Blumenthal defends Rather

Dan, you’re misreading Blumenthal’s piece when you say that it is “based on the false premise that it’s somehow necessary to rehabilitate Rather in order to believe George W. Bush did not fulfill his National Guard service in the early 1970s.” I think we all understand that it is possible for reporters, producers and editors to thoroughly botch a story that just so happens to be essentially true. What Blumenthal is saying is that Rather’s suit will reveal corporate-level capitulation to the White House and congressional Republicans. What I am saying is that perhaps instead of narrowing your focus on Rather and kicking him while he’s down, you should examine the issues Blumenthal raises regarding Viacom’s conflict of interest in the matter and CBS’s absurd “investigation,” carrried out a by a panel headed by two Bush family friends. That regardless of whatever Rather’s and Mapes’ failings may have been, they are scapegoats, not villains.What seems to inflame you the most is the idea that Rather may essentially have functioned as a reader or narrator on this story (or as you put it, “nothing more than a trained monkey”). On the 60 Minutes programs, Rather served as a host as well as a reporter. While it’s not clear to me just what Rather’s level of involvement was on this story, I thought it was fairly typical in such arrangements to be more directly involved in the news gathering and reporting of some stories than of others. While you heap scorn and derision on Dan Rather over stuff like this, the corporate suits who made this story go away and helped re-elect Bush are still dictating what we do and don’t see on CBS news.[I am Anon. 9:59, as well as Anon. 11:17, Anon. 5:37, and Anon. 5:40.]

Boehlert puts in his two cents here.I’m a bit surprised this story has generated so much interest, but maybe that has more to do with my reading habits than whether the story is really resonating nationally.I have to take issue with one thing Boehlert focuses on:”Rather [claims], correctly, that nobody has ever proven that the memos he used in his report were fake”.That argument is specious at best. It’s up to Rather to prove the authenticity of the documents that back his claim, not for someone else to prove they’re fake.And it’s pretty late in the day to be arguing Bush’s “military service”. Bush is never facing election again, so what does his standing matter to anyone except historians?

Steve: Boehlert wrote, “That’s not so surprising considering they spent two entire presidential campaign cycles doing their best to avoid the Guard story. (The primary exception was Walter Robinson at The Boston Globe, who nailed the story in 2000, only to watch his mainstream colleagues collectively ignore it.) The CBS controversy in 2004 simply provided the cover journalists needed to walk away from the story, and it’s the same cover they cling to today.”Sounds like I wrote it — in the Phoenix right after it happened, and in the Guardian last week. I’m genuinely puzzled by what the issue is, unless I’m somehow not allowed to criticize Rather without including a couple of obligatory paragraphs about the evils of CBS and George W. Bush.

It’s too bad that you’re more interested in ideological correctness than terrible journalism.

I’m very much concerned about bad journalism. And I don’t expect you to take ideology into consideration in critiquing bad journalism.Rather and Mapes committed some bad journalism specifically in regard to those documents. But there is something perverse in what you’re saying – it’s as though because of their mistake in what was otherwise a sound story, they, and we, got what we deserve. It took a massive wave of cowardly self-censorhip throughout most of the MSM to kill the Bush-Guard story. You can’t blame that on Dan Rather. Any reporter or editor who looked at the details could understand that the story was essentially true regardless of the suspicious nature of those documents. It’s not “ideological correctness” to point out that the White House, not Dan Rather, killed this story with the cooperation of the corporate media.And it’s not excusing bad journalism to hope Rather’s lawsuit will shed more light on the truth.

Dan – I don’t begrudge you your criticism of Rather and Mapes, not at all. And the silence of the media (other than Robinson) on this story in 2000 and 2004 was striking. CBS took its shot, at least.Like I’ve said, I doubt the suit will reveal much in the way of “evil” conspiracies. But Rove has sure managed this story extraordinarily well through Bush’s political career.It’s possible that something interesting might come out of this trial, but I doubt Rather will come out of this suit looking good. After all, if there *is* a media conspiracy, look who’s going to be doing the reporting and judging in the court of public opinion!

Mike,If your client had anything to do with Audis, the 60 Minutes fiasco resulted in depreciation expenses to owners that have not yet recovered, 20-some years later. Great car, bad rap. (I have owned about 10 of them). That owners whose investment was harmed did not institute a class action law suit against CBS has always puzzled me. Supermarkets, cars, these guys love exposes. Shouldn’t they be exposed to the same level of scrutiny as the Herald?

Mike, it’s not that simple. The CBS piece was strong without the disputed documents. They were unnecessary icing on an otherwise sound story.