Thank You Dan Rather
Thank you Dan Rather. It's balls to the wall time, and as a fellow Texan, you sure came through.
As an investigative journalist who worked as both a reporter and anchor for the San Francisco Bay Area's highest rated newscast for 22 years, I can only say what happened to you nationally was also happening locally. You were told to conform to a Republican agenda or shut up. When you refused to march in step, you got Bush-whacked.
I read your brief and I know the drill. The erosion was slow and many of us barely noticed the small chiseling away of who and what we once were. Anchors and reporters depend on high ratings. If ratings fall in television, people get fired. In the months following 9/11, the President's approval rating was 86 percent, and that's when many in commercial journalism lost their way. To disagree or even ask a disagreeable question regarding the President and his decisions was interpreted as disloyal by many media corporations.
But now we have learned. Get the trashcan ready to catch the chips, because the chisel is swinging back the other way and we as journalists are about to regain our voices and America's trust. Dan - the Man - as we call him in Texas is reminding the media conglomerates how it is supposed to work. News and those who report it are not supposed to be for sale. Dan remembers, and he's about to explain it to us on a national scale, but first some explanations from my field of vision as to how we got here.
On January 2003, President Bush delivered his State of the Union address. Osama bin Laden turned into Saddam Hussein, and Afghanistan turned into Iraq. The press knew this was a bait and switch, but fearing reporters and anchors might appear unpatriotic, the corporate media made it clear that even if George W. Bush played twister in the nude while a few sheets to the wind instead of going to constitutional law classes at Yale, we were not allowed to talk about it.
Viacom and CBS, according to Dan, wanted to curry favor with the White House. There are very few media conglomerates that didn't. Cox Broadcasting banned the Dixie Chicks from radio stations because their lead singer made a remark under her breath criticizing the president! Not wanting to appear unpatriotic, the town criers did not cry out. Many corporate media reporters became stenographers, not reporters on that State of the Union day. Those in television journalism, particularly those working for a Fox affiliate, were not allowed to ask questions that could be perceived as unpatriotic, and every question was seen as unpatriotic. Monarchs and dictators don't allow questions. They also destroy those who speak ill of them. "Scooter - Valerie." "Rove - Anyone." Blackwater was running around in the name of the United States shooting first and asking questions later like third world rebels, and back at home, Fox became the fastest growing network with fearless leaders who believed in not only reporting the news but spinning it as well.
Just seven years ago, I looked up from my desk and saw my image on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour as our staff of independent journalists was described as the best local news in the country. But war broke out and the Internet took off and all over the country local news ratings dropped as viewers turned to the national networks for news from the war fronts. Contrary to all logical thinking, local reporters looked at their retirement plans and their kids in college and promptly puckered their lips on the behinds of corporate media and smooched. If my kids were still in college I would not have the courage to write this now. In response to fewer viewers, local television panicked into a downward spiral and many a trusting viewer decided to go elsewhere. Corporate media was demanding reporters adapt to the point of our own extinction.
Morphed into propaganda machines - cheerleaders with pompoms - it was heartbreaking to watch the demise and media corporations always bass-akwards responses. With two wars on two fronts they decided to go "Local." Only local news. The war and the profound implications of it were relegated to 30 second stories buried deep into the newscast. (they don't need to know about that.--but there's a grass fire up the road!) If that's not manipulation, I don't know what is.
Here are some other sad results of this corporate bullying toward some of the best journalist in the country:
Anchors and reporters stopped asking why. The corporate media demanded nationalism without skepticism, believing ratings would fall further if reporters did their jobs.
Anchors and reporters starting taking their stories from satellite feeds coming directly to their desks and then standing in front of a chroma key delivering a story they did not collect and sometimes did not write. If viewers think every newscast looks the same that's why. It is.
Anchors and reporters allowed chroma key pictures of conflict areas to appear behind them giving viewers the false impression they were on the scene of the conflict instead of demanding to be sent there. Some could not even point out on the map behind them where the conflict was.
Anchors and reporters allowed management to hire entertainment reporters and producers. It's cheaper to entertain than to inform because an informed public makes wakes from slumber and makes noise.
Anchors and reporters began allowing precious hours meant for journalism to be filled with helicopter shots of the latest grassfire, traffic jam, or car chase, ala O.J.
Anchors and reporters allowed news directors and sales people to dictate their "look." Good journalism does not have a "look."
Anchors and reporters did not fight back when their investigative pieces were dropped. Managers feared losing advertising dollars and reporters acquiesced.
Anchors and reporters and producers agreed to story counts. Tell the story no matter how complicated in thirty seconds - throwing random and massive amounts of information at viewers without context.
Anchors and reporters started wearing American flags on their lapels. Some of whom never voted in any election.
Anchors and reporters began using genetically altered language: "War on Terrorism," without explaining that many people in the world think Americans are the terrorists.
Anchors and reporters started referring to the United States government as "We."
Anchors and reporters were handed press releases regarding corporate "mishaps" and began reading them verbatim. Like so: "Blank Oil Company had an explosion today; shelter in place, close the doors and windows, and don't go outside. However, the 'You've Got To Be Kidding Me Oil Company' says everything is fine."
Anchors and reporters agreed to report news that was already reported in newspapers and radio. Doing their own stories or advancing others creates controversy and potential lawsuits, betraying the sacred oath of corporate cronyism.
Anchors and reporters agreed to be physically altered in photographs, and airbrushed with make-up like playboy bunnies, as the media corporations ignored the news and invested in High Definition - hoping a grassfire on HD might look like news.
Anchors and reporters started advertising. "If you liked that story there will be more at six." "If you want to get more information go to www. you're_an_idiot.com. Makes you just want to scream: I'm here now; tell me now!
Anchors and reporters allowed producers to lead with Annie Nicole Smith instead of the "Scooter" Libby trial - making it clear that all sense of proportion and good judgment had been lost.
Corporations in this country are always a reflection of those in the White House. This White House is the Wild West, and corporations, even those who are charged with helping the public gain knowledge, are mining for gold. But today, when we had almost given up, Dan put his holster on.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thanks for saying it HERE. Now go and say it OUT THERE for all to see.
What is evident is that the news media, in relation to any presidential administration --or any other political entity --needs to be the stand-offish mavericks to be courted. Not, the panting,at
You want coverage, you want exposure? Earn it, lowly, public-servant, US government employee-types.
Leslie,
I watched you when I lived in the Bay Area. I hope you become a regular here on Huffington Post. Thank you for your insight, more people like you need to speak up.
Before Dan was booted, CBS was showing signs of following Viacoms lead to support Republican policies. ABC has lately become more and more blatant in showing a far right drift. NBC, to date, has been the least swayed by the BUSHIES. Perhaps the hoped for swing to reason will really happen, in politics and in TV corporate attitudes to news. As long as reporters have a lot to lose, they are controlled. If not overtly , then by their own fear of loss.
"NBC, to date, has been the least swayed by the BUSHIES." ???
Bull shit, they are all crap!
its just unfortunate this will all be forgotten once Hillary Clinton gets into the white house. that very same corporate media has already annointed her president and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. they'll have their way, as they always do. unfortunately, Ms. Griffith, they are laughing at you right now and counting their money
Yes, dammit, Ebbasta, there is a way we can stop it.....two
1. Votes: in the primaries; in the congressionals (incumbents out); in the presidential.
2. Boycott: Products advertised on the offending networks and "communications" companies.
We must publicize WHY we are voting and boycotting as we are so that they will know.
Extreme measures? Partly yes.
Extreme situation? We are on the edge of the collapse of our democracy.
We have to do more than that. We need to bring back anti-trust laws to prevent large conglomerates from owning and controlling every aspect of the MSM. Do what the government did to A T & T...make them break back up into manageable units. Start with Rupert Murdoch...
Wow. Huge! First of, big and humble thank you. This is real courage. Better late than never, rings so true in this case. Second, I cannot lie that I'm deeply disappointed that you (and hundreds of other reporters, thousands when we count newspapers also) you did not do it when it counted most. Because you knew better all along. As one protester that didn't sit and watch, or acquiese watching the historic massacre get cooked, and simmer, I'm letting it out on you - you were doing our enemy's job (the freaks at the white house, and republican policy idiots, are the bigger enemy and not some fanatic caveman in a tribal nowhere land.)
But I know this is a better time for coming out and reconciliation with one's mis-deeds. You did the hard part and broke the poisonous umbilical chord finally!
To me the lesson is this: When we all cower we all get it up the butt!
In order to be better prepared for the next (there will be one, we're not even out from this one) I seriously hope you become the example for a few more local and national newsreporters. You can't all be same league as the ignorant big mouthed bigots.
You did it! and I bet if feels much better.
Matt
The cowardice of the media has cost this country big time. It seems strange that that they didn't ban together and refuse to be silenced. There is safety in numbers. You would have made an impression.
But that's all in the past. The question is what are you planning to do to prevent this from happening again?
The reporters could have banded together, but it is their bosses that call all the shots. The boards that run corporations like Viacom are all still the same people, and they will continue to represent theirs and the Bush government's interests to the detriment of our democracy.
AMEN to Matt!
I truly appluad anyone who has the guts to leave a well paying job (and the security that it brings to those of us who do not have significant savings or the ability to get another like job at the drop of a hat)when they feel their integrity ar risk. That is one of the most noble things anyone can do; put yourself in danger (maybe not physical, but still danger) in lieu of doing something that you do not agree with.
Do you think that the original story run by Dan was thoroughly vetted and fact-checked? If there were potential issues of font (and the like,) and the story being based on more heresay versus 100% provable facts, was that perfectly clear from the start of the report? Were mulitple sources used (and vetted for accuracy and the potential that they had an ax to grind) and did the other side get a reasonable chance to review the information and give their account(s)?
I have since heard conflicting stories regarding the ability or inability for machines to use the 'th' after a number, as well as, there was 1 or 2 models that could do it but they were either very rare or the military did not use them at that time) so I am still unsure which is correct. That being said, I do not remember the story saying anything like that, thus does that omission lend credability or detract from credability?
Great article, a bit 11th hour but better late than never.
Obviously the (only? best? most obvious?) solution is to get the money away from the MSM news agencies. IANATAADPOOTV (I am not a tax attorney and don't play one on television), but any thoughts on the implications of, say, Westinghouse spinning the CBS news org off as a non-profit, funded by tax-deductible donations from the parent company and run by an oversight board with controlled membership, perhaps one large corporate seat, one small business seat, one technology seat, one ACLU/EFF seat, one federal government seat, one education seat, one parent group seat, etc, etc? Westinghouse would be the 'ad broker', and would sell and place commercials (as they do now), take the advertising revenue, cover operating expenses and a cut for profit and funnel the rest back to the news org.
That way, the news org still has a revenue stream to cover operating expenses and Westinghouse still gets a cut (a percentage of ad revenue plus a tax deduction on the $$ funneled to CBS News--seems like a smaller share for Westinghouse, but remember: CBS News now does not need a profit, they just have to pay the bills, and Westinghouse gets the rest), but the money is delineated from the reporting; as a market function, one would assume that reporters would them be free to, well...rep
Thank YOU Leslie Griffith! Thank YOU for having the guts to speak the truth! Every single thing you have said is the absolute truth. I can only speak as a "viewer" of news - but I saw with my own eyes that about 7 years ago news stopped being news!
Now, TV is strickly for propaganda and dumbing down the American public. It's the slow drip of disinformation -it's the slow drip that brainwashs those who watch. Now, when people (the general public) talks about what's in the news they're just repeating talking points as if they are all zombies -it's because they ARE zombies.
Karl Rove is a propagandist -he always has been and he always will be. He study Nazi propaganda and has used it EVERYDAY since he's been working for the GOP (and Bush specifically!). Don't take my word for it do some research on your own.
Turn off your TVs everyone -it's making you stupid!
"They're just repeating talking points as if they are all zombies."
YES, and even worse, they exchange views on their favorite commercials.
POTUS candidates are raising money for media buys. The money goes to big-media outfits. To get that money or as a return favor, said media outfits run favorable coverage. At the very least, they run 'shiny red ball' distraction pieces like the endless missing-white-girl stories rather than actual, relevant, investigative journalism. It's a process. It's our country. Nothing is real. Nothing matters. For example, it's 87 degrees in Harrisburg PA today. Our local weather-clown will tell us to 'enjoy it while we can', as if it's a gift. As if it's not horrifying that Al Gore's calculations spot-on and we are all in seriously deep shit.
Our democracy is gone - sold - and you probably cut a check to Bush 1, 2 or 3 or Clinton 1, 2 or 3 enabling the purchase.
well said!
Okay, I'll try this again.
Leslie, I believe this is the real reason you left your position. That took courage, and I applaud you. It's too bad your ex-coanchor won't do the same because I think his words would carry a lot of weight.
I've said this a couple of times already, but I'm going to say it again: RATHER'S STORY WAS TRUE. The BBC in England ran the same story a few months earlier, and despite heavy pressure from the White House and Tony Blair, they have yet to retract ONE WORD of their story - BECAUSE IT'S TRUE!
I too have stopped watching "news" from the self-proclaimed mainstream media. I read the Guardian UK daily, plus English versions of several foreign newspapers, I watch BBC America and still watch Jim Leherer from time to time. I do watch a couple of the Sunday morning programs, but find myself being more and more distrustful of them.
I pick up a lot of info on Truthout which reprints articles from news outlets worldwide.
you're right -Dan Rather's story about Bush going AWOL is COMPLETELY & ENTIRELY TRUE! He was purposefully given that fake doc...but the "story" remains true no matter how hard Rove and his criminal gang spin it!!
Karl Rove IS the modern day Joseph Goebbels!
So ... Karl Rove secretly gave CBS a forged document so it would explode in Dan Rather's face? Is that your explanation?
Not -- Dan Rather rushed to judgment
Not -- The reporters investigating the story wanted something juicy and they latched onto a forgery
Not -- CBS showed considerable unprofessionalism by not properly vetting the sources
Is that your take on the story?
"We're through the looking glass, people."
I have to say, now that I've calmed down, my previous comment is a bit harsh, let me backtrack.
Our guys in Iraq are not risking their careers or retirement plans, they are risking their LIVES every day.
(And the guy with a zit on his butt and drug addictions and a huge, uninformed audience, gets away with calling them "phony!")
Yes, we should ALL speak out. But let's face it, some of us have much louder voices than others. Like, God bless 'em, The Dixie Chicks.
Carry on.
Can't wait to read your book!
It is easy criticize the journalists for their lack of courage.
My best clients are family owned corporations that tend to be very conservative.
Living in a small town, when I write letters to the editor about Bush policies, I do so knowing that a large portion of my potential income is at stake. An offended client may simply not call me again. So I know just how the journalists feel. It is the same feeling that those bureaucrats have as they do the bidding of these maniacs. It is a sickly, bad feeling. But, by not openly and vehemently protesting their crimes we become complicit.
I've had that feeling, too, writing editorials for a small-town newspaper at the time of the Iraq invasion, saying that the result would be a bloody occupation and a historic disaster. But it had it be done, despite the vicious Republicans who tried to get me fired. I felt utterly alone. And I've never been prouder of anything I've ever done. Everything I predicted in those editorials has since occurred.
By the way, it didn't take the proverbial rocket scientist to figure out what would happen in Iraq. Any independent, critical thinker who was honest with himself and the public could handle the job.
I fully understand your situation, but you are not a jouralist. For the so-called jouralist, it should be different. Supposedly, they became reporters to actually report, not just repeat. Jouralists should understand that as the 4th estate, they have an important responsibility to the public. A truly free press stands between us and an out of control government, as a forth arm in the balance of power.
Their income requirements and job security should be secondary to their responsibilties. If it isn't, they should seek employment in another field.
I too wrote a letter to the editor that was published in the ultra Pro-Republican Detroit News, back during the rush to war, before it started. And like ProfessorDuh, everything I wrote came to pass or turned out to be the verified truth, and I too was not a fortune teller or foreign policy scholar. Just a better than average informed citizen who shunned the MSM. What is most frustrating to me however is that now, when I remind relatives with whom I argued these issues (to say 'I told you so, @sshole'), a funny thing happens. They all say that they never thought Bush was right in attacking Iraq or that he has been less than a great President, or some variation on that theme. In fact some go as far as saying that Bush was not responsible for starting the Iraq war. What they will never admit is just how much they were marching to the war drums themselves. They've blocked that out of their memories and have already set about rewriting their own personal histories. I think future psychology students will spend years studying this phenomena.
I for one will never let the chickenhawks forget where they stood relative to those of us who chose the unpopular stance of sticking up for what was right. I will also never let them forget just how responsible they are for all the hell that has been unleashed on America and the rest of the world.
Good for you, John. Even if we lose this fight, and American principles are lost to fascism, you and I won't be the ones who goddamn lost them.
It's about time one journalist steps up to the plate and actually admits that the press took a dive when real news happened after 9/11 and involved the Bush Administration.
I would add the internet and blogs have done much to start to turn that around. The average American is beginning to hold news networks to a better standard than we have seen in the past 6 years or they go elsewhere.
Now it would be fair play if all of those networks told their talented journalists to just go get the story and report the truth to America. What a refreshing idea!
Helen Thomas seems to have been one reporter that never got the memo! To Helen, Dan and others that stand up and say enough is enough we salute you.
Hear! Hear! Helen Thomas, one of the last great ones!
Yes. Hats off to Helen.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
