OPINION & EDITORIAL
Rather bad news
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by MacVerStandig:
- Rather bad news (September 20, 2004)
- Not quite a Vermont teddy bear (October 9, 2003)
Related Stories:
- Media has subconscious liberal bias (September 6, 2001)
- Negative reports on war, economy spell bad news for the news business (January 30, 2003)
- From the desk of the editor (December 6, 2006)
- Over-reporting Pearl (February 25, 2002)
- An indictment of cable news (January 22, 2004)
by MacVerStandig
Monday, September 20, 2004
On Feb. 13, 1996, Bernard Goldberg, a reporter and producer for CBS News, took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Deeply bothered by his employer’s wantonly liberal slant — as personified in a hard news piece mocking presidential candidate Steve Forbes’ tax plan — and unable to air his concerns in a deeply partisan office that had no desire to listen, Mr. Goldberg opted for the avenue of last resort to get his potent message across.
“There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I’m more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don’t trust us,” he scribed on the paper’s editorial page.
Andy Rooney, one of the most respected figures in network news and a longtime icon of CBS, sent Mr. Goldberg a short note upon reading his column, “In the future, if you have any derogatory remarks to make about CBS News or one of your co-workers….I hope you’ll do the same thing again.” Even the ageless face of “60 Minutes” realized the opinion piece to be a short term blow that might just inspire network executives to do some long term good.
But Dan Rather, the face of CBS News, had an entirely different reaction: Mr. Goldberg suddenly disappeared from the air. As documented in the book “Bias,” the whistleblower’s career at CBS was never nearly the same again and, before long, it was over.
Mr. Rather didn’t like being accused of airing liberally slanted pieces on his evening news program, and he apparently saw to it that anyone who would make such an allegation learned their lesson.
But Mr. Rather has never learned his lesson. And so, in a recent piece on “60 Minutes,” the network anchor presented a collage of documents indicating that President Bush had been derelict of duty in the National Guard and that the commander in chief of the military had once himself disobeyed an order. These were serious charges that looked to affect not only the outcome of the election, but the morale of the military under Mr. Bush’s wartime helm.
Yet there is one major problem with these documents, which Mr. Rather failed to mention in his attack piece: they are forgeries.
It didn’t take long for bloggers — hardly journalists with the resources of CBS News — to notice that subscripts seemed historically inaccurate, orders were not compatible with military norms and other aspects just didn’t seem right.
And now The Washington Post has turned up evidence that the documents most likely came to Mr. Rather and company care of Bill Burkett, a well-known Democrat who has compared Mr. Bush to Adolf Hitler. That this didn’t raise more warning flags at CBS News than a NASCAR race in the snow is simply a wonder.
But then again, it is probably unfair to blame this on Mr. Rather because he most likely believed the story. Someone as notoriously partisan as the 72-year-old anchor brings an inherent bias of hope to certain stories. Since he knows George Bush is an evil man, he knows the story must be true. Indeed, it is simply unfathomable in Mr. Rather’s world that such a horrifying allegation could be anything but the pure truth.
And this might help explain why he has thus far refused to retract the story despite everyone from the White House to the notoriously left-leaning Los Angeles Times’ editorial board pleading that he do so. In a certain sense, it is this supremely stubborn refusal to admit wrong that is so badly blackening CBS’ Tiffany eye. The storyline is not a new one, and it traces back to Watergate: the real damage is done in the cover-up.
But for Mr. Rather the damage goes far beyond. In the 1988 election, he revealed his true colors during an outright interrogation of George Bush (the 41st president) that drew national scorn. In 1996, he blacklisted a member of his staff who dared to point out the liberal bias that Mr. Rather refused to hear in private. And now the anchorman is seeking to check his objectivity at the door and become a player in determining the outcome of a landmark election.
These are not the values that Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite exemplified during their tenures at CBS News, and they ought not to be the values of the Tiffany Network. Andrew Heyward, the President of CBS News, ought to now embark upon the only course of action that might save any hint of dignity the network still has: to publicly fire Mr. Rather, retract the National Guard story in its entirety, and find a new face for the CBS Evening News.
And if Mr. Heyward is serious about running a dignified operation, he should make sure that Mr. Rather’s successor doesn’t share the same wantonly liberal bias. Perhaps he could begin the search by interviewing Mr. Goldberg.
Mac VerStandig (mac@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in rhetoric.
Rocco (September 20, 2004 @ 12:31am):
Rather is a classic example of what we all should watch out for -- getting what we ask for. Instead of sticking with what he was good at -- investigative broadcast journalism -- he choose to lobby for, be offered, and accept the job of replacing Walter Cronkite as an anchor. Anchors are supposed to be more like Brian Lamb of C-Span than Edward R. Murrow. The fact that the three main broadcast networks have had the same person in their respective anchor chairs for more than 20 years is troubling. It is long overdue for them to recognize these people are supposed to be facilitators, not interpreters or spinners or judges. They sure as heck should not be on shows like '60 minutes' and '48 hours.'
Having said that, Bernie Goldberg is a whiny, careless, and lightweight reporter who wouldn't be well-respected in a single market like Duluth, let alone on a national scale. There are more substantive reporters we can build our conservative opinions on than that guy, who is frequently wrong or, at best, conveniently incomplete in his reporting.
Anonymous (September 20, 2004 @ 6:36am):
Where can I buy a freakish looking bowtie like yours Mac?
Anonymous (September 20, 2004 @ 8:40am):
You know, it comfortably fits your worldview that the documents are forgeries and Rather gets a public firing because then we all do the last thing we should be doing, which is talk about Bush's service.
See, the annoying thing about this is that while you're upset about the documents, what about the fact that the secretary who said she didn't type them, said they accurately reflect Lt. Col. Killians feelings at the time?
Or the fact that no Guard personnel have come forward to collect the nice award available for anyone who can document Bush's service in the Guard (surely some poor ass Southern Republican in the Guard with him needs the money right now).
That's the problem, by stating the documents are forgeries, you make it sound like they aren't real. Well, forgeries frequently have originals. Doesn't that mean they're true, just not the first version?
Anonymous (September 20, 2004 @ 8:59am):
Anonymous,
Let me make sure I understand this: the evidence is false, but we should believe the conclusion?
Umm, yeah.
Anonymous (September 20, 2004 @ 9:01am):
It doesn't matter if the documents are forged or not. What the hell was Bush doing when he was supposed to be in the ANG. Everthing else is completely irrelevant.
Anonymous (September 20, 2004 @ 9:02am):
Oh, I forgot to say that the reason it doesn't matter whether the documents were forged or not is because the case against Bush (ie that he skipped out on his ANG obligations) doesn't rest on those documents.
Anonymous (September 20, 2004 @ 12:40pm):
Well, Rather got his wish: he made blockbuster news. Unfortunately for him, he became the story.
He hijacked what the Democrats felt was a legitimate story. Now, every time Bush's service comes up, the first thing the public thinks of is "mistake in judgment" and Dan Rather.
For that reason, I have no doubt that conservatives will not be the ones to force Rather out. As it is, he is the perfect straw man in the perfect place at the perfect time.
Anonymous (September 20, 2004 @ 4:52pm):
Tucker Carlson you are not, Macky Baby.
Anonymous (September 20, 2004 @ 8:37pm):
Who ya gonna believe, Dan Rather or yer lyin eyes. The Bush haters are going
to have to go back to the slime pit to look for more mud - this didn't
stick.
Last Nail in the Coffin
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007837.php
Read it all but here's the tagline:
"Which is why, in order to reflect discredit on the President's military
service, it is necessary to forge documents."
