Cedarford tips to this piece by the amateur (but paid) leftist webzine Slate. If Slate keeps this up, they'll be nearly as good as, say, the amateur unpaid citizen-journalists like Power Line:

CBS's remedy fit the usual blue-ribbon-panel-submits-its-definitive-report-and-the-news-organization-fires-the-errant-employees template, says Mark Feldstein, a former broadcast investigative reporter who now teaches at George Washington University's journalism school.

"The blame tends, like gravity, to trickle down, except for the need not to be too obvious about it," Feldstein writes via e-mail. "Hindsight makes the errors painfully glaring" and "the bosses that usually try to grab credit for the work of their underlings suddenly have amnesia about their own involvement in the process."

...

Although the review pretends that the Bush service story was an anomaly, a temporary unhinging of CBS News' high journalistic standards, anybody who has worked with investigative reporters will recognize the fact-shaving, source-buttering, and ethics-skirting practiced by Mapes and her colleagues. Investigative reporters are a different breed of human being, possessed of the absolute conviction that their wild hunches are provable. They're well-practiced at selectively quoting people and documents, overstating their case, and shamelessly revising their previous statements at a moment's notice if they believe it will serve their project. And that's no slam. Investigative reporters don't construct their stories from press handouts; they burrow into deep, dark, and dangerous terrain to uncover truths. If they weren't as resourceful at compromising reality, we'd have no investigative reporting at all.

Actually, it is a slam and should be taken at one. Perhaps Shafer is comfortable with the habit of journalists selectively quoting documents and people and hyping their thesis, while burying all evidence that undermines it; perhaps that's why he's working at an amateur leftist webzine.

I don't see how Shafer can justify dishonest reporting of the sort he details in order to "uncover truths." If what you're reporting is fundamentally dishonest and "juiced," how the hell can that be an "uncovered truth"?

He doesn't quite redeem himself here, but comes close:

Evidence of the reviewers' cluelessness comes when the panel assesses the CBS journalists for political bias and discovers none. I don't know that I've met more than four or five investigative journalists in my life who didn't wear their political biases on their flapping tongues. Almost to a one, they're suspicious (paranoid?) about corporate power, dubious about the intentions of governments, and convinced that at this very moment a secret meeting is being held somewhere in which a hateful conspiracy against the masses is being hatched. I won't provoke the investigative-journalist union by alleging that most of its members are Democrats or lefties, but aside from a few right-wing reporters sucking conservative teats inside the government, how many Republican investigative aces can you name?

Well, there's Steven Hayes. But only expressly-conservative mags will apparently hire him.

And of course there's John Stossel. But then, he's not really a Republican.

Still, many questions demand to be answered about this journalistic fiasco. Who moved the Bush service segment from its scheduled Sept. 29 slot to Sept. 8, forcing Mapes and company to "crash" the segment for broadcast? The report skims over this issue with passive language, asserting that "it was decided to move up the date" and the "decision was driven in significant part by competitive pressures. Â…"

Good question. These guys spent 100 days investigating this. I think they knew who ordered this; they just refused to say.

More kiss-up-to-your-employer bullshit... like this:

Also, the panel never resolves the fundamental question of whether the service documents were forgeries or not—a bit of a cheat if they charged three months of billable hours for their services.

If the Panel can't say with authority these documents are fraudulent, then liberals have to stop claiming they know the theory of evolution is true. The evidence that these documents were forgeries is overwhelming. There is no contrary evidence that they're genuine.

It was an act of shameless ass-kissing and boss-sucking to punt on the central issue in this investigation.

Mapes was taken in by a hoax, it seems, and the auteur of CNN's Operation Tailwind program was convinced by unreliable sources. No conflicting evidence, no matter how strong, was enough to shake the faith of either reporter. Tragically, neither seems to have learned in their careers that doubt, not certainty, is often an investigative reporter's best friend.

Remember-- these are alleged members of the reality-based community. They don't just believe fervently in kooky dogmas they know "in their hearts" are true, like you guys.

And By the Way: I didn't link it, because I figured most had read it, but Power Line is must reading on this, or even that, and maybe even on the other thing.

Posted by: Ace at 04:39 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 792 words, total size 6 kb.

For a while, I whined that while I frequently linked to Instapundit, in a positive way, I rarely got links from him, whereas Oliver Willis needed only to insult him to get Instalanched.

My whining continued:

Instapundit, I will personally give up any and all future Instalinks if you please, please, please stop paying undue attention -- and giving undue rewards -- to this talentless, nasty hack. I wouldn't mind so much being Insta-ignored were it not for the fact that you shower so much Insta-love on people who clearly are beneath you.
...

Am I too much of a potty-mouth, invective-spewing hack to be considered respectable? Hey, I hear ya-- I can understand that. But then I don't understand why Willis gets linked. He's not even funny.

And he's, you know, a douchebag.

Well, I got results!

On the one hand, Instapundit has taken my wise advice, and apparently stopped linking Filet-O-Fish, even when he references him and argues with him multiple times in a single post.

On the other hand: He's apparently taken me up on that offer of giving up any and all of my potential future Instalanches. Don't think I've had one since I gave him that good advice.

Ehhh... it's win-lose.

More win, though. I'd rather see Oliver Willis lose traffic than gain it myself.

Thanks for the tip to Quran Project.

Related: The Oliver Willis SAT's.

There's a reference there that needs explaining-- shortly before I wrote that, Oliver Willis, get this, attacked Michelle Malkin on her looks.

I'll let that sink in for a moment.

At any rate, that's the reference that the question about insulting a woman's looks relies upon.

I Take My Petty Victories Where I Find Them Update: Thanks to Matt and Senator Pundit for pointing this out: search on Google for Oliver Willis.

Check out the #2 hit. And the title of the post.

Google doesn't lie.

Posted by: Ace at 02:25 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Just about every item is worth your attention.

Just to let you know what's there:

Keith Olbermann says the Panel stated there was no political bias at CBS, but opined there is political bias at FoxNews, as they ran those SwiftVet advertisements (as did most other outlets, including MSNBC, of course);

Chris Matthews frets that four staffers got fired at CBS, and yet no one's gotten fired in the Bush Administration for taking us to war on a lie;

and 60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt candidly asks, "Does anybody really think there wouldn't have been more scrutiny if this had been about John Kerry?"

Nice, Don.

Here's the thing about liberals in the media.

I don't mind liberals as people. Honestly! Some of my best friends really are liberals-- in fact, some of them are Chomskyites, and one is a Communist.

As people, I don't let their politics infect my opinion of them. Politics is not always the personal.

And I honestly would not mind liberals in the media, necessarily, based on their politics alone.

What I mind-- what I find gob-smackingly vile -- is their dishonesty about it.

And that is a reason to dislike someone. I wouldn't write someone off as a human being simply because they sincerely disagreed with me about the War on Terror, but a constant pattern of childish lying is something else again.

Don Hewitt is a cut-and-dried liberal. But he's also got the guts and simple decency to admit the truth. I don't like his politics, but I don't think I mind him as a human being.

Posted by: Ace at 02:14 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Rather issued his non-responsive response to the Panel's findings.

He speaks vaguely of "lessons learned," but one strains to find any admission of error, any apology, or any acceptance of responsibility:

My strongest reaction is one of sadness and concern for those individuals whom I know and with whom I have worked. It would be a shame if we let this matter, troubling as it is, obscure their dedication and good work over the years.

First of all, I think his strongest reaction is his continued arrogant refusal to accept he was badly in error.

But even if this is his "strongest reaction" -- how about his second or third strongest? Is he upset he got a big story so wrong? Does he feel apologetic towards President Bush and his viewers?

Obviously not. He's had 110+ days to say so.

We should take seriously the admonition of the report's authors to do our job well and carefully, but also their parallel admonition not to be afraid to cover important and controversial issues.

Once again, he casts his utterly incompetent handling of the story as the unavoidable side-effect of his enormous bravery.

Dan, can you imagine a newsman who is both brave and yet scrupulous about reporting the facts? Apparently you can't-- for you, there are only two options. 1, Cowardice which nevertheless comports to the facts as can be reasonably confirmed, or 2, False stories which are either slapdashedly-incompetent or calculatedly-partisan which nevertheless demonstrate a newsman's "courage."

I have seen us overcome adversity before. I am convinced we can do so again. That must be our focus and priority.

He speaks of "adversity," which of course connotes an external impediment or opposition. And that's of course how he continues to imagine all of this-- that he did the right thing, but was beset on all sides by "internet political partisans" who were more interested in niggardly journalistic standards of fairness and evidence than in the "truth" he knew -- and still knows -- in his heart.

"Adversity" is external, Dan. This entire fiasco was an internal problem. It was your partisan agenda, and your incompetence, and your out-to-lunch near-senility that caused this.

Not the "internet political partisans" you still blame.

I'd wish you "Courage," Dan, but you'd just take that as an invitation to rush more transparently-forged documents to the air.

You're an unprofessional, ego-driven, arrogant, and thorougly past-his-prime hack, Dan. And you've been so for a long time.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. You will not be missed.

Similar sentiments at Thoughts OnLine.

Posted by: Ace at 01:57 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

Maybe some or most of you knew this-- I didn't, or if I ever knew, I'd forgotten.

Did anyone know that...

Berger admits removing 40 to 50 top-secret documents from the archives, but claims it was an "honest mistake" made while he vetted documents for the 9/11 commission's probe into the Twin Towers attacks.

Berger has also acknowledged that he destroyed some documents — he says by accident.

It's unclear if he destroyed documents with handwritten notations that don't appear on other copies.

40 to 50 top-secret documents-- all an honest mistake?

I thought we were talking about four or five documents.

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (10)
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

GarterGate lives.

I covered Sandy Berger's ridiculous "It was all an accident" non-alibi here, among other places.

I guess we're in for another round of ridiculous spinning-- how Sandy Berger is just so sloppy and absent-minded that of course he could innocently slip codeword-clearance documents into his shorts, and testimonials from other liberals, like Bill Clinton, that if you saw how darned messy Sandy's desk was, you'd understand how perfectly credible it is that he slipped national-security documents into his socks without realizing what he was doing.

And, citizen journalist that I am, I did a little digging and found this wasn't the first time Sandy Berger had made off with highly-classified materials. Just a short time ago, it seems, Sandy Berger "accidentally" slipped the Ark of the Covenant into his pants and "inadvertantly" left that big nameless government warehouse without noticing he had a 400 pound golden ark in his shorts.

Hey-- it happens. You ought to see the man's desk. Messy, I tells ya.

Posted by: Ace at 11:43 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

It's too early to call for this yet; but it's not really too early to debate what should be done, if the nearly-inevitable begins to happen.

I'm talking about the very real possibility of radical Muslim psychopaths targeting our soldiers and aid-workers conducting tsunami relief, especially in the Aceh province.

What then?

Rant Wraith wants to know if the New York Times and other liberal institutions will begin reading the names of the dead on a nightly basis should this insane horror come to pass.

I don't want to sound cold-hearted, but if that does happen, I say: Pull out. Immediately. There is a limit to American generosity. And if it should happen that an aid worker or soldier is captured and held for ransom as he or she is attempting to rebuild these ravaged lands, that's enough for me.

We tried. Trying satisfies me.

Posted by: Ace at 11:34 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

Thank goodness! I think CBS deliberately released the report in a blogger-unfriendly format; Wizbang has now correct this.

And the cool thing is I can now just cut and paste quotations, rather than having to copy and type them by transcriptive hand.

Posted by: Ace at 10:45 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Tall Dave told me in a comment that the Hitchhiker's Guide movie was "in the works." Rather condescendingly, I began to instruct him that such a movie has ALWAYS been "in the works," for years and years and years; that doesn't mean it's actually going to be made.

Ever.

But Don't Panic. I jumped to conclusions.

They've got a teaser up on the Internet. They've changed the perfect Hitchhiker logo, for reasons I can't begin to comprehend, but...

Don't Panic.

Because this IMDB entry indicates the film is in post-production -- it's been shot, baby! -- and that means it's coming out. May 6, 2005, they say.

And the cast is perfect. If you watch The Office, you know there's only one possible actor to play Arthur Dent, and they've got him-- Martin Freeman, the hangdog actor who plays the hangdog "Tim" in that brilliant tragicomedy.

And for Zaphod-- Sam Rockwell! ("Guy" from Galaxy Quest.)

Zooey Deschangel (the sister from Almost Famous) will play Trillian. Cute girl; I hope she's good at comedy. Although Trillian was always sort of serious, anyway.

For Ford Perfect they've cast a black actor-- well, why not, I guess; I always envisioned him as white, of course, but I guess the book never said he was white -- named Mos Def, who's a rapper. He played Left Ear in the Italian Job, who I think was the guy obsessed with stereo equipment. Ford always struck me as the "coolest" character -- well, Zaphod was cool, but in an over-the-top asshole way -- so I guess Mos Def can bring that laid-back, laconic, "what's it matter anyway" spirt to Ford.

And...

What an upcoming year at the movies for Ace-- Mos Def will also starring as "Jones" in, get this, the long-overdue film version of A Confederacy of Dunces!

I always knew that Lady Fortuna would turn her Great Wheel to favor me! Now I must scribble into my Big Chief pads and then perhaps go to the local cinema, to see the various abortions they are offering the public.

Update: Just got better. Playing Ignatius J. Reilly will be... Will F'n' Ferrell.

Now, I don't really see Will Ferrel as Ignatius; I would imagine a younger Steven Root or somebody like that. But let's not quibble.

Will Ferrel. Ignatius J. Reilly.

Awesome.

Update: Hobgoblin doesn't like the choice of Ferrell.

Okay. Quick-- name another actor who does explosive anger and crazed obsessiveness better than Ferrell. I mean, besides Jack Nicholson-- I mean a comic actor.

Ferrell does impotent rage very well. And that's half of the Ignatius character. I can't wait to see him dote on that old biddy at his office, whom he calls the "Queen of Commerce" or something like that.

Lady Fortuna's Great Wheel Turns Again, and It Just Sucks Update: Turns out that Will Ferrel confirmed this past July that the project had been abandoned.

Thanks to Yaron of The Daily Lunch.

Don't shoot the messenger; he's a good guy!

Hitchhiker Update: The site that delivered the bad news about Confederacy now posts concept art from Hitchhiker.

I don't know about the way they've done Marvin; saw him more as just as a sluggish C3PO with stooped shoulders and a perpetually-hanging head.

And was the Heart of Gold just one big white sphere? I never got that impression from the books.

Posted by: Ace at 10:42 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 588 words, total size 4 kb.

There's always some other explanation for why the media continuously favors liberals over conservatives. Take the same fact pattern-- someone leaks a story that he probably shouldn't have that is damaging to one one political party. If the political party that's hurt by the leak is the Republican Party, all the news coverage is about the substance of the leak, the disclosures within that leak. Those impugned by the leak are hounded for their transgressions.

If the Democratic Party is hurt by the leak, the coverage is almost always about the underhanded practice of leaking information, and how terrible it was that this leak occurred. In this case, it is not those impugned by the leak who are hounded by the press, but rather those miscreants who dared to leak relevant information to the press-- how could they do such an irresponsible and mean-spirited thing?

But it's not bias. Oh, no. Never political bias. Some fairly smart people spend an awful lot of their time thinking of alternate explanations, trying to come up with any theory that excludes the possibility of political bias.

Fat Kid chuckles, as the latest lame offering is "myopic zeal." Simple non-partisan fair-and-balanced myopic zeal.

Why, it's hardly even a flaw, when you think about it. Zeal is generally good, required, for example, by an attorney's ethical cannon; and myopia is a physical affliction for which the poor victim so stricken really should not be castigated. He should be given top-quality eye-care in order to correct his disability.

Posted by: Ace at 10:28 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.