An Open Letter to CBS News

Several weeks have passed since CBS decided not to air a 60 Minutes
segment about documents used by the Bush Administration to support its
decision to attack Iraq in March 2003. These documents, said President
Bush, provided evidence that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase
uranium from Niger. These documents were presented to the American people
as a pretext for war in Iraq. These documents, it turns out, were forged.

I cannot help but write to express deep concern, disappointment, and to be
frank, outrage over CBS’s misguided decision to keep – at least, that is,
until after the election – this story from the American public.

The 30-minute segment – the result of a six-month investigation by a team
of CBS journalists – was to have aired on the September 8th edition of 60
Minutes. That day, however, CBS somehow got wind of a breaking story.
Somehow, the 60 Minutes crew got hold of new documents that confirmed a
rumor that had been traveling around for some time: George W. Bush had
pulled some strings to make his time in the Texas Air National Guard
(we’ll call it TANG) a little cushier. So, CBS thought, “Wow, what a
story,” and decided to air it in place of the uranium piece.

The documents – memos – that were the topic of this story, anchored by Dan
Rather, turned out to be obvious forgeries, resulting in a sensational and
embarrassing debacle (the TANG Scandal) for the CBS network, for 60
Minutes, and for news anchor Rather. Undoubtedly, the whole thing netted
CBS a firm slap on the hand from the Bush camp.

But, that’s another story.

Well, kind of.

During the height of the TANG Scandal, CBS announced that it had decided
not to air the uranium piece prior to the November 2nd Presidential
Election because, it said, it in a press statement, to do so would be
“inappropriate.”

Inappropriate?

As a radio journalist, I say that what was inappropriate was the editorial
decision to pre-empt a carefully researched, highly relevant segment, in
sudden favor of one based on evidence that – face it – anyone who has ever
seen a document typed in the 1970s could tell was fake.

As an advocate for free speech and open government, I deem it
inappropriate for CBS to attempt to make up for its big, ugly error of
running an unresearched segment that shed a negative light on the
President by agreeing not to run a well-researched segment that might have
shed an unfavorable light on the President.

I assert that it is in fact most appropriate to air the uranium segment in
advance of the Presidential election. As a news program on a network that
purports to be committed to providing in-depth coverage of elections
issues, 60 Minutes is bound to air this segment about how the incumbent
candidate is making decisions in executing the duties of the office for
which he is running for re-election.

Elected officials, unlike most members of the American workforce, are
usually exempted from performance reviews by their employers, i.e., the
taxpayers who pay their salaries, and the voters who elect them. Sure, we
can collectively choose not to reelect the President or any other official
if we don’t like the decisions he’s made, the actions he’s taken. But
without understanding the basis for these decisions, we can’t be sure
we’re choosing well when we vote aye or nay. How can voters be expected
to make an informed decision, if details about a candidate’s job
performance are knowingly withheld by a primary source of voter
information?

It is a clear violation of journalistic ethics for CBS to keep from the
American public what it knows about the job performance of any candidate
for the presidency. That the information is likely being withheld by CBS
in order to curry the favor of the incumbent candidate colors the
violation especially egregious.

I implore CBS and 60 Minutes to renew their commitment to the freedom of
the press: air the uranium segment well in advance of the election. I
urge others reading this letter to contact CBS and demand the same. CBS
must not allow its First Amendment rights to be chilled for the sake of
its image in the eyes of the Bush Administration. It must uphold – in
every case – its duty to dig deep and report back to the public what it
has learned, no matter how unflattering, heroic, disappointing, ugly, or
mundane its findings may be. That is the true charge of the press.

Sandra Lupien
Oakland, CA