Writing as a veteran of more than 25 years in TV, ... I think you have
largely
nailed the Dan Rather memo mischagass. I, too, suspect that he
did little
more than front the story. Perhaps he is too much of a
team player to
point the finger at a colleague.
Either way, the
saga illustrates
the law of unintended consequences. My conservative
friends insist that
Rather is biased. They chortled over his
misfortune.... Rather and CBS handed them the
gun to shoot
him.
Perhaps Rather is anti-Bush. I suspect
that if he is, it
may have more to do with some obscure nonsense among
Texans than with deeply
held political convictions. I suspect that the
Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth were motivated more by a personal score to
settle with John Kerry over his
immediate post-Vietnam utterances than with
anything having to do with
presidential politics. It is amazing what
personal animosity can
do....
The most salient part of your
argument, I think, is that the
forged memos did nothing to advance the story
that young Bush was an
irresponsible young man and a party animal who had
connections and used
them. This was all known in advance of the 2000
election. Given his
background, it would have been a story if he had NOT
used connections. And
the public have had three and one half years of
him as president on which to
base an opinion regarding his
re-election.
Granted, for argument's
sake at least, that Rather
is not biased, or at least that he does not let his
opinions color straight
news reporting. All this begs the question,
"Why?"
Why
would Rather, this late in a distinguished career risk
it all on a
non-story? Admittedly, he is a "hot" personality in a job where
the
best in the business tend to be "cool." Think of Cronkite, Chancellor,
Smith, Severeid, and even Brokaw and Jennings. Until long after Cronkie
retired, no one knew what his political opinions were. The mystery did
a
lot for his credibility.
Simply put, it makes no sense,
despite
what the right-wingers say, for Rather to broadcast a misleading
story
knowingly. Even broadcast suits are smart enough to know when it
is too
easy to get caught.
It is one thing to suggest that
Rather is
bonkers. I doubt it. Jayson Blair, whom you correctly
cite as having
no discernible political agenda when he blew himself up at
The Times, was
suffering from untreated manic-depressive disorder during the
months where he
fabricated and plagarized. If The Times failed at
anything, it was in
giving a guy in the midst of a breakdown high profile
assignments. That is
not the fault of liberal bias. Rather, quirky as
he may be, does not appear to
suffer from a mental disorder.
So the mystery remains as to
why so many experienced people,
Rather and Mary Mapes included, went with so
weak a story with so many
flaws. Perhaps, like many journalists in a highly
competitive
situation, they let themselves believe too much in the "scoop" they
were
working and put skepticism aside. It is a dangerous trap, but I have
seen folks fall into it more than once.
It is very CBS to draw
the
wagons in a circle when something like this happens. There is a
kind of
disbelief at CBS that people at the pinnacle of broadcast
news are
fallible in any way. It is terrible public relations.
Winchell dealt
with unreliable sources by saying, "the source has committed
suicide." CBS
would have been better advised to follow his
example. The public, even the
right wing, will forgive a mistake if it
is owned up to in a
hurry. Instead, Rather has made himself a punchline
in Leno's
monologue.
If you get the impression from this note
that I have no
particular political point of view on Rathergate, you are
correct. I think
that CBS and Rather have, through their snafu, handed
us the mirror, and I am not thrilled with what I see.
