More Black Rubble

Six weeks after an independent report appeared to close-out the Ra^therGate scandal, the wheels have fallen off and the ball's unraveled. Segment producer Mary Mapes was fired, but the three mid-level CBS execs asked to resign are still on the payroll, according to an extensive and revealing New York Observer story by Joe Hagan:

[Executive Producer Josh Howard] said that before any resignation comes, the 23-year CBS News veteran is demanding that the network retract Mr. Moonves’ remarks, correct its official story line and ultimately clear his name.

Mr. Howard, those sources said, has hired a lawyer to develop a breach-of-contract suit against the network. Ms. Murphy and Ms. West have likewise hired litigators, according to associates of theirs. . .

Mr. Howard’s complaint about Mr. Moonves’ remarks could pose a serious problem for CBS. Sources close to Mr. Howard said he believes that the report—which was assembled by an outside team of former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and former Associated Press head Louis Boccardi Jr.—contradicts Mr. Moonves’ statement about Mr. Howard’s share of the blame.

Mr. Howard also believes, those sources said, that the report itself excludes evidence that would implicate top management at CBS and restore Mr. Howard’s reputation in the television news business.

The genesis of the present apparent stalemate is the failure of the Thornburgh/Boccardi Report to assign fault, as SoxBlog noted at the outset:

Here’s what I wanted to hear and I bet you did, too: Number 1, the documents were forgeries; and Number 2, the CBS apparatchiks involved in this sordid affair were animated by their black hearted desire to wound the President. Alas, the Report says neither.

At the time, any close "between the lines" reading of the document -- especially the typography expert's analysis in Appendix 4 -- seemed sufficiently "unequivocal" to settle the issue. However, it's now apparent that Thornburgh and Boccardi's reluctance to address the ultimate question -- whether or not motivated by favoritism toward CBS, who paid Thornburgh's law firm a undisclosed but large fee -- undermined the entire purpose and effect of the investigation. Experts agree, says Hagan:

In a recent article in The New York Law Journal, James C. Goodale, the former vice chairman of The New York Times, called the CBS investigation "a flawed report. It should not be swallowed hook, line and sinker."

He added: "Surprisingly, the report is unable to conclude whether the documents are forgeries or not. If the documents are not forgeries, why is the panel writing the report?"

Today's New York Times offered an alternative, and more prosaic, explanation for the impasse--CBS is being cheap:

[A]t least two of the journalists, Mr. Howard and Ms. Murphy, both of whom joined the network more than 15 years ago, have been offered cash settlements that are equivalent to less than a year's salary, said one of the CBS officials. Each has thus far refused those offers.

But this theory assumes the network is not just stingy but stupid, says Bob Kohn at RatherBiased:

It is pretty standard to offer one month salary for every year of service--that's 15 month's salary. And that should be the starting point for these negotiations. Why risk legal discovery—depositions of Les Moonves and Andrew Heyward under oath, plus exposure of all their emails during the period in question? What's Viacom thinking?

I'm skeptical of any solution short of a Nixonian train wreck:

I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up or anything else, if it'll save it--save the plan. That's the whole point.

But OpinionJournal's James Taranto is optimistic:

Our guess is that the network will end up giving a pile of cash--amount unknown to anyone except the parties involved and the IRS--to each of the aggrieved employees, in exchange for their resignations and a strict nondisclosure agreement.

From a business standpoint, such a resolution is probably optimal for CBS. But from a journalistic standpoint it would be problematic to say the least. CBS claimed to be acting in a spirit of truth-seeking and openness when it impaneled Thornburgh and Boccardi. Our scenario of paying hush money to make a controversy go away certainly would run counter to that spirit.

What if CBS were to pay Howard and his colleagues to renounce all legal claims but not insist on a nondisclosure agreement, then bring in a new top management team, untainted by the original scandal and charged with really getting to the bottom of things? This would be a bold and risky approach, but perhaps it offers the best hope of saving CBS News.

Hagan's Observer article wryly offers a final forcing factor involving the senior CBS employee most closely associated with the forged memos story, who was neither fired nor asked to resign:

There is at least one phantom deadline that could motivate CBS to resolve the situation with Mr. Howard and the rest: anchor Dan Rather’s departure from the CBS Evening News. A producer at CBS said that a special was being assembled to celebrate Mr. Rather’s career, and it could be difficult for Mr. Rather to promote the show, given that he would likely be asked questions by reporters about the unresolved issues surrounding the scandal. The special is slated to appear on March 9 on the program that started it all: 60 Minutes Wednesday.

After all this time, could Dan Rather wind up as the fall guy?

Nah, I don't think so either.

(via Instapundit)

More:

MaxedOutMomma thinks Josh Howard's right.