In news, 1% error rate too high

WASHINGTON — In defending his network, CBS chief Les Moonves said that 99 percent of what its news division produced was honest and accurate, leaving us to wonder what kind of horrendous mistake might make up that 1 percent. Might it include just one story that prematurely predicted the end of the world?

The answer, of course, is that the 1 percent error rate did include an accusation against the president that was based on false documents, no small thing in the midst of an election campaign. The seriousness of just that "mistake" is compounded by the fact that most Americans now get their information — or misinformation, in this case — by electronic means produced by faceless individuals and delivered by entertainers who have assumed the role of journalistic father figures.

Who, then, is responsible for such an ignominious performance by a news disseminator once thought to be the best in the electronic world? Four executives lost their jobs over this debacle. At least two others, the head of the news division and the rip-and-read mouthpiece who stood by the story nearly to the bitter end despite overwhelming evidence of its inaccuracy, were spared, but not without major tarnish to their reputations.

Actually, Dan Rather, who has been donning flak vests and safari jackets and standing before cameras throughout the world for decades, has announced his "retirement" as the evening news anchor, probably as a result of this, but will remain a reporter for "60 Minutes." That should give us all confidence in the accuracy and integrity of coming productions from the TV news magazine. If that seems too harsh a comment, one should understand that this is not an inexperienced reporter. Rather is a veteran "newsman," heir to the most credible figure in television journalism, Walter Cronkite. Thus, his personal culpability in such a sloppy, amateur performance is enormous.

No one of his alleged vast experience should trust someone else to do the work so necessary to ensure the genuineness of a story of the magnitude leveled at George W. Bush. Even the greenest among us would have asked to have talked personally with the source of the documents and to those hired to verify their authenticity. He didn't. If he had, only a callous disregard for the truth and ethics would have caused him to go ahead.

Herein, it seems to me, lies the real weakness of the system. TV news icons often are far removed from the realities of reporting despite attempts to give them credibility by flying them around the globe to whatever major story is breaking that day. They are nurtured and pampered by researchers, assistants, producers and young reporters on the make who do that work for them.