Dan Rather’s Last Big Scoop
MORE
NYTV
A few years ago, Dan Rather’s producer told The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta, “A lot of people know Dan, and nobody knows him.” Two and a half years later, not much has changed. These days, a lot of people know why Mr. Rather is doing what he is doing, and nobody knows why. The category-5 newsman continues to baffle.
At issue is Mr. Rather’s decision, announced Sept. 19, to file a lawsuit against CBS, Viacom, Les Moonves, Sumner Redstone and Andrew Heyward for their treatment of him after CBS aired a flawed report on President Bush’s National Guard duty in September 2004. In interviews since the announcement, Mr. Rather has suggested various motives. He’s talked about the importance of a free press to democracy, and, in more prosaic moments, he’s advanced the unusual complaint that CBS was paying him a full day’s salary for less than a full day’s work. But the overall portrait has been of a restless newshound chasing one more hunch. “This is a story … that has a lot of questions to it,” Mr. Rather told MSNBC on Friday morning. “And you know, we’re at the point, let’s get people under oath.”
The case might never get that far, of course. It could be tossed out in summary judgment, or Mr. Rather could be persuaded to settle with CBS, which has every incentive to avoid a public rehashing of an episode it would rather keep in its rearview mirror. But if Mr. Rather does have one more big story left in him, what might he be hoping to uncover? Through a spokesperson, Mr. Rather declined to comment. “We want to see anything that can shed light on the merits of Dan’s case,” said Rebecca Hughes Parker, one of Mr. Rather’s attorneys on the suit.
But, through conversations with some informed observers, a picture has begun to emerge:
(1) Taking It to the Top
There’s some evidence that at the time of the Memogate controversy, CBS honchos would have had particular reason to avoid alienating the White House. Viacom, the network’s parent company, had been waging a high-stakes Washington battle to overturn long-standing federal regulations that prevented one media conglomerate from owning TV stations serving more than 35 percent of the national market. The change could have been worth billions for Viacom. But after a court threw out new FCC rules that raised the limit to 45 percent, Viacom would have needed then FCC chair Michael Powell, who was appointed by President Bush, to reintroduce legislation to reverse the ruling, and increase the cap limit.
Did Mr. Redstone, Viacom’s president and CEO, ever spell out his concerns to CBS executives?
(2) Let’s Hear From the Mystery Man
Explaining the timing of his lawsuit to CNN’s Larry King, Mr. Rather said that since he was forced out, new facts had come to light—particularly about the shortcomings of the independent panel, set up by CBS in the aftermath of Memogate, and headed by former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, and Louis Boccardi, the former head of The Associated Press.
“We now know that an investigator was hired by CBS—what I call a mystery man—who wasn’t even mentioned in the report,” said Mr. Rather.
Readers of this newspaper knew that long ago. In February 2005, The Observer’s Joe Hagan reported that CBS had hired a former FBI agent and Navy aviator by the name of Erik T. Rigler to dig into the source of the documents at issue. Mr. Hagan further uncovered evidence suggesting that Mr. Rigler’s investigation led him to believe that (a) he was close to uncovering the original source of the documents; (b) CBS was only interested in finding the source if it could be done before the presidential election; and (c) in all likelihood the content of the documents was accurate, even if the documents themselves were not authentic.
Sure enough, Mr. Rigler’s ultimate findings were eventually excluded from the panel’s report. And, to this day, he has remained mum on the subject. So: How close did he come to solving the mystery? What did he tell the CBS chieftains? Why did they shut him down? Next Page >
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
The woman in the interview stated that although she did not type the memo, the information in it was true. I have been waiting for this.
Good luck, Dan! You do not deserve to remain the scape goat in this. You have had a great career, and this stain does not belong on you.
Please keep on this story. There is a lot more information that the public has a right to know and MUST know. This lawsuit will provide either a period or an exclamation point to the complaints facing the media of corporate bias.
Considering Dan's age, if I were his child, I would want him to win big time. The frequency, Kenneth, is $75 million.
This is so much better that Howie Kurtz's astonishingly unfair crucifixion of Dan Rather on last week's "Reliable Sources." Please keep with this story. Observer's reporting on the Boccardi-Thornburgh report was some of the best media journalism in the past decade.
Mr. Rather's Complaint is a lengthy fact pleading searching for a cognizable cause of action, and I would go so far as to say that it's a "defamation lawsuit in disguise," only the gist of it seems to borrow from the concept of "self-compelled defamation" in employment law, i.e., "You made me apologize for that 60 MINUTES II story even though I didn't want to, and you made me look bad as a result." Rather's chief difficulty is that New York's one-year statute of limitations on defamation actions has extinguished that route, and his pleading is otherwise very thin. I suspect that CBS will have good legal, equitable and first amendment defenses, should they choose to fight.
Rather has spread his anti-USA message and he is paying for it. CBS could be on top if they would of fired him 20 years ago. I grew up on CBS and left when DANNY boy took over.
I sure hope Dan has something on CBS that's worth the defamation he did to himself with the stipulation in his lawsuit. Among them:
* He admits to demanding a maximum amount of airtime on CBS in his last contract for nothing more than his own career vanity, even though he knew he wouldn't be able to be fully involved in his reporting.
* Despite claiming that the corporation feared him as a maverick reporter, he also admits to completely rolling over for the company... saying whatever they wanted him to say and shutting up when they demanded it.
* Dan indicates that he, in effect, accepted what he felt to be a completely unfair and biased report even though it destroyed the careers of close colleagues; he only changed course when CBS didn't subsequently give him the airtime to which he felt entitled.
How could anything CBS does make him look any worse than what's in his own lawsuit?
how could anyone possibly be against bringing out ALL the facts and laying them on the table in the daylight for all to see and evaluate?
i was always surprised that rather's story became so controversial. after all, it didn't actually advance the story all that much. serious reporting by AP and various newspapers had long proven that george w. bush had been given favorable treatment in getting into the national guard and that his performance was poor at best. maybe rather's piece of the bush/guard story ignited because it aired so close to the election.
what rather's law suit hopefully WILL do -- unless cbs folds and settles, which i hope rather will not stand for -- is to put the key players under oath and make them give sworn depositions about what happened and why. THEN the facts will be clear. the specifics will be on-the-record for all to see. why wouldn't anyone want that to happen?
don't get bucked off that horse. go get 'em, Dan!
Documented proof that Dan Rather was anti-USA, wingnut moron--and from legitimate sources, not wingnut blogs and web sites.
And it's "would have" or "would've," not "would of"--I bet I know what your ISP is, illiterate moron--is it the one that starts with "A," ends with "L" and has "O" in the middle? Get a real ISP, trailer park trash moron.
Bush on the stand, testifying about his service record, and about the veracity of the documents in question. THAT would be the investigation worth losing a job over.
if dan rather's lawsuit is allowed to wander as far afield as paula jones' suit and ken starr's so-called whitewater investigation were, the american people just might be in for some real enlightenment concerning the bushter, his career and the people around him. let us all pray that that happens.
Dan Rather, even before he knowingly broadcast demonstrably fraudulent documents, was a disgrace to American journalism. Never has a more biased, more bloviating nor more boring broadcaster ever graced out TV screens. Read all about it at http://www.ratherbiased.com/ .
Thank you so much Mr. Rather. I am so happy to have someone call the media bosses to account for their failure to report real news. It is so refreshing to have someone come back and fight for an open press not controlled by the government. I hope truth will win out and wish you the best in your suit.
A key phrase in this article: "...in all likelihood the content of the documents was accurate, even if the documents themselves were not authentic."
Exactly: the story was true, but the evidence was falsified. Just as bad, the story of preferential treatment wasn't news at all; it was old and was generally accepted by all. Then phony documents surface to prove something that didn't need more proof. This is why some people associated with this fiasco no longer work for CBS.
The Fascist juggernaut must be stopped by anyone or everyone before it is too late. Go, Dan Rather!
It's time to hang Sumner Redstone's balls from the nearest lamppost. He is a very bad man.
The story that ended Rather's career was the single worst piece of journalism I've seen in 20 years. You didn't need typography or forensics experts -- anyone who had used a typewriter in his life (and Rather and his colleagues are all old enough to have done so) -- could see that the documents couldn't possibly be authentic. I could tell from the photo of the letter in the morning paper that it was a forgery. It was in a Times Roman proportional font (the idiot who forged it should have just picked Courier), it had tiny letters of the sort that Microsoft Word puts in etc. Yet it was supposed to have been created on a Vietnam era typewriter. There were countless other stupidities. There was the source -- a man who said he destroyed the original documents to protect people (wouldn't you do the opposite?) -- and who had previously been revealed as a crackpot by Chris Matthews.
I tuned in that night to see Rather's apology and, to my amazement, he stood by the story! It took two weeks for him to see the light, when most people could see it on the first day. Forget politics, forget the FCC. He and his staff needed to be fired for sheer stubborness and stupidity.
I smelled Something awfully bad right from the beginning. Apparently this forged memo surfaced from an unknown Hispanic woman who gave it to a politico who in turn gave it to Rather.
Then, when the secretary who said that it was not the memo that she had typed also added that it was almost identical to the one she did type, it became apparent that there was a "setup" here. Keep the investigative mill churning on this one. I'm not a Rather fan. I think he is all ego. But this needs to be resolved.
Bob
I hate to burst Otis' bubble on this one but I used what is known as a "Variatype" machine back in the late 50's that created variable spacing so that both margins were straight.I turned out a few sports brochures on it and have some samples with dates right on them. I'll scan one and e-mail it to you if you are interested BUt that's not the point. I think it was a setup for sure.
Wendy Go Dan Go: This lawsuit could be great for all of us who believe that what BUSH does wrong is huge cf whatever dan did wrong.
Dan Rather has turned into Richard Nixon.
scape goats shouldnt apologize
And why is it that mr Moonves himself is not asked for some comment on the matter?
Does he refuse to see reporters? Does he not comment?
He will appear at a press conference in Cannes (France) on
Tuesday Oct 9 at the big television market Mipcom which now has an American management to such an extent that the market is no longer opened by the French minister of Culture.
Mr Moonves has been made the market´s Personality of the Year - an honor he has I presume as his boss Sumner Redstone cannot forget the fun of it when he was awarded the same some markets ago. This hailing of one media giant from the part of the Mipcom is bizarre enough. I much regret that no American journalists are present safe those representing television news in its most narrow aspect.
I am not American but I will be present at this press conferens let alone listen to his Keynote speech on Monday Oct 8.
The Dan Rather case is so perfumed by the stench from a big media company caving in to the White House.
I will put some questions from what I have read about the case and I am sure I will be the only one doing it.
Would much appreciate some help with questions.
Maybe I should sue Dan Rather and HDnet........becuase i am TOO OLD to be his production assistant...
Seriously they hired some 23 year old chicky poo, instead of an over 40 year old male with experience.
email me for more details
I agree that Dan Rather took down CBS. The man has no integrity, only sinful pride. This is not about uncovering the truth. This is a trip down ego lane and a last ditch effort by Dan Blather to stay in denial that he is in the sunset of his faculties. He got caught with bogus documents. He took the bait without investigating thoroughly first, because he loaths the military, our president and partly our country.
For "Blather" it was his aim to try to embarrass a sitting president - even when we were up against enemies bent on killing Americans. Let's not forget, Rather's daughter works for the DNC. The truth is revealed: Dan Rather was agenda driven. He gambled, because he couldn't help himself, and as a result he went down in flames, and will forever be tarnished. He should take it like a man.
John Sheridan