Fair journalists would not have behaved the way CBS did
Maybe, maybe it could be concluded that the initial airing of CBS's story about George Bush's National Guard service was simply a matter of competitive pressure and carelessness. Mistakes happen. People cut corners. Communication can break down.
Certainly even deciding to air the story in the first place damaged CBS's reputation. Even so, the real damage was when CBS continued to insist on the accuracy of the strory, even after the documents which were the story's main evidence were proven to be fakes. By sticking to a story that was overwhelmingly discredited, CBS cast grave doubts on the fairness of its reporting.
The journalistic responsibility for fairness and accuracy does not end when a story is published or aired. Often a correction does not get as much attention as the original story, but it is still important to set the record straight. Even the best news organizations make mistakes, but correcting mistakes restores credibility.
Why did CBS continue to insist that the story was accurate even after the documents supporting the story were discredited and demonstrated to be fakes? Is it reasonable to believe that several prominent CBS producers/executives were simply incompetent? I say no. A fair journalist, one without an ulterior motive, would have seen the need to retract the story.
CBS has admitted that their process was flawed, but I haven't heard them say that their story was wrong. What would cause this? Surely it cannot be blind devotion to Bill Burkett (the source of the dubious documents). Maybe it could be bias. It doesn't have to be strictly an ideological bias. Maybe they just believe, for whatever reason, that George Bush is corrupt. But whatever the reason, CBS's handling of the story is not fair journalism.
Tony Blankely at the Washington Times has an interesting piece with a possible explanation of why the report was inconclusive. Whatever the reason, the report fails to strongly address the flaws of CBS's conduct.