XII. CONCLUSION

The Panel asked many members of the CBS News staff about their expectation for this Report. The answer, often in exactly these words, was "Tell us the truth, and tell us what happened." The Panel has tried to do just that as it retraced the path from a seeming investigative coup on September 8 to the ignominy of the September 20 apology.

The Panel views CBS News’ initiation of this investigation and its complete cooperation as the mark of a confident news organization determined to understand and fix the causes of such wide-ranging failures in this one story. That confidence was underscored by the fact that the Panel was given unfettered access to people, news processes, reporters' notes, e-mails, draft scripts and other materials to ensure that its investigation was as thorough as possible. Throughout the investigation, the Panel encountered impressive people of high professional standards and skill, on whose capabilities CBS News has been built and who must now move CBS News past these failures. The Panel appreciates their candor and cooperation.

How did it happen? The Panel believes it happened primarily because of a rush to air that overwhelmed the proper application of the CBS News Standards and the people who are supposed to prevent the problems described in this Report. Those responsible for the Segment believed firmly that it was true (and some still do). In particular, the producer, Mary Mapes, had fervent faith in what she was reporting and the correspondent, Dan Rather, had great confidence in Mapes’ work. Everyone involved wanted the Segment to be right. But in journalism, no less than in other fields, wanting is not enough.

As the Panel goes back to the beginning, it is not difficult to identify a litany of missteps that doomed the effort:

A sometimes controversial source with a partisan point of view gave 60 Minutes Wednesday the documents. Only the most cursory effort — one unsuccessful attempt to contact the original source by telephone — was made to establish the chain of custody.

Efforts at authentication failed miserably. Hired document examiners whose views went against the rush to air were cast aside. The four original document examiners became two and ultimately one, who opined only on one signature in one document. Nevertheless, the Segment contained an unsupported declaration of authenticity.

Competitive zeal — the desire to be the first to break what was seen as a significant story — fed the rush to air to the point where holding the story to vet it more thoroughly became unthinkable because some other news organization might surely break the story.

The person relied on as the so-called "trump card" to confirm the content of the Killian documents was not shown any documents before the Segment aired. He was merely read some or all of the content of the documents over the telephone. The Panel finds this unacceptable as a basis for provenance of a story that turned on the authenticity of pieces of paper. In the rush to air, basic reporting suffered.

The Segment was the product of a strong and accomplished team — Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. Rather has been the "face" of CBS News for almost a quarter of a century and is one of the dominant figures in all of television news. Mapes has been a widely admired star producer with a stunning set of story successes to her credit. A new management team was in charge at 60 Minutes Wednesday with some 71 years of CBS News experience among them, but they were a new team running the rapids on their first show.

The Panel finds that in the rush to air, and with the Rather/Mapes team producing the Segment, some valid questions raised were pushed aside instead of probed. Issues remained outstanding and the Segment was not ready for air on September 8. Nevertheless, a vetting session was held that day and some of the right questions were asked of Mapes. Mapes answered all the questions and left the vetters with the impression that everything in the story was solid. Given her reputation and stature, and the rush to air, none of the vetters pressed Mapes to get the detailed answers they needed before approving the Segment.

The problems in the Aftermath flow directly from much of the above. Challenge was rejected and investigation of the Segment was barely considered. The strong sense was that the attacks were driven by partisans and competitors, and thus were not valid. “We stand by our story” is an attitude certainly not seen for the first time in history in the halls of 60 Minutes Wednesday or CBS News. Rarely, however, is the result of taking this position so spectacularly damaging as it was in this case, given the circumstances -- the nature of the story, the characters in it, the presidential campaign, the early assault from the Internet and the extensive media coverage of CBS News’ public agony.

Behind all of the Aftermath’s missteps lay the fierce conviction of some at CBS News that the story was true and there was a refusal by some to consider that it might be false. That unwillingness led CBS News to ignore mounting evidence -- detailed throughout this Report -- that there were problems with the documents and the adequacy of the original reporting.

There was a window — early and brief — when the Panel believes that the storm could have been quieted, or perhaps at least its fury somewhat abated, by an acknowledgement from 60 Minutes Wednesday that it would immediately re-examine the Segment to address the challenges raised. That moment was not seized, and the Report tells the rest of the story.

This Report is about one 60 Minutes Wednesday segment. Other news organizations confronted by a reporting crisis have recovered by acknowledging their mistakes and taking steps to repair systems that permitted the lapses. This is the task now confronting CBS News and 60 Minutes Wednesday.

Inevitably, some inside and outside CBS News will fault a few, if not many, of the Panel’s findings and conclusions. We will have been too tough, too easy, intrusive, timid, unfair, naïve, gullible or more. This is not a simple story, but we are confident that we have told it fully and fairly.

Once questions were raised about the September 8 Segment, the reporting thereafter was mishandled and compounded the damage done. Among the more egregious shortcomings during the Aftermath were:

1. The strident defense of the September 8 Segment by CBS News without adequately probing whether any of the questions raised had merit;

2. Allowing many of the same individuals who produced and vetted the by-then controversial September 8 Segment to also produce the follow-up news reports defending the Segment;

3. The inaccurate press statements issued by CBS News after the broadcast of the Segment that the source of the documents was “unimpeachable” and that experts had vouched for their authenticity;

4. The misleading stories defending the Segment that aired on the CBS Evening News after September 8 despite strong and multiple indications of serious flaws;

5. The efforts by 60 Minutes Wednesday to find additional document examiners who would vouch for the authenticity of the documents instead of identifying the best examiners available regardless of whether they would support this position; and

6. Preparing news stories that sought to support the Segment, instead of providing accurate and balanced coverage of a raging controversy.

The Panel expresses the earnest hope, however, that the failures identified in this Report will not induce timidity at CBS News or chill its investigative reporting. Done accurately and fairly, investigative reporting serves a critical role in a free society. Done inaccurately, it can cause great harm. The recommendations made by the Panel at the end of this Report will, we hope and expect, strengthen 60 Minutes Wednesday and CBS News’ capacity to fulfill this role.

Excerpt from EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

**QUOTE**
The interests of Rather and Mapes in pursuing a story about President Bush’s TexANG service date back to at least 1999. At that time, and again during the presidential election of 2000, they investigated allegations that then-Texas Governor Bush had received preferential treatment in getting into the TexANG in 1968. Although Rather did two interviews about the subject in 1999, no story was put together for airing. They did little further investigating on this matter until 2004, when numerous stories appeared in the media about both presidential candidates’ military service during the Vietnam War era.
**END QUOTE**

Supporting the proof is that Rather still asserts the "story is true" although his only known sources are active Democrats or the discredited Col. Burkett who passed the forgeries to Mary Mapes.