Nay, No, Never, Hugh; Terrible Idea!

Via Glenn, we see that radio-host and fellow blogger Hugh Hewitt is calling for a Congressional hearing into RatherGate. Thus is a Terrible Idea, and I implore him to reconsider.

Right now, some media firms (like the WaPo) realize that this is a battle for the credibility of the Mainstream Media. They have set aside any partisan agenda and are demonstrating their willingness to pursue what looks like a story of corporate incompetence, political dirty tricks, and stonewalling.

Congressional hearings totally reverse the dynamic in the media. The WaPo, for example, will realize that, although this week it is CBS that has a problem with forgeries, next week the WaPo could have a problem with a story where a few anonymous leaks were the source for an Administration-basher. If Administration spokepeople deny the story, should the Republican-controlled Congress have hearings to see whether the WaPo sourced it properly, and vetted the hidden agendas of its sources? Ridiculous, yes. Impossible, if we encourage a Congressional investigation of CBS? Maybe not.

In the face of Congressional hearings, institutional solidarity will prevail - the media will stop investigating CBS, and this situation will lapse back to a more familiar-looking Media Team verus Administration Team brawl.

Beyond that, when did we decide that Congress needs to investigate every darn thing? They looked at Janet Jackson's breast - well, fine, that was a waste of time that should be discouraged, not emulated.

And maybe in a few years, it will be Dems investigating the sources used by talk-radio hosts for thecontent of their broadcasts - that would be fun, wouldn't it? What will Mr. Hewitt be saying then?

And what legislative purpose does Mr. Hewitt foresee? A rule requiring journalists not to be stupid? A law requiring them to put a value on their personal and corporate credibility? What is the destination, here?

OK, I am ranting now - I cannot say enough bad things about this suggestion. Hugh Hewitt is a smart guy - I'm hoping he is smart enough to realize he headed the wrong way this time.

MORE: Yes, I made a similar argument about the White House keeping out of this, with a post that elicited sage quotations from Messrs. Den Beste and Bonaparte. Let's reprise, "It is impolite to interrupt your enemy when he is blundering", from SDB.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt is not the type to back away from a challenge - he links to my tirade, and addresses it firmly. I thank him for the air-time, and people will make up their minds. Here are two that have opined:

Jim Geraghty of the must-read Kerry Spot at NRO (9/14, 7:22 PM) links to Hugh's suggestion, and says:

"Hugh Hewitt wants Congress to step in - I wonder if that would turn the issue into a "Mean GOP Congress wants to censor CBS" story. I mean, there were people who insisted that any FCC action regarding the Super Bowl halftime show's "special guest" constituted the end of democracy. One punk even e-mailed in to CNN comparing the FCC to the Taliban.

Still, after tonight's travesty of a report [Tuesday night, Dan Rather], the momentum for hearings probably got stronger.

Glenn Reynolds opined that, "[The MinuteMan] thinks that hearings are a terrible idea. I agree -- at least so long as it looks like the major media are covering this story on their own.

[UPDATE: My side picks up Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg; Hugh picks up Congressman Chris Cox. Where's the weight? Props to Hugh for getting this much done. Fingers crossed on the consequences.]

YET MORE: Who's got the weight now, baby! According to the WaPo, Chris Cox called for hearings but "...the panel's chairman, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), rejected the request, saying that the oversight of network news should be left to the viewing public and news media. "

OK. The NRO Editors have a different suggestion - the RNC should protest the current selection of Bob Schieffer of CBS News as the moderator for the Oct 13 Presidential debate. Nothing against Mr. Schieffer, of course, but, "If outsiders are being stonewalled, it is up to insiders who care about the reputation of CBS to step up — insiders like Schieffer.

In the meantime, getting bumped from the moderator role would just be the price Bob Schieffer pays for being affiliated with an increasingly disreputable and discredited news organization."

Fine, the RNC should certainly protest, and let this be a talking point. However, as with the congressional hearings, it is important to focus on the objective which is (I presume) to re-elect George Bush, not to serve immediate justice on Dan Rather.

Bob Schieffer serving as moderator (after much grumbling) is a beautiful thing for the Bush team in terms of lowering expectations for the debate. Say it with me - "Bush is bravely playing along in order to bring his message of optimism and vision of the future to the American people, even though the deck is clearly stacked by the presence of a moderator from Fantasy News."

Meanwhile, Schieffer is the one moderator who can not ask Bush about the National Guard flap. Maybe it's not an ideal set-up, because that means Kerry's Vietnam controversies won't come up either, but that was not likely anyway.

This is probably moot - Schieffer has seen the future, and is opening up huge separation between himself and this report. That, plus the ABC News report, make me wonder if Dan can last long enough for CBS to employ the "announce bad news on Friday" rule.

Comments

[MattJ]

Surely Hugh was being sarcastic?

[WendyW]

I completely agree, Tom. This fight is between the media and the American people. If bloviating, show-boating legislators want to weigh in they can get themselves a blog.

[bman]

CBS, or rather, Rather would wrap himself up in the 1st amendment claiming victim status. We would then here about the chilling effects of a gov. gone amok trampling on civil rights, etc, all being tied somehow or another into the patriot act. No Thanks! Things are playing out pretty well. The damage to CBS will be reflected in the ratings, magnified substantively if they do not take any corrective measures.

[,jhv]

My take is CBS knew they were forged and is acting on behalf of the DNC. There have been no checks on journalist ethics to this point and we should have no expectation there will be now. Some elusive journalistic standard you are looking for does not exist. CBS is free to use forged documents to further their political bias and there is not a consequence.

[George]

You're absolutely correct. If there's one sure way to screw things up right now, it's by getting Congress involved.

I read Hugh's blog most days, and I regularly enjoy it. But that noble journalistic tradition of "disinterest" is not one you'd ever associate with Mr. Hewitt.

[TM]

My take is CBS knew they were forged and is acting on behalf of the DNC. There have been no checks on journalist ethics to this point and we should have no expectation there will be now.

I partly agree - I strongly suspect DNC involvement and a CBS cover-up. I also think they are hiding behind journalistic ethics that are designed to protect whistle-blowers, not political dirty-tricksters.

That said, there are plenty of consequences other than legal for CBS. The credibility of CBS is in trouble, which leads to reduced ratings, lost ad revenue, and people fired; other Big Media are positioning themselves to avoid seeing their own credibility tarnished, which means we will get stories of a CBS cover-up of DNC involvement; and surprise attacks on the Reps by anyone will be immediately discounted.

CBS may have blown an election Kerry was probably going to lose anyway. Clown show.

[MattJ]

Ok, nevermind. It appears that Hugh and Glenn are serious.

Seriously wrongheaded.

[Dean]

Well, now, waitaminute here.

When the media reports on wrongdoing in the farming industry (Alar, anyone?), what's the first solution? More governmental regulation!

When the media reports on wrongdoing in the chemical industry (Love Canal, anyone?), what's the first solution? More governmental regulation!

When the media reports on wrongdoing in the nuclear power industry (Three Mile Island, anyone?), what's the first solution? More governmental regulation!

Imagine the media suggesting the need for tighter INTERNAL supervision, or adhering to better ethics, or more criticism on the part of the chemical, farming, or nuclear power industries. Heh, nope. Why? Because, as the media inevitably argues, these organizations, by the very simple act of wrongdoing, have shown themselves utterly unable to police themselves.

Now, we have blatant wrongdoing, it would seem, by the media. No simple mistake here. (And one might throw in Newsday's forged circulation numbers, the NYT's Jayson Blair fabrications and continued employment, Jack Kelley at USAToday, etc., to suggest that the MSM as a whole is either incompetent or blatantly misusing the public trust.) So, if the solution to every other problem that the media reports on is to have government extend its grip, surely, surely the media recognizes that that same solution applies to themselves?

At a minimum, it would seem, there should be governmentally imposed standards for being a practicing journalist, perhaps a licensing arrangement, publication of Federal guidelines on how to report? Creation of blue-ribbon panels to review the state of the media would also seem de rigeur?

Now, I must admit, there's more than a tinge of sarcasm intended here. But, perhaps not. After all, I fully expect, the next time there's a "scandal" on the part of some business or another, that the media will be happily demanding more governmental intervention.

What is good for us geese, apparently, is inappropriate for the media gander?

[TM]

It appears that Hugh and Glenn are serious.

Seriously wrongheaded.

Hmm, not everyone gets here by way of the Insta Link,so I will excerpt Glenn's Update:

ANOTHER UPDATE: [The MinuteMan] thinks that hearings are a terrible idea. I agree -- at least so long as it looks like the major media are covering this story on their own.

Hmm. If they were not covering it, how would I feel about a Congressional hearing? Well, who is "they"? Surely, the WSJ and Fox would lap this up, and, in the present situation, anyone who ignored it or took the CBS side would look silly.

[George]

When the media reports on wrongdoing in the farming industry (Alar, anyone?), what's the first solution? More governmental regulation!

This isn't an environmental scandal and, by the way, there's a presidential election scheduled in, like, six weeks.

But our arguments here are academic -- Congress isn't going to touch this one, even with a very long barge pole.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Simply put, stupid idea. We don't want Dan to become a victim; the better scenario is the self-inflicted wounds by paper cut thread or lots of cuts little bleeding; death by paper cut is a fitting tribute for Dan.

[m,h]

all CBS has done is lower the bar for the next instance.

[Smiley]

I agree. Terrible idea. The hearings on Janet were stupid and these hearings would be worse then stupid. In the age of campaign finance attacks do we really need more attacks on free speech?

Plus strategically they would just add ammo to the other side. It's much better that bush and the republicans remain above the fray as much as possible. Let the WaPo take em down, if they will.

[MaDr]

Do you really think the MSM is really going after CBS? No way. They'll expose a little, but not deliver a punishing blow. Think they'll try hard to expose a link to the DNC or Kerry Campaign? No way. They might expose someone, but you won't see a "web of connections". So how this let the media handle it work?

The problem is we have a out of control liberal media that always has had the ability to shape opinion, but in the new age of finance campaign reform with restrictions on others, the power is magnified. Hugh approach may be a badone, but so is this - let the media police themselves. I don't buy "the people" will pressure them either. If the people had any power, Dan would have already surrendered. All the letter and email writing, fax sending, etc has only got us where we are today.

Just think. If CBS hadn't posted those documents on their website, their fradulent claims would be going forward, unchalleneged. And possibly affecting the outcome of a national election. The stakes are too high to trust the (liberal) press.

[Robert]

Hey, Janet's breast was an accidental wardrobe malfunction.

Until someone shows me definitive proof that it was not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill.

Whew, I can use that one quote all day.

CBS makes up news stories to suit their personal and/or institutional bias. Until someone shows me definitive proof that they do not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill.

THe supreme Ruler of the Universe looks like a cream pasrty with duck feet... Until someone shows me definitive proof that he/she does not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill.

hehe, ok, I'll stop now. :)

[The Kid]

Congress is already involved in free speech of the most important kind – political speech – through the campaign finance laws. Do we really want the dispensers of the pork – the fine folks we “hire” to bring home the bacon – to find even more ways to keep their seats safe from any challenger?

Their natural inclination will be to ban the 527s, ban the media from carrying any report or opinion about any candidate for any federal office within sixty days of an election, and attempt to stifle the blogosphere through similar restrictions.

What’s worrisome too is that in trying to create Putin’s wet dream right here in Vespucciland, these officials might have a lot of support.

“Aha,” you might say, “the courts will protect us!” You mean the same folks that upheld McCain-Feingold and overturned several child pornography bills? I’m no prude, but I am amazed at the ease with which the black-robed Solomons seem to say “Whatever your age, enjoy smut, but after eighteen watch what you say about politicians.” I don’t think I want to rely on them for protection, so I don’t think I want Congress to have any say in how well the mainstream media are doing their jobs.

We, on the other hand, can enforce some responsibility by refusing to support defective products. Some smart newshounds are bound to figure out how to make money by offering a fair product at a fair price.

[ter0]

Chris Cox said on Hewitt's show that he did not think hearings would take place until after the election, since they only have 6 legislative days left.

What the announcement would do is put the spotlight on CBS in the interim and keep it on until the election.

[Rathernaught]

I'm pessimistic about the ability of any branch of government to address this situation, and I've been preaching since last Friday night that money talks. If there's any hint of government action, SeeBS will wrap itself in first amendment protections, blame Ashcroft/Bush and play the victim (they've been scripting that role for years).

If half the people in the blogosphere participating in this controversy (I know, herding cats) contacted SeeBS News sponsors (Fraters Libertas has a 60 Minutes list) and showed them the money (or lack thereof) by threatening boycott, sponsors would be on the news department like diptera on excretia. No way SeeBS could long avoid action to address this corruption of their "news" department. Remember, this is not just 60 Minutes, but the evening news and Good Morning America broadcasts, as well.

Suspect this is already happening to some extent based on today's stories about the bunker mentality at Black Rock. Someone else had the brilliant idea to alert major Viacom (parent of SeeBS) investors, as well (still trying to chase down this link).

Forget about congressional investigation.
GO FOR THEIR MONEY and make sponsorship of SeeBS "News" programming a singularly unprofitable option. Organize the swarm!

[Major Domo]

Tom is right on target, here. How would we feel if Congress were controlled by the Democrats, who called for an investigation into the "lies" told by Rush Limbaugh? The government must never get into the business of determining when a critic of the party in power is spreading a falsehood. Freedom of the press means nothing if not that the press cannot be prosecuted for presenting what the party in power deems to be an untruth.

We started down this terrible road with McCain-Feingold, perhaps the single worst attack on the Constitution of this decade. But it's time to take a firm stand in resisting Hugh's suggestion. Defending the rights granted us by the Constitution has to be job one.

The correct way to bring CBS down is by private people loudly stating the truth. Government should have nothing whatever to do with the process.

[Greg]

You are correct. There is no good that can come from a congressional investigation.

At best, it's a waste of time and money. At worst it makes Dan Rather into a martyr to the First Amendment.

I say we just let it pass, then spend the next thirty years using it as a bludgeon like the Democrats did with Watergate.

[Kevin]

Congressional investigations are a bad idea. Rather would be the defender of the first ammendment against those evil Republican congressmen and the media and the Dems would rally to his defense of freedom of the press.

Also, consider that almost everyone looks good when questioned by a Congressional committee. There would be Dan Rather (backed by say L Tribe and M Abromowitz looking grave offering sage advice), hero of the press, all alone at a table while dozens of blowhard congressmen (R) rudely harassed him in a very uncoordinated way - each seeking the spolight for their 5 minutes of fame. Meanwhile they have to laternatie their questions with respectful congressmen (D) who ask him to give long thoughtful ruminations on the dangers to liberty in America if the jackbooted thugs (R) succeed in trampling the first ammendment in some partsian McCarthyite show trial - all ending with Kerry or Hillary asking the congressmen (R) "Have you no shame?"

Who needs this?

Let the wannabe Woodward and Bernstiens search for their scoops trying to find Rather's sources and links to the DNC/Kerry, let sage columnists and pious editorialists bloviate and pontificate on the damage Rather has done to the media and democracy with his slopiness and forgeries while Kerry hides in the corner tryin to avoid this mess sticking to him.

[Crank]

Eye on the ball here. Forget the Visible Foot of Congress. Forget boycotts. The goal here is to disable the ability of left-leaning journalists to basically invent a story, spread it throughout the media, and then never correct it. Stage One is working: bloggers have forced the rest of the media to perform the correction. Now to Stage Two: teaching other media outlets to be more skeptical of (1) anti-Republican stories that come from CBS News, which we can accomplish by forcing CBS further out on the limb defending this garbage and (2) in general, political hit pieces that have potential credibility issues. On the latter point, this is working in conjunction with Powerline's assault on the "fake boos" story.

If Drudge started a story of this nature, WaPo, for example, would have done its own investigation before running with it, or at least aired it cautiously as a developing story. Instead, they took CBS's word for the documents, they got burned, and now they are pissed. The acceptance is the dynamic we need to change, and our audience is the MSM itself.

[TM]

Good point, and good connection to the "fake boos" story.

[Greg F]

"This is a request that you commence a Subcommittee investigation into the continued use by CBS News of apparently forged of documents concerning the service record of President George W. Bush intended to unfairly damage his reputation and influence the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.

[Lloyd]

I'm with Tom all the way, and for all the reasons stated. Nonetheless, I will point out that Hugh has picked up the support of beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/ - in a very strong well argued case on the merits. Namely, that CBS is co-conspirator in the commital of interstate fraud/forgery and has abused its monopoly privilege granted by the govt with its broadcast licences. Regardless, if this is to be done, if, then wait until after elections.

[TM]

Hmm. Well, lawyers (that would be Hugh and Beldar) think in terms of the law. Glenn provides a lawyerly "no", but Ramesh, Jonah, and Jim are writers. Grr.

OK, as a cloud over the head of CBS management, maybe. But you could see last night how CBS framed it as CBS standing up to the bullies in the Rep controlled Congress.

[john]

don't send congressional boys to do what a man should, that's investigate the fraud and forgery and the attempt to influence an election, which i understand are federal crimes. why muddy it up with hearings?

let's get real. congressional hearings won't accomplish anything but more gasseous discharge from the captitol. now a prosecution, that would be more interesting. put rather under oath in a grand jury room. and mapes, and some others. cbs and its minions were a party to a crime and knew or should have known.

chis cox is a harvard trained lawyer and knows what would really work. it also would chill the crazy leftist press, which may get more desperate in october.