Not only are we biased, we’re unconcerned about it
Cam Edwards notes that CBS Public Eye, whose fundamental mission is to bring transparency to the editorial operations of CBS News — transparency that is unprecedented for broadcast and online journalism was initially unconcerned about 60 Minutes anti-gun bias and that its journalists were speaking at anti-gun fundraisers while they have been known to bloviate about gun control. They have now responded thusly:
“We allow CBS correspondents to speak at various functions and occasionally show video. We have strict regulations that if a CBS correspondent becomes identifiable with one side of a controversial issue, they will not be allowed to cover that issue in the future.”
They are looking into the issue to see Wallace’s appearance qualifies as identifiable. I guess hidden is OK? Vaughn says:
Here’s my take: It never looks good when a correspondent (or any member of a journalistic enterprise) appears at events connected with a controversial cause. Speaking at an event to raise money for breast cancer, heart disease or AIDS, fine. Speaking at one for either side of the gun control, abortion or Iraq debate is only asking for trouble. You can debate this issue all day but the bottom line is that it creates a perception problem at the very least. CBS News and all news organizations are right to be sensitive to the point of pettiness about this.
So is the apparent mocking of Charlton Heston identifiable? Or how about the time 60 Minutes glorified a gun runner who was providing arms to terrorists, while the man lied on TV about gun laws in the US to advocate a ban on guns?
October 14th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
So they think that denouncing a portion of the Bill of Rights is controversial?
Hmph. Imagine that.
I wonder what they would say about a member of their staff who supported curbing free speech and freedom of association?
October 14th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
“It never looks good when a correspondent (or any member of a journalistic enterprise) appears at events connected with a controversial cause. Speaking at an event to raise money for breast cancer, heart disease or AIDS, fine.”
Because those are “non-controversial”…. As is “gun control”, after all, all the right people are for it, therefore, there’s no controversy.
I can see serious problems with appearing to raise money for the above three as well. So the next time you’re assigned to do a investigation into something about fundraisers, or those “causes” – that’s fine – but you’re still *potentially biased/tainted by your previous involvement*.
So Mike goes and raises money for “Heart Disease” and the next month has a report on say, low-carb diets. Or AIDS – which is by no means uncontroversial, would you want the guy raising money for AIDS interviewing Duesenberg?
It does show that CBS considers that there are some things that aren’t worthy of consideration – they just haven’t self-inflected enough to realise that gun control is one of them – to everybody (who’s vocal about it) there.
October 17th, 2005 at 12:30 am
[…] […]
October 17th, 2005 at 8:35 am
[…] World Net Daily has picked up on the story about Mike Wallace appearing at an anti-gun fundraiser. […]