth.

According to former Bush speechwriter David Frum, the cat has been let out of the bag. The network news was always biased against the right, and, he says, the willingness of Mr Rather to fall for a hoax is simply proof of that.

Not so says Mr Rather's predecessor, the legendary Walter Cronkite.

Mr Cronkite, speaking to me in the New York CBS office he still inhabits in spite of being 89 years old and not having read the news for 24 years, said the network had been in the wrong but had conducted a thorough review and was back on track to regain public trust.

Webb, where exactly did Cronkite say that CBS was not biased against the right? Where?

Webb then goes on to set up bloggers as the bad guys in all of this.

As Frank Sesno, the former CNN political correspondent and now journalism professor, told me in his Washington office, the internet bloggers now rule the roost.

Really? When do I get Sesno's paycheck? When do I get an audience in the millions?

Journalists have always been in a fox hole but the shooting is now 24/7 and coming from 360 degrees.

What?!? Before bloggers, who was shooting at journalist? By the way quite an incendiary phrase to use in this day and age, no?

Webb you and your ilk have been firing willy nilly at anyone or anybody you chose for years. Those people had no way to fight back until the bloggers came along. A fact that Webb grudgingly admits to.

Professor Sesno says this is not necessarily a bad thing.

If facts are checked by many more sources then the truth is likelier to be told.

Your article is proof of that Webb.

Webb closes in for the kill and casts bloggers as the dark lords stiflingly the news.

But, at the same time, there is a risk that journalists and the organisations they work for will hunker down and simply not risk any original journalism. They will not think it worth the effort.

Why? Are they so lazy as to not check their facts and do a proper story? By the way, something, unlike the bloggers they fear, they are paid to do. Where is the risk if you check your facts and report honestly? If a blogger challenges your story he better have the facts to back it up or he loses credibility and is toast. Something that should have happened to the BBC a long time ago.

Webb then makes an astounding discovery.

There is one point that David Frum and Walter Cronkite agree on: Network news in its current form is hopelessly inadequate as a real source of information about the modern world.

Bingo! When can we expect to see some changes at the BBC, Webb? Or do you and the BBC not get it yet?

Webb's article and his closing remarks show just how clueless he and the BBC are about the changing world around them.

Mr Frum blames the relentless diet of health stories dressed up as news. Mr Cronkite blames the lack of time given to foreign affairs.

Perhaps Mr Rather is bowing out just in time.

No, Rather should have bowed out long ago. In fact, the vaunted Mr. Cronkite Webb quoted said Rather should not have gotten the job in the first place.

And both are wrong about why network news is so inadequate as a source of information in the modern world. It has much more to do with their bias which leads to not just sloppy reporting but sometimes out right lies as in the case of Dan Rather. Webb did as much in this article when he said "Not so says Mr Rather's predecessor, the legendary Walter Cronkite" in response to Frum's assertion that CBS was biased against the right. Cronkite said no such thing.

For the life of me I cannot understand why big media cannot grasp one simple fact - we are fed up with being lied to and we want it to stop. Why is that so hard to understand by the likes of Webb, The BBC, Rather and CBS?

See Rather Biased and Rathergate for the most complete information on the entire Rathergate scandal. Two sources I bet Webb never even bothered to check. Why should he? They're just bloggers after all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------