CBS News Asks Batiste To Step Down As Consultant
(CBS/EARLY SHOW)
CBS News Vice President, Standards and Special Projects Linda Mason confirmed to me that Batiste was asked to vacate his position.
“When we hire someone as a consultant, we want them to share their expertise with our viewers,” she said. “By putting himself front and center in an anti-Bush ad, the viewer might have the feeling everything he says is anti-Bush. And that doesn’t seem like an analytical approach to the issues we want to discuss.”
She said that Batiste's appearance in the ad marked a violation of CBS News standards, in which “we ask that people not be involved in advocacy.”
Added Mason: “We might still go to the general to ask about things, but not as a consultant to CBS News.”
UPDATE: Mason contacted me this afternoon to expand on her comments.
“General Batiste took part in a commercial that’s being shown on television to raise money for veterans against the war,” she said. “It isn’t just that he took an advocacy position.” She also said that the decision would have been the same had Batiste appeared in a similar ad in support of the president.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
Analysis by its nature expresses a point of view. And it should be obvious to most viewers that hired experts have a point of view. They write books, they make speeches, and if they feel as strongly as Batiste, they will advocate. Meanwhile, their exposure on network news has given them a prominent platform for their work.
I'm not criticizing Batiste for expressing an opinion or raising money for a cause. I just don't see why network news should pay a consultant for analysis when reporters can interview several experts of varying opinions -- not paid for by the network -- and offer viewers more thorough coverage.
**********
Crazy liberal who can't spell? Do you always resort to childish name-calling when you don't agree with someone? Is that your idea of a "civil discussion?" Is it a family trait? Is it also a family trait to criticize someone's spelling when your own grammar isn't so perfect? LOL!!! If you're going to be the "grammar police" then you had better be perfect.
$4/gal gas is here, genius. (Are you that naive?) Maybe not in your area but it is in mine and coming to your area by summer. By your calculations it will be 5/gal by next year.
Bush has nothing to do with the $ value falling? Bush's war has everything to do the increased cost of consumables and the cost of travel.
It's Greenspans fault? Leave it to a genius rightie to blame someone else. LOL?? What's your source for Greenspan being a "liberal?" He has never said what he is. He was chosen by Reagan and served both Bushes and Clinton. Three Rep POTUSs think he did a good job. But you don't, and you are the genius so that makes you right. LOL!!
Impending recession? Considering the toll the war has taken, the recession is long overdue. Recession #2 for Bush. But, again, you're the genius.
OBTW, what's the "666" for? LOL!!!
**********
Crazy liberal who can't spell? (I'm not a liberal.) Do you always resort to childish name-calling when you don't agree with someone? Is that your idea of a "civil discussion?" Is it a family trait? Is it also a family trait to criticize someone's spelling when your own grammar isn't so perfect? LOL!!! If you're going to be the "grammar police" then you had better be perfect.
$4/gal gas is here, genius. (Are you that naive?) Maybe not in your area but it is in mine and coming to your area by summer. By your calculations it will be 5/gal by next year.
Bush has nothing to do with the $ value falling? Bush's war has everything to do the increased cost of consumables and the cost of travel.
It's Greenspans fault? Leave it to a genius rightie to blame someone else. LOL?? What's your source for Greenspan being a "liberal?" He has never said what he is. He was chosen by Reagan and served both Bushes and Clinton. Three righties think he did a good job. But you don't, and you are the genius so that makes you right. LOL!!
Impending recession? Considering the toll the war has taken, the recession is long overdue. Recession #2 for Bush. But, again, you're the genius.
OBTW, what's the "666" for? LOL!!!
-------
...crazy liberals? Do you always resort to childish name-calling when you disagree with someone? Is that a family trait?
$4/gal is crazy talk? LOL!! What you pay for gas is not what everyone else is paying. Are you that naive? I already see $4/gal in my area, and it will be coming to your area soon. Based on your math, genius, maybe sooner. A barrel of oil has doubled in the last six years, and rising fast.
Greenspan a liberal? You know for sure? What's your source? Greenspan was selected by Reagan; also served Bush41, Clinton, and Bush43. Again, what's your source?
An impending recession? A second one for Bush? After he lowered taxes and started a war? What a genius!! Yeah. Greenspan is gone; blame it on him. Righties always think it's the other guy's fault.
OBTW, If you choose to be the grammar police and critique my spelling error, perhaps you should double-check your own grammar before you post your comments. LOL!!
Crazy talk? Really? Do you always resort to childish name-calling when you don't agree with someone? Is that a family trait? Like not paying attention?
If you had been paying attention you would know that $4/Gallon gas is here, whether you believe it or not. Maybe it's not in your neighborhood but it's in my neighborhood and it will be in your neighborhood, if not by summer, then by the end of the year. Unless of course, a miracle happens, like all the oil well in Iraq suddenly start pumping.
A barrel of oil was $30 in 2001; dropped down to 20 (very briefly) in 2001; and is now over $60.
You say "...Bush...has increased the price of gas 50 cents a gallon per year for each year they have been in power. So you won't see $4 a gallon till next year." Do the math, genius. Your math makes it a $4/gal "increase" by 2009. LOL!! That looks like over $5/gal in the next 18 months.
Greenspan a liberal? Not likely, plus he's never said what party he's in. Don't know much about Greenspan, do you? Appointed by Reagan; again by Bush41; then Clinton; then Bush43. Now who do you blame? His most successful years were with Clinton.
Is there significance to the "666?" LOL!!
We are a nation of sheep. Stupid sheep!"
More crazy liberals who cannot spell. I only paid $3.59 a gallon today for regular gas. $4 is just crazy talk. The Bush Administration has only increased the price of gas 50 cents a gallon per year for each year they have been in power. So you won't see $4 a gallon till next year.
And really, if you consider the rise in the price of gold and foreign currencies, gas prices really are not that high. Bush Administration policies have nothing to do with the dollar's value falling 40% since he became president.
It's all the fault of liberal Alan Greenspan, who is now going around spreading fear about an impending recession, because of his low interest rate rate ideology.
---------------------------
What's wrong with this comment? The "liberal media?" The "liberal media" fired a person criticising a "conservative" war?
This is EXACTLY what's wrong in the U.S. Most people have no clue what's going on.
The "liberal media" as you call it, has been EXTREMELY kind to a conservative president who took this country to war for the sole purpose of protecting the possessions and positions of the wealthly in this country.
How do you likek $4/gallon gas? It doesn't bother the wealthy; they can afford it. In fact, they gain more wealth from it. Look at Exxon-Mobile. LOL!!!
We are a nation of sheep. Stupid sheep!
Boycott CBS!!!
Posted by One_American at 02:18 PM : May 11, 2007
--------------
I guess I'd rather be a "looney left" than a "lemming right." LOL!!!
Olbermann gets it right far more often than the "fair and balanced" FOX network.
You have a responsibility, CBS. Live up to it. Americans are watching, and when they've had enough, they will find the truth elsewhere.
So apparently, CBS only fires those who advocate for the health of veterans, if that causes the administration some discomfort because of their failure to provide promised health care to returning veterans. It is okay to advocate and cheerlead and flog the pro-Administration "surge" position, which results in MORE killed and injured soldiers, who in turn will fail to receive decent health care.
CBS didn't like Batiste's message. CBS fired Batiste because his message was not pro-Administration. CBS has not fired anyone for pro-Administration advocacy nor for advocating and cheerleading FOR contuing the war.
CBS has an anchor who provides a national platform of advocacy to rightwing zealots like Rush Limbaugh, who also has a "Free Speech" platform on CBS radio three hours per day, but they refuse to allow a rebuttal.
CBS sponsors and promotes rightwing hate radio which broadcasts racist hate propaganda and advocacy nationally. Imus, Savage, Bennett, Harley Karnes, Opie and Anthony.
Well, this took CBS News credibility down yet another notch. I doubt you will recover your lost credibility for many years, if ever.
What in the world is going on at CBS? Firing a general for supporting an organization that helpd war veterans get elected. Shame on you!
I guess it is time to wipe CBS out of my channel memory.
Bye-bye CBS.
Why is it only advocates who agree with the American public and are against the President that find themselves punished by advocacy policies?
You have subjected your viewers to years of your on-air "consultants" cheerleading a war that has created the worst foreign policy catastrophe in our history, including Michael O'Hanlon and Fouad Ajami, who have been taking "advocacy" positions in favor of the Bush administration's "surge". Your summary termination of General Batiste is a craven act of obsequious submission to power, completely at odds with the role of a free press in our republic. Government-owned television networks such as the BBC have more respect for their public trust.
How Orwellian to see that your notion of "an analytical approach to the issues we want to discuss" only precludes your analysts from taking a public position opposed to that of the administration in power.
And yet you wonder why you're losing your audience (and what's left of your credibility).
How is that different from writing advocacy op-eds for the Washington Post?
We need an answer.