Why You Shouldn’t Be Laughing At Dan Rather
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on September 28th, 2007 in Bush Man Date, Corruption, MediaI really hadn’t been paying much attention to the Dan Rather lawsuit. Somewhere at the back of my mind I had registered that people were ridiculing the lawsuit, and him for filing it. And then I came across Sidney Blumenthal’s story on Salon.com. It not only got my attention, it now has me cheering from the sidelines.
But let’s start with WaPo’s Howard Kurtz’s story from September 20, to set the scene. Apart from producing a total hatchet job, Kurtz has the poor taste to insert himself into his story:
I was extremely surprised by Dan Rather’s lawsuit yesterday, but not as stunned as the CBS people I called, who just simply could not believe it.
No one was shocked that Rather is still mad at CBS — he made that clear when he left the network last year, and more recently when he took that swipe at his old show being tarted up under Katie Couric.
[…]
But that the man who succeeded Walter Cronkite, who was the face of CBS News for 25 years, would turn around and sue, rather than moving on with his life — that was one heck of an eye-opener.
All that was just preamble; only after that does world famous master journalist Howard Kurtz start his report. I’m not going to dignify the report by actually quoting proper chunks. Broken bits and pieces will give the flavor quite adequately: “In an extraordinary move that reflects the depth of his resentment toward his former network … former colleagues said they were baffled by the move. “I think he’s gone off the deep end,” said Josh Howard … CBS brushed off the suit, which alleges fraud and breach of contract, with a single sentence … ”
In short, Kurtz does not think very highly of Rather or his lawsuit.
That was Howard Kurtz, of whom it could quite fairly be said that he does not think, period. So how about someone who can and does? That would be Sidney Blumenthal:
Dan Rather’s complaint against CBS and Viacom, its parent company, filed in New York state court on Sept. 19 and seeking $70 million in damages for his wrongful dismissal as “CBS Evening News” anchor, has aroused hoots of derision from a host of commentators. They’ve said that the former anchor is “sad,” “pathetic,” “a loser,” on an “ego” trip and engaged in a mad gesture “no sane person” would do …
If the court accepts his suit, however, launching the adjudication of legal issues such as breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract, it will set in motion an inexorable mechanism that will grind out answers to other questions as well. Then Rather’s suit will become an extraordinary commission of inquiry into a major news organization’s intimidation, complicity and corruption under the Bush administration. No congressional committee would be able to penetrate into the sanctum of any news organization to divulge its inner workings. But intent on vindicating his reputation, capable of financing an expensive legal challenge, and armed with the power of subpoena, Rather will charge his attorneys to interrogate news executives and perhaps administration officials under oath on a secret and sordid chapter of the Bush presidency.
In making his case, Rather will certainly establish beyond reasonable doubt that George W. Bush never completed his required service in the Texas Air National Guard. Moreover, Rather’s suit will seek to demonstrate that the documents used in his “60 Minutes II” piece were not inauthentic and that he and his producers acted responsibly in presenting them and the information they contained — and that that information is true. Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story.
Most cases of this sort are usually settled before discovery. But Rather has made plain that he is uninterested in a cash settlement. He has filed his suit precisely to be able to take depositions.
This promises to be hugely entertaining and wonderfully satisfying.
Among other things, Rather’s lawsuit promises to shine a harsh and embarrassing spotlight on the attempts of CBS management to bury the Abu Ghraib story in response to government pressure:
Rather’s suit states that “for weeks, they refused to grant permission to air the story” and “continued to ‘raise the goalposts,’ insisting on additional substantiation.” Even after (producer Mary Mapes) gained possession of some of the now-infamous photographs of the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib (a full set of which was later obtained and posted by Salon), the news executives suppressed the story, “in part,” according to Rather’s suit, “occasioned by acceding to pressures brought to bear by government officials.”
Gen. Richard Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Rather at his home, sources close to the case told me, telling him that broadcasting the story would endanger “national security.” Myers explained to Rather that U.S. soldiers, just then poised for an assault on Fallujah, would be demoralized and suggested that Rather and CBS might threaten the outcome of the battle and the soldiers’ safety.
Only when Seymour Hersh, investigative reporter for the New Yorker, … unearthed the Abu Ghraib story and CBS executives learned that the magazine was about to scoop the network did they grudgingly permit it to be aired. “Even then,” Rather’s suit states, “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.”
Blumenthal ends: “Rather’s suit may turn into one of the most sustained and informative acts of investigative journalism in his long career. He is not going gentle into that good night.”
Stay tuned! Rather may be about to demonstrate exactly what hell hath no fury like.
JimC wrote:
I will be laughing at Dan, the documents have been discredited as authentic by more than one group, the source of the documents had motive to produce forgeries, Dan Rather had motive to accept them as authentic, he can sue all he wants, I predict he will lose the case or it will be dismissed….if CBS settles then they are stupid…
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 11:32 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
do yourself a favor and read the blumenthal piece
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 11:46 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
in fact, do yourself another favor and read the damn post too
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 11:47 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I did both, I’m just stating my opinion and prediction. The only thing I could see is that Rather could get some sort of “win” based on agreements about his work with CBS after he left CBS evening news but even with that, it really depends on the contracts, if there was some protection clause for CBS in reference to their continued relationship with Dan Rather. I could easily see that in CBS defense that Dan Rather’s involvement with “forged documents” tainted CBS news and therefore keeping him on board jeopardizes their image. If their contract with him has some provision for his release under certain circumstances like that, then they are fine. What could bring them to settle is that irregardless of the “forged” documents, if Rather had a contract and CBS had no way to release him (given the conditions), then they may try to settle…or just make the whole thing go away, they may try to settle for that reason alone. I mean, what’s Dan got to lose at this point but CBS has lots to lose….
But given CBS strong statement against the claims, I doubt they settle and I predict CBS comes out ahead….
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 1:06 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
having trouble understanding something as simple as this?
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 2:19 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i will be laughing at you, for as long as you keep talking directly out of your ass:
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 7:50 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
How funny is it that the guy who’s always demanding absolute proof before he’s willing to believe things he doesn’t like, reads that there’s no conclusive proof that the documents are forgeries but decides that doesn’t matter in this case?
(Blumenthal had made the same point: “The panel was unable to decide whether the documents were authentic or not.”)
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 8:48 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Ok….
From the same report the esteemed and impartial Media Matters link you provided, Appendix 4, Peter TyTell’s analysis, and I quote:
End freakin quote….
From the same report found in the Appendices, an expert comes to the conclusion the documents are not authentic and were created on a computer.
So the executive summary took TyTell’s analysis into consideration and basically ignored it and just remained neutral, ok, fine….
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 9:50 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Hear ye, hear ye! Given different opinions by different experts, truthmeister JimC is comfortable picking the one he likes best, and calling it proof of what he wants to believe.
This is pathetically dishonest, but JimC will be JimC, so what else can we expect?
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 4:59 am ¶
JimC wrote:
All that I have found is that there are those that say they can’t authenticate it and those who say they are not authentic, are there any independent experts who say they can verify their authenticity?
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 6:24 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I’m perfectly willing to take Sidney Blumenthal’s and Media Matters’ word for it.
If you want to probe deeper, do your own damn research.
Even the panel that CBS appointed to “investigate” the matter (the panel that Blumenthal calls a “shoddy kangaroo court”, headed by two “Bush family loyalists” one of whom “had been the subject of critical Rather reports”) wasn’t willing to conclude that the documents were not authentic. Somehow you are.
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 8:13 am ¶
matt wrote:
why do research when you can just pronounce someone else’s shoddy? the two are, after all, perfectly equivalent.
aside from the main point, i’d also like to know if jimc thinks that bush actually fulfilled his military service. because documents or not, that was the original question, both in 2000 and 2004.
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 8:56 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I have done research and even more since your comment, the documents are fake (and its not just one expert saying so) and I hope Dan Rather continues his quest so that this will be vetted even more and once and for all settled.
As for Bush, I believe he fulfilled his obligation but perhaps not with the most distinguished record. Problem is the questions about Bush’s service were backed up using fake documents.
I hope this issue gets put to bed once and for all because it is a sad commentary about how far media has fallen and CBS is still feeling it. No one trust the media anymore because of partisan antics of their reporters…
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 1:56 pm ¶
matt wrote:
no, you read someone else’s research.
i guess you just can’t see that bush could have failed to fulfill his service AND the documents could have been fake.
yeah, that’s way. from the best i can recall, you’ve accused just about every media outlet as being librul. they’re everywhere!
it must be easy being so damn simple.
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 4:20 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
No, I can see that, but what proof is there beyond faked documents?
Yeah, isn’t it wonderful! Unburdened by the maddening complex reasoning and intellectualism, it is quite enjoyable indeed….
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 8:57 pm ¶
matt wrote:
you do realize that bush can’t affirmatively prove that he was there either, right?
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 9:10 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
go back and read Blumental’s piece, you twit
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 9:47 pm ¶