Rather to step down as CBS News anchor - Page 3 - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 02-13-2005, 12:45 AM

The Devastation of Dan
Ross Mackenzie

One reads the report on CBS and the bogus memos - all 224 pages of it, supported by about 500 pages of exhibits - with a gathering sense of dismay.

It is not a snow job. CBS promised findings "in weeks, not months" about allegations it had aired bogus memos suggesting disobedience by George Bush in the Texas Air National Guard in1972-73. Four months and half-a-million dollars later, we have a report by two eminences (a former attorney general and a former head of the Associated Press) that amounts to the devastation of Dan Rather and CBS.

The report finds - let's see:

-Abundant carelessness.

-"Egregious shortcomings" (former AP President and CEO Lou Boccardi's words) in the realm of broadly accepted journalistic standards. ("Our report does not give CBS a passing grade.")

-A determination by CBS to rush the memos onto the air.

-"Myopic zeal."

-"Solid sources" (Rather's words) that were in truth a congeries of Democratic hangers-on, hustlers, and hacks.

-Haste.

Devastating stuff.

So, as one reads along, where does the dismay enter and gather steam?

1) Though within hours of CBS' airing of the memos their genuineness lay in tatters across the Internet and the pages of the nation's major newspapers, the panel refuses to go there. It concludes: "The panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the documents."

Mountains of evidence, not least including the panel's own exhibits, show the memos to be forgeries beyond a reasonable doubt. To conclude anything else is to approach the still-held position of, among others, Dan Rather: that though the memos cannot be authenticated, they cannot be proven wrong either; besides, their content is accurate, even if they are not.

Which is ideological incoherence.

2) Rather was distracted - harried by coverage of Florida hurricanes, for instance, and anyway not deeply involved in preparation of the memos story.

The exhibits make clear Rather's deep involvement in interviews and other aspects of the bogus-memos affair. In truth, for five years he and producer Mary Mapes - who in the wake of the panel's report took the fall at CBS
as principal perpetrator in airing the bogus memos - had been seeking to show Bush as a slacking, disobedient incompetent in the Air National Guard.

Rather still believes that (e.g., his words: "the facts are right on the money") - and never mind whether the memos offered to support the "facts" are fakes. This is why, although he has said he is "sorry" for being "misled" by a wacko source ("we were more trusting in [our] source than we should have been") and thus airing the memos without authenticating them. It also is why he has not yet apologized to President Bush for lying on the air - i.e., for stipulating CBS had "unimpeachable sources," and that it had authenticated the memos when it had not done so because it could not do so - and for seeking to manipulate the electoral process and affect the outcome of the presidential race.

Consider this aspect as well: Rather long has promoted himself as an intrepid reporter. On the contrary, as are all network anchors, he is far more a reader of "news" unearthed and written up by others. If the report is correct in saying he was hardly involved in the CBS segment on the bogus memos, then that finding sustains the suggestion Rather is principally the newsreader he says he is not. And of course, if the report is incorrect in this finding, then that sustains the suggestion Rather the intrepid reporter was heavily involved and should be fired.

3) Finally, the panel concludes it could not find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted, or aired the segment of having a political bias.

The panel bases this utterly dismaying finding on Rather and Mapes themselves. It asked them, and both strongly denied that they brought any political bias to the segment.

Bias?

Rather: "Absolutely, unequivocally untrue."
Ms. Mapes: "proximity, not politics."

The panel's conclusion: "[We] cannot conclude that a political agenda at '60 Minutes Wednesday' drove either the timing or the airing of the segment or its content."

In all, the panel exorcised the what of the bogus-memo affair, but not the why. Why were Rather and Mapes and CBS careless and hasty? Why did they rush onto the air with forged memos? They believed the memos' content even in the face of their obvious fraudulence. They were seeking to force the facts into their mold - into their interpretation of reality. That is the essence of ideology.

And ideology - leftist ideology - lies at the heart of the CBS bogus-memo affair.

Linda Mason, elevated to a new CBS post overseeing broadcast standards, said this in explanation - exculpation? - following CBS' announcement of network departures in the wake of the panel's report: "I firmly believe if [Rather and Ms. Mapes] found something about Kerry and his past, they'd be rushing to get that on the air, too."

In truth, rumors about Kerry's past - his performance during four months in Vietnam, his medals, his peacenik activities, the level of his discharge from the military (was it ever less than honorable?) - were as rife at the time as were rumors about Bush's past in the Texas Air National Guard.

Add to that Kerry's determination at the Democratic National Convention to make his Vietnam service a major element of his campaign, and the rumors about his past became particularly ripe for intrepid reporting.

Yet CBS essentially ignored the Kerry rumors and disparaged those (principally members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) most responsible for putting the spotlight on them. Such absence of coverage reflected the same leftist bias that led Rather to dismiss those who challenged the veracity of the bogus memos as "primarily supporters of President Bush with their own conservative political agenda." Rather kid-gloved rumors about liberal Kerry, gave him a free ride, while giving no slack to rumors about conservative Bush - even in the face of the truth. Conversely, he did not do what Linda Mason insisted he would do.

The panel probes little in the realm of the memos' provenance. It cites haste and "deficient reporting" but stops short of probing the reasons for the deficiency. It neglects the why of CBS' insistence on airing bogus memos it knew it could not authenticate. Thereby, dismayingly, the panel failed to go to the heart of the problem - the liberalism that so many are convinced so drives CBS News.

Rather & Co. wanted to believe the memos to be genuine in order to sustain their view of President Bush and ultimately to bring him down. But alas, even with the panel's report, vastly fewer believe its finding of no ideological bias than believe the tawdry bogus-memo episode demonstrates once more the driving liberalism that permeates the mainline press in which CBS and Dan Rather have played such a major role.

Jolie Rouge · 03-10-2005, 12:41 AM

Dan Rather Signs Off 'CBS Evening News'
By DAVID BAUDER

NEW YORK (AP) - Dan Rather echoed a word he once briefly used to sign off the ``CBS Evening News'' - courage - in anchoring the program for the final time after 24 years on Wednesday.

In a brief statement at the end of the broadcast, Rather paid tribute to Sept. 11 terrorist victims, tsunami survivors, American military forces, the oppressed, those in failing health and fellow journalists in dangerous places. ``And, to each of you,'' he said. ``Courage.''

He seemed to savor each word of his signoff: ``For the `CBS Evening News,' Dan Rather reporting. Good night.''

Rather's reporting career spanned the Kennedy assassination to this winter's tsunami, and he's been the public face of CBS's legendary news division since replacing Walter Cronkite on March 9, 1981.

His first newscast included a story about English girls imitating the hairstyle of Prince Charles' bride-to-be, Diana. On Wednesday, the lead story was oil prices causing a bad day on Wall Street.

He's the second of the three men who dominated network news for more than two decades to step down in four months. NBC's Tom Brokaw exited in November, leaving ABC's Peter Jennings remaining at ``World News Tonight.''

Bob Schieffer is Rather's temporary replacement starting Thursday. CBS expects to name a permanent anchor team to succeed Rather in the coming months.

Rather, 73, is returning to full-time reporting for CBS's ``60 Minutes'' broadcasts. He flashed a steadfast defiance in reminding viewers of the phrase ``courage.'' He was mocked by some for using the word to end his broadcasts for a week in September 1986 before giving up on the idea.

For its first 20 minutes, Rather's final broadcast was all business. No one - Rather or correspondents John Roberts and Anthony Mason - acknowledged it was a special night. Rather wore a dark blue pinstriped suit and striped red tie. His voice was hoarse.

His exit comes at a low ebb in his career. Rather took much of the public blame for a discredited ``60 Minutes'' story last fall about President Bush's military service, and he's a distant third in the ratings behind NBC's Brian Williams and Jennings.

He has been a target for decades of conservatives who accuse the media of bias, since his coverage of the Nixon White House during the Watergate era, and many have exulted in his recent misfortunes.

But he had his supporters, too.

Marian MacNeil of Windsor, Calif., said she watched Rather regularly and admired him. ``I feel terrible the way he's being treated now,'' MacNeil said. ``I think they're smearing a good reputation and overshadowing his 50 years. I hope he's able to rise above this.''

Both Jennings and Williams paid tribute to Rather at the end of their broadcasts. Williams called him a ``very tough competitor'' and a friend of nearly 20 years.

On ``World News Tonight,'' Jennings noted the National Guard story and said ABC took no pleasure in the pain it caused its competitors. ``For many of us, being a reporter turned out to be a calling,'' Jennings said. ``It is an identity for Dan. He would be the first to reflect - as all serious reporters do - that this opportunity to work on behalf of the public interest has been an unusual privilege. ``Dan and I are also friend,'' he said. ``It goes without saying that we wish him nothing but the best.''

When the lights went down at CBS' broadcast center on Manhattan's West Side, CBS News President Andrew Heyward and correspondents Ed Bradley, Vicky Mabrey, Jim Axelrod and Rita Braver offered toasts, a spokeswoman said.

Rather drank from a glass of ``Wild Turkey'' bourbon.

Meanwhile, a CBS affiliate in northern Michigan that had said it would let its viewers decide whether it should run Wednesday's prime-time CBS tribute to Rather backed off those plans. The station in Cadillac, Mich., said Wednesday its poll had been grossly misinterpreted. ``We were simply trying to maintain the great tradition of local viewer input that is the foundation of our modern day broadcasting system,'' said William E. Kring, the station's general manager. ``It was never our intent to embarrass Mr. Rather or the CBS network.''

03/09/05 20:08

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/tv/s...2009812722.htm

Jolie Rouge · 03-11-2005, 12:53 AM

IN FINAL BROADCAST, RATHER REVEALS WHAT THE FREQUENCY IS
Closes Book on Decades-long Mystery

In his final broadcast as anchor of the CBS Evening News, Dan Rather stunned the American people by revealing, at long last, what the frequency is. “Friends, years ago, a gentleman accosted me on the street in Manhattan and asked me, ‘What is the frequency, Kenneth?’” the longtime anchor said at the end of the broadcast Wednesday night. “Tonight, I would like to answer that question once and for all.”

“For the past twenty-four years, I have used these broadcasts to send thought-control brainwaves through your TV sets,” the veteran newsman continued. “In order to receive those signals, your brain had to be tuned to a frequency of 102.7 – and that, my friends, is the frequency.”

But Mr. Rather saved his most startling bombshell for last: “My name is not, nor has it ever been Dan Rather – it’s Kenneth.”

Mr. Rather than held up a birth certificate showing the name “Kenneth Charles Doobin” before signing off the air with a simple, “Courage.”

The anchor’s final broadcast, widely considered the most perplexing of his storied career, became even more controversial after several leading document experts noticed that the ink on the supposedly 73-year-old birth certificate was still wet and running down the page.

The retiring CBS anchor issued a brief statement in which he chose not to address the controversy, merely saying that he was looking forward to his new job as an Afghan mujahideen.

Elsewhere, in a sign that democracy is continuing to spread in the Middle East, Lebanon scheduled its first elections for April and its first sex scandal for June.

http://www.borowitzreport.com/default.asp

onfire4god57 · 03-11-2005, 12:53 AM

I for one am going to miss Dan Rather. I have watched Dan Rather since he first started doing the evening news. I remember when he took over for Walter Cronkite.

He brought me through my young adult life with his news stories.

He was there during the good times and the bad times of our country.

He talked us through the wars.

He was the first newscaster I ever saw to show emotion in a story.

He became a part of our lives during hours and hours of TV viewng after the 911 attacks.

CBS News has been a family tradition as far back as I can remember as a child.

You will be greatly missed in our household every evening Dan Rather! Cheers to you!

nightrider127 · 03-11-2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onfire4god57

I for one am going to miss Dan Rather. I have watched Dan Rather since he first started doing the evening news. I remember when he took over for Walter Cronkite.

He brought me through my young adult life with his news stories.

He was there during the good times and the bad times of our country.

He talked us through the wars.

He was the first newscaster I ever saw to show emotion in a story.

He became a part of our lives during hours and hours of TV viewng after the 911 attacks.

CBS News has been a family tradition as far back as I can remember as a child.

You will be greatly missed in our household every evening Dan Rather! Cheers to you!

ITA. Yes, he made a mistake, a big one. But he is not the first news person to make a mistake and he wont be the last one either.

I think what made him go so quick with that story is because of the pressure put on news people to be the first to report it.

janelle · 03-11-2005, 03:02 PM

Read my other posts on him. He is one sided reporter. Always has been. Fawns over the Clintons and puts down the Bushes and Republicans. No one can blame him for favoring one party over the other personally but when you are a reporter you need to stay unbiased for fair reporting. Or at least come right out in the beginning and say you are Democrat and you will be reporting the news with a liberal bent. They do that on the radio why not on TV?

nightrider127 · 03-11-2005, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janelle

Read my other posts on him. He is one sided reporter. Always has been. Fawns over the Clintons and puts down the Bushes and Republicans. No one can blame him for favoring one party over the other personally but when you are a reporter you need to stay unbiased for fair reporting. Or at least come right out in the beginning and say you are Democrat and you will be reporting the news with a liberal bent. They do that on the radio why not on TV?

Well, there is reporters that go the other way too. Just take a look at Fox News. Yeah, right, fair and balanced, we report, you decide.

ALL news reporters ought to report the news as it really is. Not be biased one way or the other. Simply tell the truth.

Another thing, people need to do their own research on the candidates, make informed choices. A person shouldn't leave it up to anyone to make their decision for them, not news reporter, not anybody.

janelle · 03-11-2005, 06:25 PM

I agree. This is why people should listen to all news channels, read, and study the issues. Radio and TV.

Fox is just balancing it all. Nothing wrong with that. All the rest seem to be liberal.

Jolie Rouge · 03-14-2006, 02:13 PM

Ask No Questions Of Your Superstar Journalists
March 13, 2006

Jim Walsh of the Courier Post learned an important lesson last week, one he relates to his readers in his column today. After listening to former CBS anchorman Dan Rather speak to a Cherry Hill audience about the need for improvement in reporting, Walsh took an opportunity to ask Rather to talk about a specific instance where media failed -- and wound up censored for his efforts:

http://courierpostonline.com/apps/pb...-1/Cherry_Hill

Quote:

Freedom of press can cost reporters popularity

I logged another first in my reporting career last week.

Your humble correspondent was booed.

And for that honor, I must thank either my own rude behavior -- or a bunch of folks with no appreciation for irony.

Here's the scene: Former CBS anchorman Dan Rather is in Cherry Hill, giving a speech about the need for journalists to do better. "What's gone out of fashion is the tough question and the follow-up," he tells an admiring audience of about 600 people at Cherry Hill's Star Forum.

So how can I, the guy covering Rather's remarks, just sit there?

When he finishes, I hurry to a floor mike to ask Rather about an issue that will be part of my story. "Mr. Rather," I say. "Great suggestions. But you left the anchor desk last year after your report questioning President Bush's military service was discredited. Key memos could not be authenticated. Do you think the failure to ask questions then affects your credibility now?"

Rather responds with civility -- if not clarity. He notes, in part, that an independent review "couldn't determine whether the documents were authentic or not."

Eager to please, I follow up: "The Courier-Post won't run something if we're not sure it's authentic. Are you saying it's OK . . ."

But my microphone goes dead -- and the audience stirs to life.

Some people jeer. Others glare and scowl (I can now distinguish between the two). This continues outside as I call in my story.

Gee, Rather's speech never mentioned this.

But for everyone I offended, here's more bad news.

I still think the question had to be asked -- and, for deadline reasons, it had to be asked then. And while it was nice that some people at the forum shared my view, it's OK that many others did not.

See, reporters expect criticism. It's part of the job -- from the editor who thinks a sentence could be clearer to the story subject who wishes the same line had never run.

We don't shrug off complaints -- and, let's hope, we sometimes learn from them.

But most of us don't take them personally, either.

Some in the public see things differently.

Consider this e-mail from a woman in Rather's audience: "It is my opinion that you had your own political agenda when you approached the microphone."

In other words, I'm a Bush backer.

But tell that to the reader unhappy with a recent story I did about the 14th Amendment. He said my sources had overlooked an argument that the measure should bar John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, from serving in the Senate due to his anti-war efforts in the Vietnam Era.

Other reporters had missed that point, too, he said. "All such writers have been liberal Democrats as I have to assume that you are as well."

A more constructive approach came from Pakistan, of all places, where an online reader said Rather's call for a media "spine transplant" was inadequate.

"American media needs a complete brain transplant," that writer said.

Then he ended his note nicely -- "with most cordial regards."

See? Nothing personal.

So let's get this straight. Dan Rather spent his time in Cherry Hill lamenting the dearth of the tough question and the follow-up. When Walsh got an opportunity, he attempted to provide Rather with exactly what he demanded from the media -- a tough question and a follow-up when the first answer evaded the issue. How did Rather and his handlers reward him? They cut off his microphone and made sure he couldn't finish his follow-up.

And after listening to Rather talk about the supposed spinelessness of the media, how did the audience react to this obvious and hypocritical effort at stifling Walsh's inquiry? They booed him. Quite obviously, both Rather and his audience engaged in mere posturing instead of truly supporting aggressive reporting.

Has there ever been a major journalist as egotistical and hypocritical as Dan Rather?

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/006520.php

Jolie Rouge · 09-05-2006, 11:33 PM

From MRC: Meet the Real Katie Couric.
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/20.../sum082906.asp

CBS’s New Star Adores Liberals, Scolds Conservatives
— And Thinks America Should Be More Like France
By Rich Noyes, MRC Research Director
August 29, 2006

( Full Report available on site )

Executive Summary

After more than two decades in which Dan Rather used his CBS Evening News anchor desk as a soapbox to punish conservatives and promote liberals — years in which the Evening News tumbled from the undisputed ratings leader to a poor third place among the nightly newscasts — CBS has elevated Katie Couric, the longtime co-host of NBC’s Today, to sit as Rather’s permanent replacement.

In TV ads promoting Couric’s arrival, outgoing interim anchor Bob Schieffer claimed: "She’s tough, she’s fair, she’s a straight-shooter....Just watch." But meeting with TV critics in early July, Couric suggested a desire to supplant journalistic objectivity with activism. "There are cases where we can be more solution-oriented," Couric proposed.

If her track record is a reliable guide, any policy "solutions" promoted by the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric will likely consist of tiresome liberal clichés: greater burdens on private business, more spending, more taxes and a bigger role for government. Media Research Center analysts have documented Couric’s liberal slant since the day she started on Today back in 1991. Over the years, Couric has embraced liberal politicians, admired Europe’s nanny states, and harshly castigated conservatives in general and the religious right in particular.

Couric’s years on Today have seen her liberal skew on full display. This report presents a detailed accounting of the kind of bias that’s likely to greet viewers of the CBS Evening News starting in September.