Don't expect Andrew Heyward to last more than a year as president of CBS News.

"Do TV news presidents enjoy some sort of immunity from dismissal that is unavailable to executives in any other industry?," a former executive producer e-mails. "Consider the facts. After the 2000 election night Florida vote fiasco, no news president resigned and none was fired. And now Andrew Heyward gets to keep his job. Leslie Moonves calls Heyward a man of integrity who placed too much faith in subordinates. There is no reason to doubt this. But should that be enough to escape the ax? Wouldn't most reporters dismiss the "I'm-just-too-nice-a-guy" guy" defense with sneering contempt if it came from a corporate executive? Just wondering..."

In Tuesday's New York Times, Bill Carter says that "one lingering question is how much accountability should be laid at the feet of Andrew Heyward...Several CBS News staff members continued to question Mr. Heyward's level of responsibility yesterday. One said the feelings of the staff toward him were mixed, with some wondering how everyone under him could be blamed and not him, and others hoping he would survive because the news division could not take any more losses."

> Earlier today: How did Heyward survive?

> WCBS-TV in NYC: "The public, not the experts, will decide the network's future."

> Paula Zahn interviewed Les Moonves on CNN tonight: Here's the transcript. Larry King chatted with Thornburgh and Boccardi...

> On MSNBC, Chris Matthews hosted a live special about the CBS controversy at 9pm.

> CBS News veteran Don Hewitt called Dan Rather's disappearance from Monday's Evening News 'really stupid' during a damage control meeting on Monday," Drudge says.

> Poynter's Bob Steele on NBC Nightly News: "CBS News failed significantly when it came to the original story. They failed in terms of their system, they failed in terms of the operations, and in many respects they reacted slowly and poorly [to the criticism]...It's essential that they go back to what is at the heart of CBS news, and that is integrity."

> "All Americans should welcome today's report on CBS News' unprofessional conduct," RNC chair Ed Gillespie said in a statement. "CBS deserves praise for undertaking this effort." (Via Bloomberg)

> MSNBC's Joe Scarborough "MSNBC, CNN, Fox -- I've been through these organizations and they remind me of the House of Representatives -- A lot more interaction between the staff members in the person in charge of the office. But you go over to the networks, and you see how these anchors are treated -- I'd like to say they're treated like senators, but they're treated more like presidents of a sovreign neation. they're treated like they're untouchable." Goldberg said "king or emperor" is closer to it.

> A CBSNews.com "Look Back At The Controversy" does not include the word blog...

Jim Geraghty has a copy of the statement from Mary Mapes: "I am terribly disappointed in the conclusions of the report...I am shocked by the vitriolic scape-goating in Les Moonves's statement...I cooperated fully with the review panel." And:

"I believe the segment presented to the American people facts they were free to accept or reject, and that as those facts were presented, there was nothing that was false or misleading. I am heartened to see that the panel found no political bias on my part, as indeed I have none. For 25 years, I have built a reputation as a fair, honest and thorough journalist. I have had 15 wonderful years at CBS News and four very bad months. I love and respect the people there and I wish them every good fortune."

I hope she gets a book deal...

First-time visitors:Click here for the TVNewser main page

Linda Mason, CBS News VP for Public Affairs, was named the Senior Vice President For Standards & Special Projects by Les Moonves today. Mason's "expanded new duties" include reviewing the use of confidential sources and determining "the completeness of the authentication" of materials received from outside sources.

In an interview with TVNewser this afternoon, Mason described the mood at CBS today as a "mixture of sadness and relief," and said her new role as Senior VP of standards is an "added layer" in the vetting of stories.

"The added layer is that the building blocks will have to be pretty secure before we start building the house," she said. With regards to the Bush/National Guard report, "the story wouldn't have gotten far because we wouldn't have been able to authenticate the documents, and the source we discovered was not impeccable." Excerpts from the interview, edited for clarity:

---

According to your biography, you oversee the standards and practices of CBS News. What additional responsibilities will you be taking on?

My role will become much more involved and aggressive, especially with investigative and sensitive stories. Whereas I oversaw the standards [in the past], people didn't come to me to justify things and didn't come to me with sources, to decide whether things were authenticated or whether the sources were impeccable...So I'll have a much more active role approving these pieces now.

What comes next? How will CBS demonstrate its commitment to "fairness and accuracy?"

I think that day by day and story by story we're going to earn back the public's respect. We're going to be much more transparent. We're going to tell our audience how we gather the news and report the facts...

How this would have happened with the Memos report?

In this case, we would have told you how the documents were authenticated -- well, this is a bad case, because they really weren't authenticated -- but let's say we had some documents we had to authenticate. We'd tell you these were genuine documents, that we went to Joe Schmo, here's his affidavit, here's what he said about it...So the viewer would say 'Ah, this is how they know. Or we'd explain that we asked several experts, and they weren't sure...

I think sometimes we present ourselves as all-knowing -- Election nights are a great example. In 2000...I did a report on it and it was a disaster. We made a lot of corrections in 2004. Part of the transparency there was that we would tell you how we were getting the numbers. It was from exit polls, or it was from actual vote tallies. We were careful in our language to 'say this is how it's looking now.' by 2000, we were taking some shortcuts -- the word "estimated" was in very small print. We made changes...

Do you believe this case, with the memos, was the result of "shortcuts?"
No, I think in this case it was a producer who was passionate about the story...It was a 'star.' When she said everything was correct, it was a brand-new management team, and they believed her. They didn't ask further questions. What his horrible incident has done to us is, we're going to ask questions, even to the 'stars,' and we're going to get it right.

Do you have any reason to believe that similar instances have occurred in the past -- where contradictory information unearthed during the reporting process was ignored -- or is this isolated?

I think this is isolated. This was the exception that proves the rule. We would have heard otherwise. [The panel] came away thinking this was not widespread.

---

Mason has worked for CBS News since 1966. She said the Memogate incident was "one of the low points" for the news division.

She expressed confidence that the public will recognize CBS's effort and "begin to trust us again." And, she added, "I want to make sure that this doesn't have the chilling effect of making us afraid to do strong reporting, investigative reporting, which has been the hallmark of CBS News."

First-time visitors:Click here for the TVNewser main page

"An independent review exposes serious flaws in the production of a 60 Minutes Wednesday report on President Bush. We'll tell you what the review found, and the fallout," Bob Schieffer introed. "Today the panel reported its findings and CBS took disciplinary action against a number of its employees," he said.

"The independent panel slams CBS News and 60 Minutes Wednesday for what it called fundamental deficiencies in its reporting," Wyatt Andrews reported in the first package. Mary Mapes was described as "highly respected," but then: "On the question of blame, the report points mostly to producer Mapes." A soundbite from Moonves: "I think [Rather's] main mistake was trusting someone that clearly misled him."

The second package, by Jim Axelrod, focused on reaction. "For CBS News, the moment of truth was here, and there was no shortage of interest or reaction," he said. They included a contrary point of view from John Hinderaker: "It seems very clear to me that these people were on a mission to get President Bush for the purpose of influencing the election."

> Another quote from Moonves: "We need to establish a much more forthright system of checks and balances, where something like this couldn't happen."

Bob Schieffer subbed for Dan Rather on tonight's Evening News. "Dan will be back tomorrow," Schieffer emphasized. The daily CBSNews.com e-mail says that Dan is "on assignment." Wyatt Andrews said that Rather had "no comment" about the report. Will he address it on tomorrow's Evening News?...

"In general, the Thornburgh report is better than I expected," Powerline's John Hinderaker says. "It criticizes 60 Minutes harshly, and is a treasure trove of factual information. However, while the report is damning, the question is whether it is damning enough. In two key respects, the report walks up to the precipice, but declines to jump."

He singles out the question of political bias, and points to Mary Mapes: "Competitive pressure does not cause a reporter to make affirmative misrepresentations and misleading statements. If it wasn't political bias that drove the show's inaccuracies and misleading content, what was it?" Here's the rest. Hinderaker was interviewed for tonight's CBS Evening News...

A few excerpts from the end of this AP story, along with questions:

"In light of Rather's announcement that he will step down as anchor in March -- a move the anchor insisted had nothing to do with the investigation -- Moonves said he concluded no disciplinary sanctions against his anchor were necessary."

Question: If Rather had not announced his intention to step down, would he have been "disciplined?" And how so?

"An aide to Rather said Monday that he would have no immediate comment on the report, since he had just returned from covering the tsunami in Thailand and had not yet read it."

Question: Are we honestly supposed to believe that Rather did not see the report -- at least the summary -- before it was released?

"As for Heyward, the panel said that he had urged extreme caution in preparing the story, an order that apparently wasn't heeded. But Thornburgh and Boccardi did note that Heyward attended a screening of the story the night before it aired -- an unusual step for the top news executive -- and apparently saw nothing to stop it.

Question: Did Heyward follow-up on his directive to "investigate the details" about the sources? Didn't he ask questions after the screening?

Michelle Malkin calls this the quote of the day:

"Done accurately and fairly, investigative reporting serves a critical role in a free society. Done inaccurately, it can cause great harm."

--Page 16

> 5:23pm: "Rather, the public face of the story and the leading stonewaller, seems to have been treated leniently," says Rem Rieder, editor of the American Journalism Review.

> 5:22pm: Moonves on Heyward: "Andrew's sin was in trusting his lieutenants too much," he tells the AP.

> "CBS has taken steps to hold people accountable and we appreciate those steps," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said this afternoon.

> Drudge is reporting that Moonves is "close to selecting new anchor." Is this a sign that John Roberts will replace Dan Rather?: "The report seems to struggle to find a hero in this mess, and it seems to have struck on John Roberts as being a good possibility for that role," Ace of Spades says...

> Terry Heaton calls this "an incident that will forever change modern journalism practices."

> Here are write-ups from the Associated Press, Wash Post and NY Times. The Times mistakenly says Betsy West works for ABC...

"Oddly enough, it doesn't appear that anybody at CBS had any previous experience with the authentication of documents, and therefore didn't appreciate the sophistication involved in that process," Thornbough told Marcia Kramer in today's interview. Two other excerpts from it:

Boccardi said CBS faced a major problem with the authenticators. "As you know there were four, the experts who looked at the documents. There were two who, on the eve of the broadcast, raised concerns. One of them said, 'If you put this on the air, you're going to have questions from every document examiner in America,' or words to that effect. Another one said 'I can't authenticate these, I'm not trusting of the fact that they're copies.' Well that sort of went away in the notion that these people deferred to a third expert. Now they told us that they didn't defer. Mary said that they did. But there's an example of reporting that information that goes contrary to where you're headed that somehow doesn't rise, it's pushed aside."

Thornbough adds: "Somehow there was created the impression in many people's minds that there were four expert who had fully authenticated these documents. In fact, only one expert could authenticate one signature, and none of them could authenticate the documents themselves."

> Lost Remote's Cory Bergman analyzes CNN's new strategy: "CNN President Jon Klein -- who understands the nuances of on-demand video news -- is positioning CNN's storytelling for the future." A must-read...

> USA Today examines declining ratings for ABC's Nightline and This Week.

> The tsunami coverage is "an opportunity to show what we are, why we exist," CNN's Christiane Amanpour tells the Denver Post. "I hope for our network it is a real morale boost."

> ABC's Diane Sawyer is home: "I've never been surrounded by this much death," she tells Gail Shister.

> At 11am, CNN/U.S. used the hideous "New Developments" graphic while reporting on the crash of a U.S. helicopter in Indonesia. The chopper crashed 15 hours before -- so how was it "new?"

> TV Week names NBC's Brian Williams one of the "12 to Watch" in 2005

> RatherGate.com: "Rather needs to be fired. Period."

> From the AP: "Reached at her Dallas home Monday, Mapes said: 'I haven't seen the report yet, so I won't be saying anything until I do.'"

> "The panel does not address the extent to which CBS News' errors arise from its management's decisions to scale back its resources -- decisions made under Heyward's leadership," Andrew Tyndall notes. I expect the money issue to come up again and again...

> "It all comes down to their zeal to beat other news organizations - press and electronic - to the punch. CBS News scored a huge, authentic 'hit' with Abu Ghraib, and they wanted to do it again," a Medialiner says.

> Dan is disappointed in FNC's coverage: "They're not reporting the story. They're sticking out their tongue and blowing raspberries at the 'mainstream elite press.' It's bad journalism." At one point, the lower-third screamed: "CANNED!!!"

> FNC's David Asman: "Big winner on this, the bloggers of the world, right?"

> Johnny Dollar has posted two instant transcripts from Fox News coverage of the CBS report. Bernard Goldberg: "I'm curious, does anybody really think that if the person in question wasn't a conservative Republican President, George Bush, but let's say John Kerry, that this story would have gotten on the air? Would it have gotten as far as it has? There's no way in the world it would have." (Update: He has posted even MORE!)

CBS2 reporter Marcia Kramer spoke to former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press President Louis Boccardi earlier today, and both members of the panel agreed that CBS was in too much of a hurry. Here is the full video. Excerpts:

"There's a lot of blame to go around, but I must agree that the real villian here is the haste with which it was prepared," Thornbough says. "I think the rush to air that permeated the production of this thing was the key to many of the problems," Boccardi added. "This program was produced in enormous haste, and that overcame all of the normal cautions, those things built into a fairly refined news system, editing system here at CBS. The haste, the rush to air, overwhelmed those systems. And some of that attitude carried over into the aftermath."

More from Thornbough: "It's ironic that this story had a very long gestation period. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes started to work on a story about President Bush's National Guard service in 1999. But the segment itself had a very short gestation period -- only six days elapsed from the first receipt of the documents until airtime -- and that hurry-up process showed in the final result." Also:

> "This episode should not diminish the enthusiasm at CBS for responsible and aggressive investigative reporting," Thornbough added. "Our report was an examination of one segment of one program...We measured CBS's performance against two core principles set forth in their own standards: Accuracy and fairness. The panel found the September 8 segment failed to meet either standard."

> "We recognize that this not a happy day at CBS," Boccardi said. "But we hope that it will, in the long run, and even in the shorter run, strengthen CBS News."

Media analyst Andrew Tyndall's reaction to the report: "CBS News did not have to hire a high-priced inside-the-Beltway law firm to conclude that fundamental journalistic procedures were violated and that the three executives and one producer involved need to lose their jobs. President Andrew Heyward had all the authority to do that internally last fall. So why spend thousands of dollars on this 274-page report? My answer is that the only way Heyward and Rather get to keep their jobs is if outsiders allow them to do so. For them to stay at CBS News without an external imprimatur would have looked like a whitewash..."

> Also: "The panel does not address the extent to which CBS News' errors arise from its management's decisions to scale back its resources--decisions made under Heyward's leadership."

A TVSpyer is wondering about Andrew Heyward: "Please explain to me how this guy survives? He was IN CHARGE of the news division and aware of the story that was broadcast. How does he avoid being fired?" Fox News is pushing the question too. "Some are wondering if Andrew Heyward should take more heat for this," Todd Connor reported. And the question has come up during interviews with guests.

"The panel said Heyward had explicitly urged caution before the report aired," the AP reports. Heyward warned West and Howard that "we will have to defend 'every syllable' of the segment." Les Moonves expressed support for Heyward in today's statement: "Heyward is an executive of integrity and talent, and the right person to be leading CBS News during this challenging time," he said.

> Alamo Nation: "If CBS was serious about turning around their news department's image they'd fire Andrew Heyward as well."

> TBIFC: "It must really suck to be Andrew Heyward."

I believe this is the most interesting excerpt from the report: "Once serious questions were raised, the defense of the Segment became more rigid and emphatic, and that virtually no attempt was made to determine whether the questions raised had merit."

The initial response of CBS "was to stand by" the report -- that's typically what journalists and their bosses do. But responsible journalists would explore the concerns that had been raised.

On Friday, September 10, Andrew Heyward directed Betsy West to "investigate the details of the examiners' opinions and confidential sources that allegedly supported the Segment." But "no such investigation was done at that time." Thus: "Had this directive been followed promptly, the Panel does not believe that 60 Minutes Wednesday would have publicly defended the Segment for another 10 days." And CBS wouldn't have been dragged through the mud for another 10 days.

If CBS treated news as a "conversation," as Jeff Jarvis is fond of saying, it would have engaged its audience about the apparent problems with the September 8 segment. It wouldn't have circled the wagons.

> Also: The panel found that several of the "press statements and CBS Evening News reports that staunchly defended the September 8 segment...contained numerous misstatements and inaccuracies."

Mason will report directly to the President of CBS News. "This executive will be assigned expanded new duties as part of upholding and enforcing CBS News Standards," Les Moonves announced today. "Before an investigative report proceeds, the Standards Executive will review the use of confidential sources; will determine the completeness of the authentication and/or chain of custody of materials received from outside sources, ranging from documents to video to photos; and will approve all hidden-camera investigations." Mason has acted as the liaison between CBS NEWS and the Independent Panel during the preparation of the report...

> Also: Executive Producer Jeff Fager, who launched 60 Minutes Wednesday in 1999, has been asked to oversee both 60 Minutes broadcasts, "at least until the end of the year."

> 11:20am: "A senior producer in charge of reading scripts -- Esther Kartiganer -- will be reassigned from '60 Minutes Wednesday' to elsewhere at CBS News," Poynter notes.

> CNN correspondent Chris Huntingdon: "What is interesting is what it could not find out...[The panel] could not determine whether or not those documents were in fact authentic or forged."

> "FNC is having fun criticizing CBS News, not surprisingly," an e-mailer says. "Their analyst, Bill Kristol, said, 'Let's be honest here... CBS wanted to hurt President Bush.'" CNN is covering the story a whole lot less than FNC.

> Eric Burns on FNC: "He would have done more research had this piece not played into his [Rather's] biases."

> Bob Zelnick on FNC: "First of all that it was obviously a serious investigation with hard conclusions reached...Number two, people have been held accountable, going well up the chain of command...I was quite surprised that Rather wasn't more forcefully dealt with."

> Jeff Jarvis, asked on FNC about why this happened: "Hubris. Dan Rather built himself a pedestal and forgot to build himself a stairs back down."

> Former CBS exec Ed Fouhy, on MSNBC: "What this is really about is when zeal overcomes good judgement, and when the key person, in this case Mary Mapes, is misleading executives about what has been found in her reporting. But that is something that is common among investigative reporters -- they fall in love with their stories."

CBS may not have been advancing a "political agenda" -- but it seems that Mary Mapes was. "The Panel cites a number of instances where Mapes' accounts radically differ from those of her colleagues and sources. This is truly disquieting. For these reasons and many others outlined in the Panel's work, Mary Mapes is terminated, effective immediately." "In other words, Mapes is a liar," this blogger says. Additionally, Mapes "ignored information that cast doubt on the story she had set out to report."

The panel is urging CBS News to "consider implementing" several recommendations. Les Moonves has announced several "steps that will be implemented immediately." Both lists are reprinted after the jump...

RECOMMENDATIONS:

> "Create a new senior Standards and Practices position ('Standards Executive'), outside of the production structure of 60 Minutes Wednesday and reporting directly to the President of CBS News, whose mission would be as follows. Before airing any 60 Minutes Wednesday segment that involves investigative reporting, confidential sources or the authentication and/or chain of custody of materials received from outside sources, the Standards Executive must be consulted and must review whether proper processes have been followed."

> "If the validity of information presented in a 60 Minutes Wednesday segment comes under a significant challenge, such as occurred with the September 8 Segment, reporting on the challenge should not be left largely or entirely in the hands of those who created the segment at issue. Instead, an additional team, led by someone not involved in the original segment, should be assigned to take the lead in the coverage."

> "The same standards for accuracy and fairness prescribed by CBS News' Standards Manual for its news stories should be applied to its press releases and public statements. That did not consistently occur here, as our Report on the Aftermath illustrates. CBS News management and the CBS Communications Group should coordinate their efforts and develop a protocol that accomplishes this objective."

> "Competitive pressures are a fact of life in journalism and may impact the timing of a news story. The leadership of CBS News should make clear to all personnel that competitive pressures cannot be allowed to prompt the airing of a story before it is ready."

> "In sensitive stories relying on sources who cannot be identified on the air, senior management must, as appropriate, know not just the name of the source, but all relevant background that would assist in news decisions. Limitations in this regard must be reviewed with the Standards Executive that the Panel has proposed."

STEPS CBS NEWS WILL IMPLEMENT:

> "Responding to perhaps the most important recommendation of the Panel, we will immediately create a position of Senior Vice President of Standards and Special Projects, reporting to the President of CBS News. This executive will be assigned expanded new duties as part of upholding and enforcing CBS News Standards. Before an investigative report proceeds, the Standards Executive will review the use of confidential sources; will determine the completeness of the authentication and/or chain of custody of materials received from outside sources, ranging from documents to video to photos; and will approve all hidden-camera investigations.
The Standards Executive will be identified throughout CBS News as someone with whom employees can communicate on a confidential basis, without fear of retaliation, if they have concerns that a planned segment may not meet CBS News standards of accuracy and fairness. This executive will also undertake a comprehensive review of the CBS News Standards Manual and will institute a program for regular review of the standards."

> "If the validity of information presented in a segment comes under a significant challenge, such as occurred with the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment, reporting on the challenge will not be left entirely in the hands of those who created the segment at issue. Instead, an additional team, led by someone not involved in the original segment, will be assigned to take the lead in the coverage."

> "In sensitive stories relying on sources who cannot be identified on the air, senior management must, when appropriate, know not just the name of the source, but all relevant background that would assist in editorial news decisions. Difficulties in this regard should be reviewed with the Standards Executive."

> "CBS News management must make it clear to all personnel that competitive pressure alone cannot be allowed to prompt the airing of a story. As the Panel points out, it would have been better to “lose” the story on the disputed memos to a competitor than to air it short of vetting to the highest standards of fairness and accuracy."

> "Correspondents, producers and associate producers must disclose to the executive producer and senior producers all relevant information unearthed in reporting the story, both supporting and challenging the segment’s findings."

> "On primetime broadcasts, all on-camera interviews done for a segment, whether or not aired, should be reviewed by the person assigned script review responsibility to ensure that the segment presents fairly and accurately what was said in the interviews and is not contradicted by interviews which do not appear in the finished segment."

> "CBS NEWS producers and management will work closely with the CBS Communications area to ensure that all information provided to the department and then disseminated to the public is fair and accurate."

> "CBS NEWS management should require correspondents to regularly and fully participate to the maximum extent possible in the preparation, vetting and pre-broadcast screening of stories. Management should review instances where the press of other responsibilities does not permit this and make any appropriate changes to the production and vetting structure to take account of reality."

Continue reading "Report: Outlines Several Recommendations"

"While the focus of the Panel's investigation at the outset was on the Killian documents, the investigation quickly identified considerable and fundamental deficiencies relating to the reporting and production of the September 8 Segment and the statements and news reports during the Aftermath. These problems were caused primarily by a myopic zeal to be the first news organization to broadcast what was believed to be a new story about President Bush's TexANG service, and the rigid and blind defense of the Segment after it aired despite numerous indications of its shortcomings."

> Lisa Myers on MSNBC: "What really drove his, they said, was not a political agenda...but they said what drove this mistake was a myopic zeal to be first with a groundbreaking story."

> "The Panel does not believe that political motivations drove the September 8 Segment."

"The Panel has not been able to conclude with absolute certainty whether the Killian documents are authentic or forgeries. However, the Panel has identified a number of issues that raise serious questions about the authenticity of the documents and their content. With better reporting, these questions should have been raised before the September 8 Segment aired."

In case you're having trouble downloading the report from CBSNews.com, here is a copy:

> Complete Independent Panel report on CBS News (mirror)

> Update: The HTML-ized text is online here.

CBSNEWS.COM: "Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story about President Bush's National Guard service." The report concluded that "CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with 'rigid and blind' defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report."

"Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated." Andrew Heyward stays...

On his radio show Sunday night, Matt Drudge said he "is being told" the Memogate report will be released today. "It must be really bad if they're having such a hard time releasing this," he speculated. He also repeated the notion that the report and the Rather-replacement announcement will come at the same time.

> RatherBiased: "Legal Concerns Likely Delayed Memogate Report." "I wonder if CBS will attempt to explain the delay with the release of the report?," a commenter says...

"TV news executives agree: Never has a story so tested them and the people they deployed to report on it as the devastation from the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean," TV Week's Michelle Greppi says in a must-read. It's the most thorough account to date of the logistical nightmare networks are facing as they cover the disaster. The story also spotlights "some of the lesser-known correspondents who have risen to the occasion."

> "This is not parachute journalism," CNNI senior VP Rena Golden says, because it takes several days to deploy a crew to the remote regions affected by the disaster.

Dan Rather, on the contradictory emotions of reporting on the tsunami disaster:

"It's very difficult, perhaps impossible, from the outside to understand the conflicting undertows that go through you as a journalist. Flying out, I'm saying to myself, 'They're talking about death tolls that are practically impossible to imagine.' At the same time, you're saying to yourself, 'What a story.' There is no place else I'd want to be. I literally say a prayer of thanks every day in order to have this work. A story like this is why you get in the business."

His comments appear in this morning's New York Times (subreq). The tsunami struck "at a critically important moment in the careers of three star anchors - Brian Williams of NBC, Dan Rather of CBS and Anderson Cooper of CNN - who each traveled to the region to lead hours of coverage last week," Jacques Steinberg notes...

"The tsunami crisis is presenting an opportunity for CNN, the Conflicted News Network, to re-invent itself. Yes, again," Jon Friedman opines. "So far, he has impressed CNN employees in Atlanta and New York - bureaus which have been known to wage their own civil war -- as a team builder and a decisive news-oriented executive." He suggests that Klein may "inspire executive and foot soldiers alike in Atlanta and New York to declare a cease-fire or even initiate a thaw in their Cold War." More...

> Mike Pound: "Jon Klein is my new best buddy..."

Sam Cohen at civilian:broadcast offers his formula for a cable news debate show: "Interact with the in-studio audience...Interact with the viewing audience...Hosts with Mosts...Where the hell is the moderator?...Fact check their asses...Take it past the on-air time." He describes the specifics of each point: It's a must-read for Klein and company...

The New York Times devoted four paragraphs of editorial page attention to the exit of Crossfire on Sunday. "Maybe this could be the start of something big," they say. "We have lived through a generation now in which television news operations grew more and more dependent on 'talking heads' shows because they are inexpensive." But "perhaps this trend has gone as far as it can go," because "last month, when the tsunami hit Asia, viewers got a chance to notice what they were in danger of losing to talk TV..."

Tom Brokaw, who has been keeping in touch with NBC News producers throughout the tsunami coverage, tells Peter Johnson he was impressed with Brian Williams' reports from the region: "I always said I'd miss the challenge of covering a big story, and when the tsunami story broke, the old instincts kicked in. But after a day or so of watching Brian and my old colleagues do such a splendid job under such trying circumstances, I was once again completely at peace with my decision" to leave, he says.

Did you miss TVNewser over the weekend? If so, catch up on MSNBC's hot new anchors, CNN's "new template" for news, the latest Paula Zahn rumor and a Bob Arnot sighting.