The Big Problem With Dan Rather's Lawsuit Against CBS: He Thinks He's Telling Us Something We Don't Already Know

Here's the problem I have with Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS: He thinks he's telling us something we don't already know.

"Somebody, sometimes, has got to take a stand," Rather intoned somberly last week on Larry King Live. "Democracy cannot survive, much less thrive, with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news."

Makes me wonder where Dan was in the run up to the Iraq war. Or what happened to his sense of separation from government interference when he went on David Letterman's late night show, right after the 9/11 attacks, and pledged "George Bush is the President, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."

But I digress.

Rather, in speaking out on this lawsuit, seems to think we don't know that CBS was caving to enormous political pressure in its reaction to the furor following his infamous "Memogate" 60 Minutes II story. He also seems to think we didn't notice that CBS hired a famous Republican - former attorney general for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Richard "Dick" Thornburgh - to co-chair the investigative committee looking into the story, or that the eventual report minimized CBS News executives' missteps to focus on the producers' failings.

He thinks, for some reason, that most Americans haven't already come to terms with the focus of his story - that our current president, George W. Bush, got favorable treatment when he served in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.

We know these things, because many of us reported on them when they happened.

But here's the reason why a lot of that doesn't matter, and why Rather's lawsuit bothers me most: The onetime CBS anchor won't admit his own mistakes.

"I want to make this clear, nobody to this day has shown that these documents were fraudulent," said Rather, speaking on Larry King Live Thursday about the questionable documents his team used to prove that Bush was not fulfilling his duties in the Guard. "Nobody has proved they were fraudulent, much less a forgery.

But that isn't the question at hand regarding Rather's story. The problem is that no one at CBS, including Rather, could say they were not forgeries - despite the fact that Rather's initial 60 Minutes II story presented the documents as authenticated by an expert, with no hint that their validity was an open question.

And when the story finally came out about how Rather and his team received the documents - memos from Bush' squadron commander expressing reservations about his notable subordinate's efforts to avoid service - it turns out they came from a known, vehement Bush critic who could not credibly explain how he came to possess them.

It seemed CBS' primary reason for guarding the source of its information was the knowledge that he was highly impeachable - with tons of motive for fabricating the documents and no explanation for how he got them, the network's source was a serious weak link they seemingly could not afford to reveal.

Eventually, the internal report concluded that the story had erred by making it seem as if the expert it featured on camera had authenticated the documents, when he had only authenticated a signature on them. Producers also erred by not requiring the source of the documents, retired Texas Air National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, to produce the person who he said provided them to him.

Here's what Rather said about it all back then: "If I knew then what I know now - I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."

That jibed with what the then-president of CBS News, Andrew Heyward, also said then: "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."

Now, because CBS didn't live up to its promise to give him a high-profile spot on 60 Minutes after he was ousted from the anchor chair, Rather wants $70-million and an apology, wrapping his hurt feelings in a stand for journalistic freedom.

To state the case gently in Rather's own unique patois: That dog won't hunt.
Or, to cop a phrase CBS' attorneys will surely use if this litigation ever sees a courtroom: Were you lying when you apologized for the story three years ago, or are you lying now?

Comments

[curioustorquemada]

Dear Mr. Deggans,
If the suit goes to trial maybe we will learn some things that we really don't know.
For instance, how many times in the past has Rather used forged evidence to back up a story?

[gardengoddess]

Actually most DON'T know about all the machinations involved in the White House making sure this story - WHICH IS TRUE - was discounted, and that Rather was discredited.

To this day, far too many Americans believe Dubya served honorably in the National Guard.

What no one here has mentioned, including the writer of the article, is that this exact same story was run on the BBC channel in England and other parts of Europe a good six months prior to Rather running the story. As of this date, NOT ONE WORD of the BBC story has been retracted, in spite of intense pressure from the White House. Why? BECAUSE IT'S TRUE!!!

[Ginzaman]

Nice point Goddess. Consider this too. Greg Palast was the one who ran this on BBC's Panorama. FYI: In the U.K. there's no First Amendment protection that we have here. Which means, EVERYTHING that's put out HAS to be true. Otherwise you will be sued. And unlike U.S. law, the burden of proof is not on the "victim", but the accuser.

Now here, the corporate media think Palast is a conspiracy theory hack journalist wanna be who's not worth their time. And as you said, NO ONE has sued the BBC for this Palast story. Or ANY other story that he's done. Does the BBC hire incompetent reporters (much less foreigners)? Not that I know of.

But now the corporate media is so terrified of offending the neocons that they'll do ANYTHING to destroy Rather. They're counting on massive spin and public apathy to keep them in line with this crap. Can you think of anybody else who's willing to take a stand like this?

[katlade]

So who in the MSM will start reporting the real news and not what Bush and company approve of and why does the Bush admin have to much power.

[curioustorquemada]

News organizations tend to "cave" when they are caught trying to influnce elections with forged documents.

[gardengoddess]

Forget about the documents - the information is correct!

[Jose11435]

The point is not the information being correct or not, the point is that the documents they used to prove the information correct were forged. I can come up with birth certificate stating you were born in Boston in 1972 but if the certificate is fake, does that mean people should trust the information in the certificate? Of course no. Especially if you denied you were. Why is that so hard for many of you to understand. You can't lie in order to uncover a lie, that makes you a lier and more difficult to believe you later.

[LittleBrother]

It's a pity that governments don't "cave" when they are caught trying to influence citizens to support an illegal invasion and occupation with forged documents.

[James]

Wrong.

I think we someone needs to testify about this:

40. Even after obtaining nearly a dozen, now notorious, photographs, which made it impossible to deny the accuracy of the story, Mr. Heyward and Ms. West continued to delay the story for an additional three weeks. This delay was, in part, occasioned by acceding to pressures brought to bear by government officials urging CBS to drop the story or at least delay it. As a part of that pressure, Mr. Rather received a personal telephone call from General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urging him to delay the story.

41. Only after it became apparent that, due to the delay, sources were talking to other news organizations and that CBS would be "scooped," Mr. Heyward and Ms. West approved the airing of the story for April 28, 2004. Even then, CBS imposed the unusual restrictions that the story would be aired only once, that it would not be preceded by on-air promotion, and that it would not be referenced on the CBS Evening News.

[curioustorquemada]

You're talking about Abu Ghraib not Dandy Dans Dreamland memos.

[curiousasheck]

Your headline says it all Bro.

Perfect

[castlerider]

Sorry, I digress.

Big time.

Rather got run over. Sir.. By what surmounted to a freight train. Plowed under. Thrown under the bus, synonymize however you will.

More power to him for wanting to stand up for himself, and the truth.
Damnit, the "smoking gun" is there no matter how you say it isn't.

What bothers me is, he's lining himself up against Bush and his hypocricies. He deserves to give it a shot.
For this reason, your post doesn't reach me. Not by a damn sight. You're just talking garbage technicalities.

[Jose11435]

"CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report." That its a great quote and thank you for including it in this very good post. There are a lot of people commenting on other post related to this story that do not seem to understand or care what acceptable journalistic standard is with regard to this mess. Why is it so hard for them to understand that if you can't prove that your "smoking gun" documents are %100 legit, you should not use them on a big story like this one.