Ask 60 minutes to air the Niger Forgeries report

[SoCalDemocrat]

ACTION ALERT:
60 Minutes: Shelving a Story to Boost Bush?
CBS puts Niger expose on hold as boss endorses Republicans

September 28, 2004

In an outrageous politicization of journalism, CBS announced it would not air a report on forged documents that the Bush administration used to sell the Iraq war until after the November 2 election (New York Times, 9/25/04). A network spokesperson issued a statement declaring, "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election."

The 60 Minutes segment was ready to air on September 8, but was bumped in favor of the now infamous report that relied on supposed National Guard memos whose authenticity CBS now says it cannot confirm. The furor over the Guard memos has created a situation where CBS executives say "the network can now not credibly air a report questioning how the Bush administration could have gotten taken in by phony documents" (Newsweek online, 9/22/04).

Of course, what's really inappropriate here is CBS allowing its PR problems to suppress a news report on an important issue until after it no longer matters. The shelved 60 Minutes story deals with the origins of documents purportedly showing that Iraq under Saddam Hussein tried to obtain uranium from Niger-- documents that turned out to be forgeries. The story, according to the Newsweek online report, asks "tough questions about how the White House came to embrace the fraudulent documents and why administration officials chose to include a 16-word reference to the questionable uranium purchase in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech."

Though such questions are clearly relevant to a presidential campaign that largely revolves around Bush's decision to invade Iraq, CBS intends to keep the answers to itself until the election has passed. Could there be more than the embarrassment over the Guard story behind this decision?

Sumner Redstone, CEO of CBS's parent company Viacom, made an unusual political statement at a gathering of corporate leaders in Hong Kong (Asian Wall Street Journal, 9/24/04):

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry... but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people.... But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."
Redstone repeated these sentiments in an interview with Time (10/4/04):

"There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I've known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one."
According to a write-up by Forbes (9/23/04)-- the sponsor of the conference where Redstone issued his endorsement of Bush-- the CEO asserted that "he never gets involved in any aspects of the network's news coverage." But that claim, hard to believe when made by any media industry chief executive, seems particularly dubious given Forbes' report that ''Redstone said he has been talking daily to top CBS officials and to Viacom board members about the controversy'' over the Guard memos.

It is journalistically indefensible for CBS to withhold a story due to embarrassment incurred by another, unrelated piece. It is particularly unacceptable when the shelving of a story benefits a candidate that CBS's boss has just publicly endorsed. If CBS wants to restore trust in its news judgment, it can begin by applying journalistic standards, not political calculations, to the decision on when to air its report on the origin of the forged Niger documents.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACTION: Please contact 60 Minutes and urge them to stand up for journalistic principle by airing the report on the Niger forgeries. And call Viacom and CBS executives and tell them to allow 60 Minutes to report the news without political interference.

CONTACT:
CBS
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

Sumner Redstone, Chairman, Viacom
[phone]

Les Moonves, Chairman of CBS; co-President & co-CEO, Viacom
[phone]

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone. Please cc [e-mail] with your correspondence.

[still_one]

1. isn't it interesting

they will air a story which does not have proper documents, but they will NOT air a story which doe

[high density]

2. It is interesting...

But I doubt that they'll be airing this story now. The rest of the corporate media would just love to laugh at the hypocrisy of CBS airing a report about somebody else's forged documents, no matter how vetted the story is. It would be another week long crucification of CBS News for no good reason by Fox "News"/ABC/NBC/MSNBC/CNN/etc as the real story is ignored yet again.

[SoCalDemocrat]

4. yes the cable news would laugh

The cable news would laugh at CBS.

However CBS would get to keep its integrity, and perhaps, earn the respect from many other Americans who can appreciate a news agency with integrity and courage.

[Still_Notafraid]

3. Deregulation!

Basically saying we want to be a larger monopoly that hurts the peoples access to non biased information,or in layman terms screw America so we can make more money.Excuse me i have to vomit now

[Ruffhowse]

5. Done!

[shraby]

6. Did it earlier.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. Good idea! All Americans need to hear this story.

Oh, sure, Bush* supporters will brush it off, deny its importance, as they've donw with every other nail in his coffin.

I want Bush* supporters having to ignore an enormous body of evidence in order to keep supporting their man. Pile on the evidence until they're weighted down with it!
Maybe eventually they'll realize he's not the god they think he is.

[Knurled99]

8. Here's my letter

To whom it may concern:
I was greatly upset to hear that 60 minutes is shelving the report on the forged Niger documents because CBS is currently undergoing a public relations problem from the scandal surrounding Bush's forged National Guard documents. It is especially disturbing that your company does so saying that "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election" (New York Times, 9/25/04). This reasoning is completely at odds with what a news program should do during an election: give people facts about past events relevant to the election that help them make an informed decision. Your bias is now obvious to me and I am sure that, should one come up, a negative report about John Kerry would be aired without hesitation. An even more unsavory aspect of your unwillingness to air the report is that the CEO of Viacom has publicly voiced support of the Bush administration. Your company's actions regarding the 60 minutes report coupled with reports that Sumner Redstone has been talking to CBS officials and Viacom board members about the Bush National Guard documents combine to make me very suspicious of Redstone's claims that he "never gets involved with any aspects of the network's news coverage" (Forbes 9/23/04).

Please maintain some shred of journalistic integrity. I implore you to look into the spirit of journalists before you and do what is right in your hearts. I am concerned about a stain on George W. Bush here. Rather, I am concerned that the American people are not getting the full pallette with which they shall paint the future of our great nation with their votes. We need strong news programs that will unfalteringly give us the truth, whether it helps or hurts anyone's political campaign. We need to know if our President mislead us into war.

Thank you,
blah blah blah
blah blah (edited for privacy)