Public Eye
October 9, 2006 9:25 AM

New Standards For CBS News

(CBS)
CBS News employees recently received a revised version of the CBS News Standards book. I talked to Linda Mason, CBS News Senior Vice President, Standards and Special Projects, about the revisions.

One change from the previous version: A rule forbidding contributions to political campaigns. Such contributions had not been prohibited before.

"We want our reporters to be absolutely pure when they interview candidates of either side or issues that relate to either side," said Mason. "Today, with the instant reporting of political contributions, it has become obvious who gives and to whom, and this we felt would compromise the people who were doing reporting involved with political issues."

I asked Mason why a reporter can't be balanced and still contribute to a campaign. Isn't there a concern that the organization is impinging on the right to free speech of its employees?

"That's fair to argue, and in fact it has been argued here," said Mason. "Our feeling is if you indicate in any way support for one party or another, your reporting will be challenged. Now, somebody took it a step further and said that if you looked at the whole organization there would be a certain number of people for Republicans, a certain number for Democrats, and they kind of cancel each other out. But the problem is each story is looked at as an individual story, and not everybody watches everything on CBS News, so we came to this conclusion."

Another new rule is that prior approval from Mason or CBS News President Sean McManus is required for any outside writing, speeches or blogs.

"There has always been outside approval required for outside speeches, outside writing – books, magazines, op-eds," said Mason. "And that's so that, again, your opinions don't reflect badly on CBS, or in any way show bias towards one side or the other. On blogs, that's a whole new thing. We can't have people having personal blogs venting their opinions. So we ask when people have a blog that they tell me about it, and the people who have told me about it mainly have blogs that deal with running, or with gardening, or something totally apart from CBS or political issues. And that's fine."

Why, I asked, aren't the standards posted on the Internet for public consumption?

"We've never made the standards public," said Mason. "This is a private, internal business. This is our internal way of working and it stays internal."

I also asked Mason what, in her opinion, was the most significant change in the new standards. She argued there really weren't any big changes.

"What's so gratifying about this is how little we did, and that the basic assumptions remain," said Mason. "We want CBS News to be fair and accurate, and we have laid out a roadmap to be fair and accurate. What we've done is updated to present day circumstances…to make it pertinent to people working today."
Tags:
Linda Mason ,
standards
Topics:
CBS News Issues
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 12 Comments
by satkinsn October 11, 2006 4:16 PM EDT
The practical problem here is - the people most likely to write something interesting may be discouraged by this requirement.

Like most large institutions, CBS is risk-averse, which is fine, but is also apt to produce a lot of 'one the one hand, on the other hand' blogging, which is not exactly the point.

Scott Atkinson
News Director
WWNY TV
Watertown NY
Reply to this comment
by pendragon679 October 11, 2006 2:30 AM EDT
This does seem rather a draconian step to take. I seem to recall being rather soundly chewed out by my grandfather many years ago over a similar issue. I suggested that it wasn't right for a newspaper to endorse a political candidate. Gramps, who worked for the local paper as a linotype operator, vehemently disagreed with me and offered an explanation based on the paper's First Amendment right of free speech. While I wholeheartedly agree with the right of any person or entity to speak their mind, to this day I still hold that newspapers, particularly when they're the only newspaper in a particular area, should NOT publicly endorse political candidates. In Columbus, OH (for example) we only have one newspaper, the Dispatch, which is widely considered to be a conservative, Republican, newspaper. As the only game in town, most folks in Columbus read the Dispatch and therefore get most of their news (and form most of their opinions) based on what the Dispatch prints. Can anyone else see how a Dispatch endorsement can swing an election in Columbus?
Reply to this comment
by joycewest October 10, 2006 12:27 PM EDT
I am intrigued by the concept of the "absolutely pure" reporter. So money from the wallets of reporters to political parties breaches the maidenhead of objectivity? Doesn't the mere act of voting in an election do that as well? Think of the horror of what might happen if some puritanical Big Brother decided to follow a reporter to the voting booth. The curtain is thrown back, the vote is revealed, the compromised reporter screams, and Big Brother roars, "AHA! You ARE a Democrat!" and slaps the reporter with a scarlet letter "B" for "Biased!" Of course, the objectivity of the "absolutely pure" reporter cannot be compromised by a vote thanks to the secret ballot. It seems to me we don't give honest reporters enough credit for their ability to be fair despite being thinking human beings with opinions. On the other hand, the highest standards you can dream up won't stop the dishonest reporter. Standards are about controlling behavior, but bias is in the mind. Wouldn't it be better to ask the public to believe in the fairness of the reporting rather than in the absolute purity of political inactivity?
Reply to this comment
by russmc1 October 10, 2006 11:10 AM EDT
The news has standards? Amazing what we learn if we listen long enough. Say, Dan Rather, did you know you have standards......pay attention now...it may cost you your job if you don't listen! No wait, my bad......you already lost it!
Reply to this comment
by jftrane October 9, 2006 11:27 PM EDT
If Brian Montopli believes, as his question might suggest, that news organizations should allow their reporters to contribute to political campaigns, he's way out of step with any serious news editor I know of.
Reply to this comment
by a8m3h October 9, 2006 11:17 PM EDT
IF MORE COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS FOLLOWED THE GOLDEN RULE, WHAT A WONDERFUL PLACE THIS WOULD BE...
IN CASE SOME OF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS...
" DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WILL HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU".
KEEPING A HANDOUT FROM ALL THE GREEDIES, IS A GOOD SIGN

WIDOW LADY
Reply to this comment
by one_american October 9, 2006 6:54 PM EDT
More Liberal whitewash.

CBS's standards are the "limbo" standards. In other words, "how low can you go?"
Reply to this comment
by BlueInWI October 9, 2006 4:52 PM EDT
What a useless step. If Viacom rewards it's CBS News employees that don't report stories critical of the ethical corruption and incompetence of Republicans with better career and income growth then the free press is already destroyed. (Viacom CEO endorsed GW Bush in a 2004 trip to Far East). Saying you won't allow your employees to give money to a candidate is already irrelevant to them being influenced in how they report the news.

An example is Dennis Hastert's large purchase of open land in Illinois, then pushing through a highway bill that increased the value of the land by 500%, before selling it for a huge profit.

Remember when the media brought down Democratic Speaker Jim Wright for incorrectly receiving money from a book sale that should have been put in trust until he left office. Think the amount was $140,000 or something like that.

Hastert and his buddies in a land trust have made something like $15,000,000 on his corrupt land deal, but Katie or her staff of crack reporters doesn't seem interested in that story??

CBS like every other mainstream media outlet is a wing of the US industrial military complex and cannot be trusted as a source of news. Journalism is already dead because a good journalist is never afraid to report facts - even those critical of the status quo. Hence a journalist is 'liberal'. Hence not going to report all the facts because management won't allow 'liberal' journalism. Case closed.
Reply to this comment
by centralcal-2009 October 9, 2006 2:27 PM EDT
As usual mailpro56, you hit the nail on the head. That line about a "certain number of Republicans" and a "certain number of Democrats" and insinuating they are about equal is so symptomatic of the blatant lies the legacy media tells itself. It is so completely preposterous that they believe such nonsense and that they think the public at large is so ignorant that they believe it to. Insult piled upon insult, just never ends among these folks.
Reply to this comment
by tomb82279 October 9, 2006 1:24 PM EDT
Quit whining. My goodness, you conservative crybabies miss the point. You can support one party over another, one point of view over another, or one set of beliefs over another and STILL BE FAIR.

George Will. Conservative, not somebody I agree with, somebody who's partisan, but he's honest and fair.

E.J. Dionne. Liberal, partisan, but fair.

And to the CBS standards, you're doing what every other corporation in the world is doing and what every journalist complains about every politician doing. Shrinking from the loud, obnoxious criticism of the few at the expense of your standing with the masses.

Show a little backbone and allow people to be who they are and let their reporting be judged by honest actors. I could care less if Katie Couric maxed out to the RNC every year, as long as she gave both sides a fair shake and reported the truth.

TB.
Reply to this comment
by memekiller October 9, 2006 12:49 PM EDT
It wouldn't be the MSM without a few sycophantic overtures to the right to get the week going. What policy changes were made after the Swift Boat Vet bamboozlement you enabled? I expect such practices will continue.
Reply to this comment
by mailpro56 October 9, 2006 12:39 PM EDT
Funny...there would be a certain number of Republicans and a certain number of Democrats and they would cancel each other out...you got to be kidding!

Thomas Edsall the former Washington Post national political reporter said the newsrooms are at least 15-25 to 1 Democrats over Republicans.
Reply to this comment
See all 12 Comments

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye

  • MOST POPULAR