Dan, you oaf
[Note: Some folks in the comments say the disclosure at the bottom of this post would be better at the top, so scroll down and take a look at that first.]
Dan Rather is proves himself once again to be such a egotistical fool. He’s crying — puffy red eyes and all — and suing CBS because they eased him aside (when they should have dumped him long before). He still refuses to take responsibility for muffing a story and harming his own credibility and that of the network and, for that matter, the profession — the Times said he doesn’t think there was anything to apologize for and, indeed, says the apology he did give was “coerced.” And he has such an oversized ego that he can’ t see how egotistical it is for him to sue for not getting enough attention and airtime. The bottom line remains that he reported to the world a story that relied on documents that turned out to be fake but by refusing to seek the truth on them or acknowledge the issue for days — or even until now — he pulled the rug out from under his own story and his own reliability. He shows that as many charged, he does have a grudge with George Bush; says The Times: “…Mr. Rather charges that CBS and its executives made him ‘a scapegoat’ in an attempt placate the Bush administration, though the formal complaint presents virtually no direct evidence to that effect.” We should be glad to be rid of him.
The Times makes the complaint against CBS available here and it has its amusing moments.
It starts off like a blurb not a suit: “Plaintiff, Dan Rather, one of the foremost broadcast journalists of our time. . . .” Heh.
Later on, he lays out not a resume but a damned monument: “In the course of his career as a broadcast journalist, he has received every major honor in his field, including literally dozens of Emmy Awards. . . Over the more than four decades he spent at CBS, he has been involved in virtually all the world’s major news stories. . . During his long tenure at CBS, he has interviews nearly all the major world leaders. . .” He says his biography is “too lengthy to include here.” He larger than life, that Dan.
He says that CBS et al “have cost him significant financial loss and seriously damaged his reputation.” He needed no coconspirators for the latter.
At the time of his screwup, Rather refused to acknowledge the bloggers who corrected him and when he did, he dismissed them as political operatives. He still holds that paranoid vision: “A broad and, in many instances, well-organized attack on the authenticity of the Documents immediately followed the Broadcast, led by conservative political elements supportive of the Bush administration. The purpose of this attack was to deter CBS News from reporting news in a manner unfavorable to the Bush Administration, and in the process, to diminish the credibility and careers of Mr. Rather, Ms. Mapes and others at CBS News whom they considered to be opponents of the Bush Administration.” Could the goal have been to get the facts right?
Dan paints himself as SuperJournalist: “Thoughout his career, Mr. Rather has promoted, championed, and been emplamatic of journalistic independence and journalist freedom from extraneous intereference such as governmental, political, corporate or personal interests.” No delusions of grandeur there.
While claiming to be a paragon of journalistic principles, he blames everyone else for not properly vetting the story he says he only read — putting his not inconsiderable personal reputation behind it — and then he blames everyone else for him not speaking out and dealing with the accusations of inaccuracy and bias made against him. He doesn’t see the contradiction there.
He whines about criticism: “During the same period, other well-known CBS News figures, including Mike Wallace, Andy Rooney and Walter Cronkite . . . made derogatory public statements concerning Mr. Rather, which CBS allowed to go unanswered.” You can’t do that to me — I’m Dan Rather; I’m above criticism, apology, and fact-checking.
He complains that he was assigned to cover a hurricane when he should have been checking his own story and then he complains that after his fall, he wasn’t allowed to cover a hurricane — Katrina — despite being “the most experienced reporter in the United States covering hurricanes.” Which is to say he did more cliched hair-blowing stand-ups than anybody.
He says that as compensation he didn’t just receive millions of dollars but “extensive ‘exposure’ on television. . . It is well known in the television industry that ‘air time’ is the life blood for television news personalities. . . ” The poor man can’t see the pathetic irony of that. Air time was, indeed, his life blood. And he was a personality.
And right there is the problem with all this: the elevation of the reporter, the presenter, the hack — to use the better British terms — into overexposed, overpaid, undermanaged, self-important personality. And as the Times story notes, the new overpaid, overexposed personality in Rather’s chair isn’t helping the network either. The anchor model is not only broken, it’s dangerous. It produces Dan Rathers.
And at the end of all this, what does Dan want? More money: $70 million more than he was already overpaid in his career. It might have been classier to sue for $1 and principle. Or he could have sought some of that beloved airtime and exposure, his life-blood, remember. But he goes for the bucks. Because that’s what broadcast TV is about, isn’t it, that’s the validator: big bucks.
Poor, pathetic Dan. He still doesn’t know the frequency.
(Disclosures: PrezVid, my other blog, has just been syndicated by CBSNews.com and after Rathergate, I became friends with one of Rather’s defendants, former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. And here’s my NY Post op-ed on Rather during Rathergate. )
Tags: journalism, rather
September 20th, 2007 at 10:37 am
You sound so bitter, Jeff. What point are you trying to make here. You’re starting to seem like a total psycho. What are you freaking out about?
September 20th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I’m the bitter one? Heh.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:49 am
seems like it…
What caused you to rant about this like this?
September 20th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Jeff - quite honestly, you should have led with the disclosures. The Dan Rather episode was not - repeat - not one of the blogosphere’s finest hours at all. You seem a tad over the top on this….
Sure, the anchor scheme is broken and from a different era and yeah, a guy like Rather is an anachronism - but give the guy a break, he’s no better or worse than, say, Tom Brokaw.
Wearing his scalp so proudly just doesn’t seem cool…
September 20th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Jeff, yes he is an Oaf. But for someone who is working to bridge the worlds between MSM and the blogosphere you probably could have approached it with a bit more tack.
That said he is still an oaf.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Isn’t the lamentable bottom line here that Rather played along with a PR charade instead of asserting his independence as a journalist?
How Rather hopes to restore his reputation by admitting he said things in a newscast that he didn’t believe is beyond me.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Tom W,
How was it not a fine hour for blogs. They got the facts. Was it Rather’s finest hour?
Thomas,
My problem with Rather is that he makes MSM look bad. I attack him in defense of MSM and journallism. And it’s nothing new for me. As a critic going back into the 80s, I’ve long disliked Rather’s style and ego, his faked personality and high pomposity.
Eric,
See above. Dan Rather is bad for journalism.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Fair enough Jeff, but then you might have mentioned it in the post to give your comment great context. Without that it may come across as a MSM-Blogger pissing match.
That said he is still an Oaf.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:27 am
er great, I meant greater
September 20th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Don’t worry, I still think you’re a kook…
September 20th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I’m not a media pundit like you, but I can’t see major significance to this story. Seems like law suits are fairly common among media bigwigs. Your vicious personal attack on Dan Rather is a shocking way to spin your interpretation. I can’t see anything here that has to do with analysis of media or journalism.
(This is usually where Jeff Jarvis quickly makes several new posts to his blog to push this one down and off the first page as fast as possible…)
September 20th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Paranoid birds of a feather flock together.
That’s a ridiculous statement: ‘Seems like lawsuits are fairly common among media bigwigs.” Name five.
If this isn’t a story, why did the NY Times cover it?
September 20th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Why are you calling me paranoid?
Why are you so into name-calling. I can’t believe you’re a prof at CUNY.
As for lawsuits, I can’t easily name five as you command. But it seems like that kind of thing happens a lot between big media players.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Forgive me, not paranoid. Humorless. Jeesh. It’s a joke. Sorry if I shouldn’t. And you’r'e the one who preemptively and personally accused me of something I haven’t done. I responded trying to lighten things up. My mistake, clearly.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I didn’t say it isn’t a story worthy of being in the NY Times. I’m saying it’s not worthy of your twisted analysis and unabomber-esque essay…
September 20th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Rather’s lawsuit perhaps forces CBS to pay a price for whitewashing its own report on Rather’s malfeasance.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I always felt the Rather thing was a classic witch hunt and something of a set-up - and that it hurt real reporting and commentary on the web, gave it bad name.
Dan Rather is not an oaf - he’s a newsman turned anchor, a reader of news - you may think him oafish for his Texas lingo and fake folksy charm, but it’s really no worse than Brokaw’s northern Plains folkiness either.
The guy was a newsreader - highly-paid - whose team was suckered. CBS, well it was just a corporate player making what it thought was a business decision. The whole thing said nothing about “MSM” journalism vs. blog journalism. That was a total canard.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Jeff,
I agree with you that Dan Rather should have sued for the principle rather than the big bucks. I think he would have gotten back a modicum of the integrity he squandered with the way he handled rathergate.
having said that, i agree that the disclosure should have been up at the top. after reading the analysis, i spent more time thinking about the disclosure and why it was at the bottom than your post itself.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“The whole thing said nothing about “MSM†journalism vs. blog journalism. That was a total canard.”
I beg to differ. It defined MSM vs blogs, and it still does to this day. The “memo” was a forgery. It was made up. It never existed. The story was broadcast because Rather, his producers and the CBS brass WANTED it to be true regardless of facts or evidence.
The MSM got caught by the bloggers and exposed and they’ll get caught again. But not for much longer. The MSM as we have known it for the past 75 years will cease to exist within the next few years.
Jeff Jarvis is pretty much on track with his predictions for the MSM. He is one of my must reads every day, even though I’m as proudly conservative as he is liberal.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Walter, it did define MSM vs. blogs then blogs faired poorly. I hope it was not the defining moment.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I am not quite sure what is more pathetic: Dan Rather or the fact that there are still nincompoops who would defend him in the slightest?
Jeff, why do you respond to only the *low-hanging-fruit* comments?
September 20th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
New media thoroughly shredded Rather’s outrageous fraud. Pretending otherwise only increases mass media’s credibility gap.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Dan Rather is exhibit A when it comes to why traditional media outlets are watching their viewership dwindle away. Call it chutzpah or arrogance or ego, but the bottom line is the guy ran with documents that match the default setting of Microsoft Word and can’t be matched by typewriters of that time. He can deny, deny, deny and sue, sue, sue, but people are pretty sick and tired of that type of behavior. Especially when it comes from the press who is supposed to be getting the facts right.
I guess since Imus netted a few million from his lawsuit, that Rather decided to jump on the bandwagon. Jeff has every right to be annoyed. This does nothing but lower the credibility of the media in general.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
This was why I always watched Peter Jennings…
September 20th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Let’s not forget that bloggers fought to a standoff over Rathergate. There were also some very good, knowledgeable folks out there who posted credible material showing that the documents could only have been produced by a certain IBM typewriter available in the early 1970s.
That’s been forgotten because, frankly, they were wrong. But the reason we know they’re wrong is at least in part because of the reporting done by the Dallas Morning News, ABC News and the Washington Post.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I miss Peter Jennings.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:53 am
Where Dan, I never saw anything that indicated anything but it was MS Word document photocopied. Do you have links, I’d be interested in reading their posts.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Allow me to regale the group with my memories of Rather's forgery. After getting caught Team Rather spewed obfuscation virtually following the defensive playbook presented in The Expert Ambush
Early in the game Team Rather called upon CBS' inhouse signature forgery expert to offer up opinion on memos without signatures. Proportional fonts and a superscripted th arguably presented most obvious evidence of forgery so a Team Rather fan found a rather obscure relatively expensive IBM typewriter of that era capable of producing a proportional spaced font with a superscripted th.
IBM manufactured that particular typewriter mostly for publishing companies to type up awards. It remains highly improbable that a Texas Air National Guard base using hand-me-down equipment would ever acquire such an expensive typewriter with such a rare handcrafted print ball. But it helped Team Rather's obfuscation effort.
Although Team Rather punted the font/superscript issue good enough for fellow travelers many more open issues remained with its typewriter ploy. Memos that used default Word margins years before Microsoft invented Word for instance.
Thanks to all for a fun trip down memory lane!
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 am
Thomas, I seem to recall the one IBM typewriter in the 70’s that could have done the documents, it was extremely specialized and very expensive. It was disregarded as it would not have been sitting on a national guard desk to write memo’s by some staff sergeant. The dead give away was the proportionally spaced fonts in the memos, were typewriters in the 70’s used by the military were mono-spaced. The other problem for those who claim a typewriter was used was explaining the superscript “th” on the military branch numbers, which would have required manual adjustment to perform vs. a standard whacked out memo. The typewriter defense was argued by CBS’s defenders but it does not pass the common sense test. Depending on what blog you read (left or right) you will most likely get a different opinion. I personally like the right up on Powerline, which seems fairly detailed on the time line over the whole affair.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
[...] of news that needs to be captured before Dan Rather descends any further into self-parody (see Jeff Jarvis). Rather’s career was up-ended by investigative journalism gone bad. But the hard truth is that [...]
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
[...] to being an authority on the intersection of journalism and the internet) does a bang-up job of fisking Rather’s silly lawsuit. I had a soft spot for Dan Rather as a child, because my grandfather always watched his evening [...]
September 25th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Eric G., your ego is nearly as monumental as Rather’s; I half expect you to sue Jeff Jarvis for $70 million yourself. I can respect that you have a different opinion from JJ, but I can’t respect your itchy finger on the ad hominem trigger. Try an actual argument next time. This may seem shocking, but we don’t actually care what you feel. We care what you think. If you can’t suit up for the game, then stay off the field.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Jeff,
This was a rather blistering post, but I think it speaks for how a lot of journalists and others in the media are feeling. Mr. Rather is unwilling to admit there was a mistake, and even contends his apology was forced. He is blowing his own journalistic horn at the same time claiming distance from the fact checkers and others who played a part in the 60 Minutes error.
I agree with you that suing for $1 would have the same point of principle without making Mr. Rather appear even more greedy and egotistical. He is clearly at the end of his career and this latest stunt only further sours his reputation.
However, I was wondering if you think there is any credence to Rather’s complaints about corporate media ownership. In his “Larry King Live†interview, he warned that large media conglomerates and their political connections are a threat to the future of journalism. While his theories of CBS abandoning the “truth†to appease the White House are unsubstantiated, it doesn’t mean similar things could not happen in the future. Do you think there is such a risk, or can alternative media act as a check on this power, much in the way bloggers touched off Rathergate three years ago?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Mark H.
(It’s a “conversation”—not an argument…)
Don’t blogs suck? Here we are on p. 2. No one to see your brilliant comments…
I have no idea what got you so worked up.