Rather Unbound

If I were to underline one thing about Dan Rather's $70 million suit against CBS, it's the theatricality of it, which is also the key to understanding Rather himself.

Almost all anchormen come in the "cool" style. Theirs is an art of control, which suited the corporation because if you wanted control of television you had be controlled on television. Not Rather. On the air he was emotional, volatile, melodramatic. In delivering the news he was never far from a meltdown or misty-eyed moment. This was always odd for network television, and it ended in disaster for CBS.

He also had strange conceits about himself. The most important of these was that Dan Rather, face of the brand, living on Park Avenue and making $6 million a year, was not in fact a man with a glamor position in the media hierarchy, but a hard news, investigative reporter making that extra call to nail down a key fact after everyone else has gone home to watch the game.

Somehow--it was never explained how such a screwy thing happened--he had wound up doing this anchorman job, reading the news every night to the nation, guiding Americans through wars, elections and disasters, forming an intuitive bond with the audience, and representing the people of CBS News as their presenter and champion.

But it wasn't the real him! He kind of regretted that his loyalty to CBS ran so deep that he had to be the public face of its news division and follow in the tradition of Murrow and Cronkite, for it took him away from who he really was and what he really did for a living. The real him was simple: "Dan Rather, reporting." Not a prince of news, or the anchoring intelligence for the big broadcast, not a corporate figure or boss type at all, but a hustling correspondent out in the field who will drop everything for a story and always make the extra call.

* * *

All images of purity that have moral power in American journalism come down to the driven reporter who will not give up until the news comes out. Rather certainly knows this. Last Thursday on Larry King Live (I watched) he was saying, "I have 57 years as an American journalist and I invite anybody to check my record as to whether I'm a reporter or just a 'talking head.'" As Howard Kurtz wrote the next day: "He's not giving up. He feels he has been wronged. He wants to prove it."

The world may call it a lawsuit (and here's the court filing as a pdf file.) In his mind, he's got a "team of people" on the story, subpoena power, and no one can tell him when to pack it in because he's funding the project himself. With nothing to lose, he is free to re-report the Killian Memos story, starting with the mystery man he mentioned on CNN, a shadowy private investigator hired by CBS who may have come into an inconvenient truth:

They had tens of millions of dollars and a lot of time and they said we didn't even investigate whether the documents were true or not. Now, we now know that an investigator was hired by CBS -- what I call a mystery man -- who wasn't even mentioned in the report, had looked into it.

He's intending to do this over, not only Rathergate but the real story of Bush in the Air National Guard. It's not about about one man's legacy, or the money, he said Thursday night. It's about reporters who won't cave in to big government and big corporations. Despite all the obstacles they find--"Larry, sometimes within their own company"--they deliver the truth because our democracy depends on it.

That notion needs a hero. As he told King "Somebody sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive, with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news." Rather is not thinking about how to win a lawsuit; he wants to break a big story: not only collusion between Viacom and the Bush Administration during the crisis in 2004, but the reason for the collusion: his original story was sound, the documents genuine, the charges true!

* * *

I'm with those who think he is crazy. When your own document examiners won't back you up, and your story is about the documents, you have no story. Mary Mapes, Rather's collaborator back then, refuses to recognize that the experts she had relied upon fled the scene. In her commentary on the lawsuit for the Huffington Post, she writes as if none of that had ever happened. Her post is delusional, scary. And I think it's deeply sad that so many Huff Post readers were cheering her on in the comments.

Language Log's Geoff Pullum speaks for me:

Grow up, people. You humiliated yourselves on national TV by accepting documents that could be spotted as forgeries as soon as they were released in facsimile. You were had. You were patsies, you were careless, and you caused enormous damage to the reputation of CBS. You ruined the case for GWB's military irresponsibility and mendacity... You messed up. Deal with it.

As Dan Gillmor says: "The journalistic standard, not just when making a major claim against a sitting president in the middle of a campaign but for all reports that can damage people's reputations, is not whether the other side can prove the documents are fake. It's whether the journalist can persuasively show that they are authentic. CBS failed, miserably, in its duty."

Rather on Larry King proved that he does not grasp Gillmor's point. "Nobody to this day has shown that these documents were fraudulent," he said. "Nobody has proved that they were fraudulent, much less a forgery, which they're often described that way. The facts of the story, the truth of the story stands up to this day."

Please understand: I have no doubt that George W. Bush benefited from favoritism during his service in the National Guard. Those who think that story should have been brought before the American people should be angry at Dan Rather and Mary Mapes for blowing it, big-time.

But theatrically--and in no other way--this suit makes sense for Rather. It puts him back on the big stage as "Dan Rather, reporting." I think he's already written the key scene, where a major wrong is put spectacularly right.

KING: When you have a lawsuit like this, there are major -- there's depositions. A lot comes out.

RATHER: Right.

KING: They've got the chance to question you.

Is there anything...

RATHER: I welcome it.

KING: You're not worried about anything?

RATHER: Well, you know, I'm not going to sit here and tell you I'm not worried about anything. But I'm the person who stepped forward and said, OK, I'm ready to go under oath.

KING: Yes, you did.

RATHER: I'm ready to be deposed.

The question is, are they?

Theatricality: without it you cannot hope to understand Dan Rather.

Comments

[dadw5boys]

Lets watch as Dan closes noose around the Bush's range. Dan has finally cornered the elusive swift boating Bush. Now with his guns at the ready he steps into the open to get a clean shot. He can only hope the other ANIMALS around the Washington D.C. watering hole will not charge him again like last time. When Dan has a clear shot expect others game like the SCOOTER BIRD to fly up and take a bullet or the MYERS HYENA will charge to scatter the Congressional Hawks to distract Dan from his shot.
The Bush is unpredictable after years of ROVING he always seems to have a trick up his sleeve to slip away from danger.
We can fully expect the to hear the thundering hooks of the CHENY BEAST charge when Dan starts getting too close for comfort.
SHHHH.

[Janco54]

Oh boy. The popcorn is on me.
Go for it Dan. Tell the world. Get the story out. I'm counting on it being a blockbuster.

[BOAI]

There was a very informative article in Vanity a year or two ago about this. A wonderful overview of what went on at the news channel. Long live a free press. Go get um Dan.

[rovezaleeker]

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

The story is as water tight as a frog's butthole. Bush was AWOL. Bush is a liar and an egomaniac with an inferiority complex. Bush was a cheerleader at Yale and got gentleman's C's because of who his daddy was. Bush is not a cowboy or a rancher. And it really frost's most American right wing "patriots" when guys like Hugo Chavez and Vincente Fox and Fidel Castro call the little turd out. It's so easy for these guys to see what a failure we put in the Oval Office. Why do we live in such denial? It's like a whole country of alcoholics. Please stop blaming Dan Rather for pointing out what needed to be pointed out years ago. George Bush is a liar, a sociopath, an alky and a chickenhawk son-of-a-bitch. It's time for America to face it and deal with it. What an embarassment.

[Manx]

Anyone who writes about Dan Rather's ego, his lucrative salary and calls him "crazy," reveals nothing more than professional jealousy.

Poor, helpless CBS, Les Moonves and Sumner Redway must be proud.

[outnow]

Lawsuits can be entirely political such as the Paula Jones suit.

The news is often just propaganda. Are you protesting the Fox News or just Dan Rather's lawsuit?

The issue is whether George W. Bush lied about his military record while attacking others; Dan Rather wants the process of discovery to be used in that inquiry.

News reporting lacks the engine of cross-examination to effectively expose the spin.

I am glad that Dan Rather will use real depositions and subpoenas and experts to get at the truth about him and about Mr. Bush.

The press has failed to ferret out the truth. Journalists are more concerned about their jobs with the big corporations they serve. They have to belong to the press corp to continue to receive their big salaries.

Government propaganda relies on this inadequate system while suppressing the truth. I have not seen the testimony of any real experts on this very important issue of the military record of our Commander in Chief. The complicit behavior of the press is one of the major causes of our quagmire in Iraq where actual people are killed every day. Nothing can be more important than this.

[GenericBlogger]

outnow,

I agree governments hide, obfuscate, lie, suppress, etc.

Watergate was probably the most famous case of political hide and seek in the 20th Century but it was solved by only two reporters with the help of a whistle blower.

If the story of Dubya in Texas National Guard has that much factual basis, why didn't anyone else pursue it? Why did this happen only to CBS?

[Binx101]

For precisely the reason that you stated in your own writing above. It was the Washington Post that stuck with the story - and there was incredible pressure for them to abandon it. There was no one else running with it until it was safe and out there.

CBS's actions created a radioactivity about it and largely because this is now lost in a sea of more deadly and awful decisions being made daily by this administration. It would be akin to worrying about the sharks in a tidal wave.

[GenericBlogger]

Jay,

Your assessment is the most accurate and reasonable I have read so far. I watched Dan Rather report before Cronkite retired and as an anchor or anchor-reporter (as he fancied himself) afterwards. A series of events involving him diminished my respect till I refused to watch the CBS Evening News since the late 90s. Occasional channel excursions to CBS resulted in short glimpses.

Rather was the anti-Cronkite behind the anchor desk. Figuratively speaking, he was a cowboy and if he could have gotten away with it, he would have probably worn a Stetson with his verbal Texisms as the crowning jewels.

Rather is trying to secure some sort of personal legacy by suing CBS while resurrecting the National Guard story as his weapon. He doesn't realize the weapon is a boomerang that can turn back and knock him out.

By resurrecting Dubya's National Guard story, Rather stirs emotions and the emotional agree with his cause because he touches their nerves and angst. Most don't wish Rather success to regain his reputation, instead they wish him success foolishly thinking a judgment against CBS will scare away corporate owners from the news media. Others wish Rather success so the truth about Dubya will be revealed. Rather appears to be the one eyed king or the blind leading the blind.

Dan Rather's struggle touches and provokes emotions on related controversial issues such as the Iraq War, non-journalistic corporate ownership of news organizations, the MSM's kid glove treatment and pandering of government, Dubya's administration, Dubya's personal credibility, etc. Rather's struggle raised sentimental support in the blogosphere. He may ride on those sentimental waves into the meeting room with CBS and all the lawyers but it remains to be seen if that sentimental support will translate to litigation success.

I think Rather could have made a stronger case by writing a book and making money with a great deal more certainty than a risky flighty $70 million law suit. At least the book would be in homes and libraries for many to read well into the future.

[Manx]

You don't see the forest for the trees. Dan Rather is addressing one of the most important issues of our times - the indepence of journalism from the combined influence of corporations and politicians - and you zero in on Dan Rather's ego. That Dan Rather's ego was inseparable from the news he reported has become a tired and stale cliche among media people. I think it reflects a lot of professional jealousy.

This story isn't about Dan Rather's ego or his big salary - it's about the dangers of corporate and political collusion to the detriment of journalism.

And you exaggerate when you say that Dan Rather was "emotional, volatile and melodramatic." Right, how dare Dan Rather exhibit real human characteristics. You must be very happy with the slick, emotionless robotons who dominate TV news today.

For a journalism teacher, you have a lot to learn.

[elion10]

Two sentences of this blog say volumes..

The author says both "I am with those who think (Rather) is crazy (for bringing a lawsuit) .."

and..

"I have no doubt George W.Bush benefited from favoritisn during his service with the National Gaurd."

So Rather is "crazy" and the author is what? Psychic?

Either Rather's reporting independently convinced the blogger of the fact of Bush's favorable treatment (despite the attack on the underlying documents) or the guy just "KNOWS" things..

Now who sounds crazy?

[Binx101]

Great point!

And his friend the Shill that posted the lofty laudatory reply here should be ashamed of himself for sacrificing the truth because Rosen got his butt handed to him here for writing a sub-standard, unsubstantiated and rather (no pun) poorly reasoned piece in order to say he doesn't like Rather.

You don't like him, say it. Rosen had no business opining a legal an implied legal position. My guess - they settle without a trial. CBS can't take any more media hits for being conservative lackeys because the public has had about enough of Redstone's distemper. He's like a lite version of the wholly self-absorbed Jack Welch.

[westwind]

Being unable to prove that a photocopied document is genuine is very different from proving that it was forged. That allowed CBS to distance itself from the story and its own high-profile anchor, in the face of administration criticism. Anybody who doesn't live in Neoconland knows the truth of what the disputed documents purport to show, but are too scared to say so publicly lest they suffer the pressure of those who resist.

[NABNYC]

I disagree.

One of the most devastating tactics of the right-wing in this country has been to change the very assumptions we apply to ourselves and our fellow citizens. For example, instead of assuming that we have the right to vote, the right-wing demands that we prove it in court. Instead of assuming that we have the right in our persons and our homes to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right-wing leads people to say that if you are a good person, you don't have anything to hide, so if you object to having your home bugged you must be a terrorist.

The list goes on. We used to assume that people were innocent until proven guilty, were legally entitled to be advised of any charges and evidence, to have counsel, to demand a trial. Not anymore. Now under Bush/Cheney the assumption is that they can pick you up and disappear you forever without charges, without rights, without counsel, without trial.

Boy oh boy things have changed.

As for employment, it used to be the law that long-term employees were presumed entitled to continue to be employed. Not anymore. Now that the courts are packed with right-wing judges, the law of the land is that any employer may fire any employee at any time for no reason whatsoever. The employer's right to humiliate, demean, and destroy an employee's life is part of the right-wing credo.

Dan Rather doesn't have to justify his lawsuit. We still have the right sue in the courts, although the right-wing is trying to take that away as well.

Why not start with the assumption that any employer must use good faith in trying to allow an employee to continue with the company. I think Rather was a scapegoat. I also think he was set up. But even if he made a mistake, as a long-term employee his employer owed him a fiduciary duty to continue to employ him and to avoid taking steps that might destroy his life.

A somewhat different viewpoint.

[GenericBlogger]

NABNYC wrote "Dan Rather doesn't have to justify his lawsuit. We still have the right sue in the courts, although the right-wing is trying to take that away as well."

According to our civil law code, the burden of proof is assigned to the plaintiff, Dan Rather. He has to demonstrate damages incurred.

[NABNYC]

Well, actually, in a wrongful termination lawsuit the burden shifts back and forth. Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to prove a defense, or disprove one of plaintiff's elements. If the employer succeeds in that phase, then the burden shifts again back to the plaintiff to prove his case.

But I didn't say anything about the burden of proof. I used the word "justify." Dan Rather does not need to justify his decision to sue. And he should not be asked to do so. He was a long-term employee. The point I'm making is that long-term employees should be presumed to have the right to continued employment. In this case, as in most cases, there undoubtedly were many factors influencing the termination. I'm glad it will be brought out into the open. Again, I think he was set up by the Republicans, and I hope he proves his case and gets a huge punitive damage award.

I would like to know all communications between any white house representatives and CBS or their attorneys. I would like to see the CBS management political contributions. How about benefits received by CBS as the result of the Bush regime laws. Wouldn't we all like to see Karl Rove deposed as to his knowledge? Maybe Rove should be asked about his connection with that male prostitute what's-his-name. How about deposing Cheney and Bush? Wouldn't we all like to know another way in which the Bush Regime has lied to the public, distorted the "news," and stolen elections?

[kroses98]

I say "AMEN" to "NABNYC." I agree with you 100%. There seem to be a lot of RIGHT-WING TROLLS on this board today, but they will not change the subject of this story for me. For me, it is about at least ONE PERSON in this DIRTY, CALLOUS, MEAN-SPIRITED country, attempting to take on the "Corporate Media," and its corrupt "boot-licking," "sucking-up," and "shilling" for the Bush administration, and the lying everyone had to do to get their so-called "leader" to the head of the pack in the first place! I say thank you, Dan Rather. Sure he's "emotional." So am I, when I see my country in the shape that it is in! Besides, he is a Scorpio!

[Judd16]

Dude, I have a document that says you beat your wife. Now it is up to you to prove that you don't.
It is not up to Bush to prove these docs are fakes, it is up to Rather to prove they aren't, and guess what, he can't and didn't.

[Dirck]

"One of the things that's always troubled me about blogs is that sometimes "expert" opinions pass unchallenged. If I recall correctly, one of the "proofs" that some of the Bush documents had been faked was that they contained proportional spacing, which supposedly wouldn't have been available at the time. This naked, unsupported assertion was never seriously challenged."

The veracity of the memos wasn't just an issue of proportional line spacing or superscripts.

The issue was that the typeface, font size, kerning (space between letters), vertical line spacing, line length (where the carriage returns were inserted) and margin width were all EXACTLY THE SAME AS ARE PRODUCED BY THE DEFAULT SETTINGS IN MICROSOFT WORD 1998 RUNNING ON A PC.

Sit down with a copy of that program with all the default settings and type out the memos and you will have a perfect replica. Wont work with Word on a Mac, wont work with a PC running Corel WordPerfect or even Word 2007. Lines a little closer or farther apart, a line will end too soon, or too late, letters on adjacent lines wont line up the same way.

The reason the press (particularly CBS) have mumbled something about "not having 100% proof" the documents were fakes, and the reason no one has followed up is because its so obviously false.

I can assure you - if anyone can produce any piece of equipment (other than the industry-standard PC running the industry-standard word-processing program in use by 100s of millions at that time) and generate a replica of the memos that's even close they will be heroes in the media.

One section of the bloggosphere did a little leg work and raised enough questions about the story to bring down rather.

Rather than simply whining about some conspiracy why dont the doubters do a little work of their own? The fact is the few that have are no longer doubters.

http://tinyurl.com/yrxbsr

[TheOtherMaven]

Dirck: Just one problem with your assertion. There is not and never has been a "Microsoft Word 1998" for the PC. That is specifically a Macintosh version of Word. I know. I own both a PC and a Mac.

Did YOU do your own research to verify the "information"? I think NOT!

Whoever sold you that bill of goods didn't know what he was talking about and was in all probability a Bushrovian stooge.

[gardengoddess]

The BBC ran the exact same information 6 months or so before Rather did his story on Howdy Doody. That's where Rather got the idea for his story. The BBC has not retracted ONE WORD of their story, despite pressure from the RNC and the Bush administration. Why? BECAUSE THE STORY IS TRUE!!!!

CBS is owned by Westinghouse. Westinghouse has more than a couple of very lucrative no-bid defense contracts. Anyone care to guess why they got them?

[GenericBlogger]

Are you sure CBS is still owned by Westinghouse?

[Binx101]

Positive - except Westinghouse officially changed the name of the entity to CBS some years ago when Michael Jordon was still CEO.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

I can only applaud Dan Rather's courage to take on the Bush Dictatorship.... he is one of the FEW actually willing to do it.

If you all think that Rather "made up" the letters... you are as easily led as those who voted for Bush.

I can't imagine what we'd learn if H. Miers didn't shred all the documents showing Bush to be a coward, liar, drunk, druggie and an all around A$%hole. What more can all those destoryed documents tell us about our "leader?"

Go Dan!!

[Sseb]

ConcernedAboutRFuture, you forgot "Cokehead".