• Home
  • Blogs
  • Public Eye
Public Eye
May 11, 2007 12:50 PM

CBS News Asks Batiste To Step Down As Consultant

Posted by Brian Montopoli
(CBS/EARLY SHOW)
Last night, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste appeared on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann.” Batiste has been a CBS News consultant, but last night it was disclosed that he has been asked to leave that position due to his participation in an ad criticizing President Bush. Says Batiste in the ad: "Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril." You can watch the "Countdown" segment here.

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.
Tags:
john batiste ,
linda mason ,
keith olbermann
Topics:
CBS News Issues
Share:
Digg
Yahoo! Buzz
Latest in Public Eye
Excerpts From Bush's Farewell Speech
After Drudge Story, McCain Gives Reporters Green Light
McCain Drudge
Add a Comment See all 45 Comments
by shingles1 May 11, 2007 1:25 PM PDT
"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.'"

Is this true that CBS boots people off when they begin to publicly advocate a position outside of their official consulting duties? Is it OK to advocate a position as part of their official CBS duties? I'm referring to the slew of experts who came out strongly in favor of the Iraq War back in late 2002/early 2003 - isn't that advocacy, or is it OK if it's while on the clock?

Anyhow, far be it from me to doubt or question the veracity of CBS News, but is there a list somewhere of current CBS News consultants so that we can check this out for ourselves.
Reply to this comment
by wirro-2009 May 11, 2007 1:32 PM PDT
And, of course CBS's pro-Bush advocates will also be terminated?
Reply to this comment
by bo234 May 11, 2007 1:43 PM PDT
As pointed out by Greg Sargent, another CBS consultant Michael O'Hanlon has advocated for the so-called surge in a number of op-eds. An op-ed is not the same as an advertisement, but Mr. O'Hanlon has clearly advocated a position and according to Linda Mason, that advocay is a no-no. Why is advocay in support of the adminstration OK while advocacy against it is bad?
Reply to this comment
by avvorio May 11, 2007 1:46 PM PDT
Your excuse for canning him (Baptiste) is really lame just like when you fired the guy because Couric's show was tanking. Michael O'Hanlon did the same thing in an op-ed only apparently this network liked the pro-surge stance he took. Shame on you.
Reply to this comment
by sanfelz May 11, 2007 1:50 PM PDT
TPM points out that Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute appeared on CBS as a consultant though he had written an op-ed for the WaPo in favor of Bush's surge strategy. Is there a difference between an ad and an op-ed and does O'Hanlon still serve as a commentator for CBS?
Reply to this comment
by one_american May 11, 2007 2:18 PM PDT
Looks like the cat is out of the bag...Keith Olbermann is poison, but the looney left keeps drinking it.
Reply to this comment
by exile8 May 11, 2007 2:21 PM PDT
Say something bad about Bush, get fired. Blindly support the "surge", get promoted.

Some news organization you got there guys!

Reply to this comment
by hastynote May 11, 2007 2:29 PM PDT
CBS news knew the reason Batiste left the service. It was more important to make a statement against Bush's occupation of Iraq than to stay and urn his four stars. He was sacked not because he appeared on another network, nor because he lent his identity to a veterans group which opposes Bush's Iraq policy. It was because he stated the position he has held ever since leaving the service. So I wonder if the White House called, or a major investor. CBS should not have engaged Batiste if it would not allow him to stand by his principles. Until the media is freed from the same corporatocracy that if running our country, we remain subjects ruled by fascists. We will not last as a people without a free press.
Reply to this comment
by hastynote May 11, 2007 2:32 PM PDT
CBS news knew the reason Batiste left the service. It was more important to make a statement against Bush's occupation of Iraq than to stay and urn his four stars. He was sacked not because he appeared on another network, nor because he lent his identity to a veterans group which opposes Bush's Iraq policy. It was because he stated the position he has held ever since leaving the service. So I wonder if the White House called, or a major investor. CBS should not have engaged Batiste if it would not allow him to stand by his principles. Until the media is freed from the same corporatocracy that if running our country, we remain subjects ruled by fascists. We will not last as a people without a free press.
Reply to this comment
by anhhung18901 May 11, 2007 2:33 PM PDT
Linda Mason "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.'"

What about Lou Dobbs on The Early Show? He says openly that he does advocacy.
Reply to this comment
by hastynote May 11, 2007 2:33 PM PDT
CBS knew Batiste left the service in protesting the Iraq occupation when they engaged him as an analist. They knew his principles, and there is no indication that his relationship with CBS was exclusive. It is important to note that his termination was not because he appeared on another network. It was because he lent his name, and identified with a veterans advocacy group. It was due to the fact that he is criticising Bush's war. So why does CBS terminate someone who resigned in protest to the war, when they hired that same person who resigned from the service in protesting the war???

This is a blatant misuse of the public trust in allowing CBS the use of America's airwaves. It is obvious that some major investor or Board member made a call to management. Worse yet: since Cheney was in Iraq, Bush himself must have used his office to sack Batiste. As long as the corporatocracy is running the media, America will only hear the views of people like the Bush Toady CBS hired to replace Batiste. We must act to free the media from the chains of the corporatocracy which is running America's government!
Reply to this comment
by p_lukasiak May 11, 2007 2:39 PM PDT
It is interesting that while the CBS spokesdrone referred to "CBS New standards", CBS is uanble to provide a copy of the prohibition. Indeed, insofar as the spokesdrone said that "we ASK that people not be involved in advocacy" (emphasis added) there would appear to be no actual "standard" -- and that CBS has punished a highly decorated and qualified consultant on military issues solely because he exercised his First Amendment rights.

Nevertheless Katie Couric herself is an advocate... http://www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/public_ed/psa.html

and has even testified in front of Congress to advocate for more funding for HER cause.

Obviously, "advocacy" is not the issue here.... because Couric is far from the only person who "advocates". Its the POSITION that CBS objects to...
Reply to this comment
by njpsearch May 11, 2007 2:44 PM PDT
ThinkProgress takes you to the woodshed here:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/11/cbs-fires-batiste/

You fire Batiste for criticizing the war, but keep Nicole Wallace, a former Bush communications aide, who consistently spouts the White House line?
Reply to this comment
by bo234 May 11, 2007 3:11 PM PDT
First we're told he was fired for advocating a position. Now we're told he wasn't fired for advocating a position. CBS can't keep its story straight, but we're supposed to take it on faith that it has nothing to do with the position he took.
Reply to this comment
by johncabell May 11, 2007 3:17 PM PDT
What's confusing about these things is whether it's the opinion or its expression that tips the scales.

Gen. Batiste was a prominent critic of Bush's handling of the war before he was hired as a CBS consultant. The modestly informed viewer already knew he had strong opinions on that subject -- his area of expertise, for goodness' sake, the one he was hired to talk about.

So what's new?
Reply to this comment
by p_lukasiak May 11, 2007 3:36 PM PDT
in response to the update

'Mason contacted me this afternoon to expand on her comments. %u201CGeneral Batiste took part in a commercial that%u2019s being shown on television to raise money for veterans against the war,%u201D '

COuric appears in commercials that urgers people to visit a website where the picture of Couric is displayed prominently next to a SOLICITATION OF FUNDS ("Donate to NCCRA. Click Here') for her cause. Thus, it is obvious that "appearing in a commercial" and "raising money" is not the problem either.(the fact that these television stations do not charge Couric's organization for airtime does not mean they are not commercials.)

again, where is this specific policy stating that people affiliated with CBS News cannot raise funds for their pet causes? Why was Batiste fired for raising funds for a VETERANS GROUP?

It should also be noted that not only does Couric publicly fundraise for her pet cause, she was permitted to promote that personal cause on the CBS Evening News in a "special series" over three nights.

one final note...it too about TEN DAYS for CBS to fire Don Imus for his racist and misogynist remarks---and CBS News was carried on those CBS radio stations. The General was fired immediately. Clearly, Mason found Imus's RACIST RANTS acceptable -- but apparently enjoys wallowing in the blood of US military personnel sent to Iraq, because she finds the idea of "raising money" for an Iraqi War Veterans group objectionable.
Reply to this comment
by shingles1 May 11, 2007 3:59 PM PDT
One_American; I see that you decided to not comment on CBS News's decision to fire Batiste, but instead served up another empty and cliched barb about "liberals". I'm sorry. I guess events like this make it hard to maintain the fiction of "liberal bias" so instead you just ignore it. Like usual, your...um...consciousness is impervious to facts.
Reply to this comment
by mikkiharper May 11, 2007 4:30 PM PDT
I don't get it.
I thought America was a country of free speach.
You knew he was anti Bush when you hired him.
Are you being pressured by fear to oust him?
It does seem we are following in Germanys past too closely. And Hitler knew how to make the people dance his dance.
Reply to this comment
by yohansabo May 11, 2007 4:34 PM PDT
"General Batiste took part in a commercial that%u2019s being shown on television to raise money for veterans against the war,%u201D she said.

If Mason actually watched the ad, she'd see that it's not a fundraising ad. As a reporter, shouldn't you have pointed this out to Mason?

It kind of makes me wonder what else you guys "report" on with out doing the bare minimum?
Reply to this comment
by hastynote May 11, 2007 5:06 PM PDT
CBS news knew the reason Batiste left the service. It was more important to make a statement against Bush's occupation of Iraq than to stay and urn his four stars. He was sacked not because he appeared on another network, nor because he lent his identity to a veterans group which opposes Bush's Iraq policy. It was because he stated the position he has held ever since leaving the service. So I wonder if the White House called, or a major investor. CBS should not have engaged Batiste if it would not allow him to stand by his principles. Until the media is freed from the same corporatocracy that if running our country, we remain subjects ruled by fascists. We will not last as a people without a free press.
Reply to this comment
by hastynote May 11, 2007 5:15 PM PDT
CBS news knew the reason Batiste left the service. It was more important to make a statement against Bush's occupation of Iraq than to stay and urn his four stars. He was sacked not because he appeared on another network, nor because he lent his identity to a veterans group which opposes Bush's Iraq policy. It was because he stated the position he has held ever since leaving the service. So I wonder if the White House called, or a major investor. CBS should not have engaged Batiste if it would not allow him to stand by his principles. Until the media is freed from the same corporatocracy that if running our country, we remain subjects ruled by fascists. We will not last as a people without a free press.
Reply to this comment
by May 11, 2007 5:25 PM PDT
This is complete hypocrisy. It seems the "liberal media" only wants one side of the story on the public airwaves. No wonder no one watches crappy network news anymore. We know propaganda when we see it.
Reply to this comment
by anacherf May 11, 2007 5:37 PM PDT
Linda Mason is either misinformed or being purposely disingenuous. Gen. Baptiste's participation in this ad campaign wasn't to "raise money for veterans against the war." Gen. Baptiste is simply stating his sincere concern for our military's future. There is no plea anywhere in this ad for a donation to any cause whatsoever. If you should view the ad and go to the votevets.org website you will find a button to make a donation. But raising money is not the focus of Gen. Batiste's ad or the votevets.org website.

AF
Reply to this comment
by aaron-aaron May 11, 2007 5:50 PM PDT
UPDATE: Mason contacted me this afternoon to expand on her comments.

%u201CGeneral Batiste took part in a commercial that%u2019s being shown on television to raise money for veterans against the war,%u201D she said. %u201CIt isn%u2019t just that he took an advocacy position.%u201D
-------------------------
The ad is linked in the original post, and we can all see that it is NOT a fundraising ad.

Care to try again?
Reply to this comment
by hastynote May 11, 2007 5:59 PM PDT
CBS news knew the reason Batiste left the service. It was more important to make a statement against Bush's occupation of Iraq than to stay and urn his four stars. He was sacked not because he appeared on another network, nor because he lent his identity to a veterans group which opposes Bush's Iraq policy. It was because he stated the position he has held ever since leaving the service. So I wonder if the White House called, or a major investor. CBS should not have engaged Batiste if it would not allow him to stand by his principles. Until the media is freed from the same corporatocracy that if running our country, we remain subjects ruled by fascists. We will not last as a people without a free press.
Reply to this comment
by exile8 May 11, 2007 6:14 PM PDT
This isn't going to go away. We need a straight answer from CBS about why Batiste was fired. The commercial was not a fund-raising commercial. It was an advocacy commercial.

How is that different from writing advocacy op-eds for the Washington Post?

We need an answer.
Reply to this comment
by rochest May 11, 2007 6:33 PM PDT
we must have the free Press to survive as a democracy this firing is wrong for many many reasons that have been ... pointed out pass posts this controversy is growing and I just want to say the corporate media is really showing its allegiance to the mighty dollar. this happened with Dan Rather and the swift boaters.
Reply to this comment
by gable720 May 11, 2007 6:39 PM PDT
I guess as long as Batiste spoke only of a 'positive war,' he would have a job. But, when he speaks as a soldier on behalf of soldiers, as a private citizen, he needs to go? Obviously, your network feels a conflict of interest on Batiste's part: He's just not being a Team Bush player! The veil over this story is so thin as to approach ridiculousness and CBS needs to get its act together, for you have virtually no credibility left. Some may have been asleep at the wheel over the last 6 years, but some, believe it or not, are awakening and smelling the coffee and, guess what, it's burnt.
Reply to this comment
by henryftp May 11, 2007 7:01 PM PDT
I guess CBS has removed all traces of the news division that created the standard in television news under the aegis of Fred Friendly, Ed Murrow, *** Salant and Walter Cronkite. It's reasonably clear that "Harvest of Shame" would never have been aired under the current regime at CBS, much less Ed Murrow's exposi of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

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).
Reply to this comment
by adidas771 May 11, 2007 7:21 PM PDT
Hello people at CBS, Batiste is an honest man who added a needed viewpoint on your telecast. When all of your reports advance the same position that is propaganda. You need Batiste and by firing him with your transparent lies you have once again chosen to be irrelevant. Remember Baghdad Bob? Nobody believes you either.
Reply to this comment
by rlgardner May 11, 2007 7:35 PM PDT
So incredibly sad, so entirely predictable! CBS once again shows us the face of utter hypocrisy. Retired General John Batiste takes a couragous stand, gets fired for it, CBS claims it's written policy made the firing necessary, the blogs find out that Michael O'Hanlon has written for the Washington Post in favor of the "surge" and that Nicole Wallace has editorialized in favor of John McCain. Both of them remain as CBS on-air analysts. Neither one ever complained that CBS had ever given the slightest trouble.
Why is it only advocates who agree with the American public and are against the President that find themselves punished by advocacy policies?
Reply to this comment
by gejo3 May 11, 2007 11:16 PM PDT
Hello? Is Rupert Murdoch there? I guess he must be.
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.
Reply to this comment
by markleiman May 12, 2007 3:11 AM PDT
How about Lou Dobbs? He's not just an advocate, he's a dishonest advocate, as your own Lesley Stahl proved. When Stahl confronted Dobbs with the fact that his "7000 cases of leprosy in the last three years" was really 7000 cases over thirty years, he just insisted that if he had said it, it must be true. But the claim was borrowed from an article in a junk-science journal, and official statistics show that Dobbs was wrong. To err is human; to insist on error is unprofessional.
Reply to this comment
by scristanti May 12, 2007 4:49 AM PDT
what's the matter with you liberal, I think CBS for once did the right thing, its not enough that all of CBS reports against the war for you people commenting here, always reporting on the liberal side, how can someone who comes out in a commercial ad totally against BUSH and the war be a unbiased commentator, all you people I know you hate BUSH and this war, but they did the right thing, and by all these comments here, I made my case on who watches cbs and probably cnn, abc, msnbc and nbc.
Reply to this comment
by May 12, 2007 8:27 AM PDT


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.

Reply to this comment
by memekiller May 12, 2007 11:08 AM PDT
Opinion journalists like Dobbs make stuff up to make their point, and objective journalists can't say what they believe. So, which journalists and analysts call it as they see it?
Reply to this comment
by bigbearvo May 12, 2007 12:12 PM PDT
The producers and execs at CBS news who approved the continued "consultant" status of General Batiste knew full well his strong opinions, and if fact had hired him to specifically to express those opinions. His appearance in the VoteVets ad only increases his credibility in that he has demonstrating an extreme level of courage in speaking out against the incompetent and criminal acts of his government. CBS has revealed its hypocrisy in firing him, and its sadly deteriorating status as a truly independent news organization willing to speak truth to power. CBS has violated the spirit of free speech, which is, of course, one of the founding pillars of a free press in a free society, by punishing General Batiste for exercising his rights as an American, rights he fought hard for as a dedicated member of our Armed Forces. You have fallen far CBS, and your news division has lost far more credibility in this one act than General Batiste ever will.

You have a responsibility, CBS. Live up to it. Americans are watching, and when they've had enough, they will find the truth elsewhere.
Reply to this comment
by torocaca May 12, 2007 1:18 PM PDT
"Looks like the cat is out of the bag...Keith Olbermann is poison, but the looney left keeps drinking it."
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.
Reply to this comment
by down-ndirty May 12, 2007 1:33 PM PDT
"This is complete hypocrisy. It seems the "liberal media" only wants one side of the story on the public airwaves. No wonder no one watches crappy network news anymore. We know propaganda when we see it." Posted by litzz11 at 05:25 PM : May 11, 2007
---------------------------

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!!!



Reply to this comment
by mdog666 May 13, 2007 2:11 AM PDT
"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!"

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.
Reply to this comment
by down-ndirty May 13, 2007 7:39 PM PDT
"More crazy liberals who cannot spell. I only paid $3.59 a gallon today for regular gas. $4 is just crazy talk." Posted by mdog666 at 02:11 AM : May 13, 2007

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!!
Reply to this comment
by down-ndirty May 13, 2007 11:52 PM PDT
"More crazy liberals who cannot spell. I only paid $3.59 a gallon today for regular gas. $4 is just crazy talk." Posted by mdog666 at 02:11 AM : May 13, 2007
-------

...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!!
Reply to this comment
by down-ndirty May 14, 2007 1:19 AM PDT
More crazy liberals who cannot spell. I only paid $3.59 a gallon today for regular gas. $4 is just crazy talk. ...his low interest rate rate ideology." Posted by mdog666 at 02:11 AM : May 13, 2007
**********

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!!!

Reply to this comment
by torocaca May 14, 2007 5:12 AM PDT
More crazy liberals who cannot spell. I only paid $3.59 a gallon today for regular gas. $4 is just crazy talk. ...his low interest rate rate ideology." Posted by mdog666 at 02:11 AM : May 13, 2007
**********

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!!!
Reply to this comment
by joycewest May 14, 2007 8:02 AM PDT
Batiste's firing highlights for me the many problems with news organizations hiring experts to supplement news coverage. Are viewers to believe that the expert will function like a traditional journalist, offering analysis without conveying a point of view, taking part in public debate, or advocating for a cause? One can imagine Batiste reasoning, What good is all this expertise and analysis if it can't be put to use, advocating for the cause into which I've put so much thought?
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.
Reply to this comment
See all 45 Comments

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye

  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented