CBS News supposedly has standards, and I've got 'em right here.
**FREE WILL EXCLUSIVE - MUST CREDIT FREE WILL**
(Hey, everybody else is doing it.)
I have obtained, from an unimpeachable, albeit confidential source, excerpts from "CBS News Standards," (c. 1976, ed. 1999) with which, presumably, all employees must comply. I won't make too many specific judgments here, but these are up for your review so you can determine for yourself if Dan Rather and 60 Minutes are playing by their own rules, and so we all know what they're supposed to do here. (Note that this was retyped from the original documents.)

*CBS NEWS STANDARDS*

_Personnel Standards_
I-1 General Policy
Credibility is essential to every news organization.  It is a bond between us and our viewers and listeners. Nothing erodes the bond faster than viewers or listeners thinking we have an axe to grind or that we are beholden to anyone or anything other than fairness and the truth.

Accordingly, employees of CBS News must conduct themselves in a manner that avoids even the appearance of compromising their journalistic independence and integrity. [...]

_Production Standards Newsgathering_
II-1 General Policy
Everything we do while covering a story or gethering material for a broadcast must be done within the highest standards of journalistic integrity.  An otherwise accurate and useful story may be tarnished in the public eye by sloppy, thoughtless or unethical newsgathering practices.

It is vital that CBS News personnel remain at “arm’s length” from the stories we cover and that we not be perceived in the slightest as participants or interested parties.  [...]

II-6 Confidential and Other Restricted Sources
Our goal in gathering information for broadcast is that everything we
learn from sources be “on the record.” Experience teaches that almost all information will be available from an open source if we try hard enough to find it.  Off-the-record, not-for-attribution or
on-deep-background status is often used by government officials and
others to manipulate public opinion; therefore, the agenda and motives of those giving this information should be carefully considered.

Off-the-record interviews are especially to be avoided with a subject of a story who has declined our request for an interview.  Obviously, we cannot force anyone to grant an interview; we have no subpoena power.  We will consider anything that an individual or company wishes to tell us, in person or in writing, just as we would any other piece of information, but it must be open and attributable.

There are, however, instances - particularly when people who we believe possess important information feel they would be subject to danger or reprisal if their identities were revealed - in which promises of confidentiality may be warranted.  The nature of the confidentiality should be precisely defined.  When we strike an agreement to protect a source, we take on responsibility to fulfill every aspect of that agreement.  In this connection, keep in mind that the identity of a confidential source and the circumstances of any offer of confidentiality must be disclosed to management if requested.

In the use of confidential information, however, every effort, consistent with the confidentiality agreement, should be made to characterize the source, so that the viewer may evaluate what weight to give the information provided. [...]

II-11 Libel
A libel is a false statement about a person or company, published or broadcast without adequate care, which is likely to injure the reputation of that person or company.

It is essential that our reporting be fair from beginning to end.  We should never prejudge an individual or assume the outcome of a story before we have completed our reporting process.

Libel suits frequently involve judgments about the “state of mind” of the producer or reporter who covered the story.  For that reason, in addition to approaching each story iwth an open mind, it is also important that in your notes, in conversations with others, in blue sheets and in email you do not leave a misimpression that you have prejudged the outcome of the story.  Stick to the facts--to what you have seen or heard and/or what others have told you.  An ill-conceived paragraph in your computer or a remark that could be misconstrued as indicating prejudgment of the facts can be very damaging in the context of a defamation suit.

II-15 Handout Footage
There have been countless examples of altered or misleading videotapes or documents being given to reporters covering a story in an effort to influence coverage.  Therefore, CBS News personnel in the field who are given or otherwise acquire tapes or other material from non-CBS News sources must be satisfied that the material is what is purports to be.
If there is doubt or uncertainty, it must be communicated to the appropriate broadcast personnel. The source of the handout footage must be clearly identified in the broadcast. [...]

_Production Standards Editing and Production_
III-11 Correction or Errors in CBS News Broadcasts
Our reputation for accuracy in reporting depends upon our efforts to get the story right or, if we get it wrong, to broadcast a correction.  Significant errors of fact must be corrected clearly and promptly in the broadcast in which the error was made.  [...]

It must be clear in the correction broadcast that we are broadcasting a correction.  Consequently:

* It is not sufficient merely to report that the statement included in the original broadcast has been denied, if we now know that the statement is wrong.  The accuracy of the denial must be specifically confirmed.
* It is not sufficient merely to include the accurate information in the correcting broadcast.  The fact that it is a correction must be noted.
* It is not sufficient merely to braodcast a letter from a viewer or listener which asserts that we were in error, if in fact we were. The accuracy of the assertion must be specifically admitted.

Any complaints of unfairness or inaccuracy should be brought promptly to the attention of senior management.  In any operation as complex as ours, errors are bound to be made, and it is important to deal with them directly and expeditiously.

As for confidential sources, what kind of source would Bill Burkett be? Anyway, it appears that according to their own rules, Rather cannot get out of this by simply finding some witness to say they’re “fake but true” then moving on and that they must broadcast a formal retraction on 60 Minutes II stating, conclusively, that they were wrong last Wednesday and that the documents are fakes.

What’s scary is that CBS says their reporting has been in compliance with these standards. If they’re that delusional and/or dishonest about what’s going on in their own office, what does it say about their coverage of everything outside of it?

My source also has specifics on the rating drop:

CBS Evening News ratings are down in 7 of the top 10 markets
-42% ATL, -35% Philly, -24 NYC

Meanwhile, the Scotsman newspaper gets romantic about it all:

The lesson of this week has been that, in America at least, the media has been democratised. In a dizzying, energising and raucous return to the pamphleteering days of the 18th and 19th centuries, the people have, through the worldwide web and easy-to-use publishing software, been given a voice. They will not easily be silenced.

Indeed. If you haven’t spotted it yet, the sponsors boycott list is updated for this week’s show.

Update: HAH! Dennis Powell over at NRO still has his copy of CBS News Standards from 20 years ago.

My copy of the document is in pristine condition. It provides good guidance and is something I’ve always treated with a little reverence, because it stands for what CBS once strived to be. I’m tempted to send it to Dan Rather, because I think his copy is probably pretty beaten up as a result of having been flung down and danced upon.

Ouch.