Getting Rather Messy
(CBS)
But here goes anyway.
By now we've all read and/or heard that former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather has filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS, as revealed in yesterday's New York Times:
Dan Rather, whose career at CBS News ground to an inglorious end 15 months ago over his role in an unsubstantiated report questioning President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service, filed a $70 million lawsuit this afternoon against the network, its corporate parent and three of his former superiors.According to the lawsuit, Rather's complaints revolve not only around the investigation but also the fallout surrounding the infamous "60 Minutes II" story which looked into President Bush's national guard duty (uncreatively nicknamed "Memogate"). He also charges that retribution caused him to lose the Hurricane Katrina story assignment despite being "the most experienced reporter in the United States in covering hurricanes" and that there was a disagreement over the definition of "full-time."
Mr. Rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on "60 Minutes II" after forcing him to step down as anchor of the "CBS Evening News" in March 2005. He also contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a "biased" and incomplete investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, "seriously damaged his reputation."
Much is being made of the fact that the case focuses on current and former CBS executives like Les Moonves, Sumner Redstone, Andrew Heyward. But Rather is going beyond that. Deeper inside the lawsuit itself, Rather's legal team also takes on the public faces of CBS News itself:
CBS had knowledge of the derogatory statements concerning Mr. Rather made by its employees, including those made by Walter Cronkite, Mike Wallace, Andy Rooney and others, and by permitting these statements to continue, significantly contributed to the barrage of bad press Mr. Rather faced following the broadcast.(Hat tip: Mika Brzezinski)
Without getting enmeshed in the legalities/technicalities of his case and re-fighting old media battles, it's tough to understand the rationale behind the lawsuit. The damage over the document controversy has already been done, and public perception on both sides of the issue (and there are at least two sides on this one) has hardened to a point where very few minds are going to be changed by a lengthy and vicious legal battle. If Rather's core goal is to "restore his reputation," as the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz noted in a fantastic summation this morning, then pointing out how far removed he was from the journalistic process seems like a counterproductive way to rehang his star in the journalistic sky.
As noted in this space last week, studies have shown that when you highlight a concept or belief in order to set the record straight, you frequently serve only to reinforce the original thought. So while it's going to be a wait-and-see thing as far as how many steps forward this lawsuit advances towards its stated goal, the initial claim itself takes America's news audience – and Dan Rather -- back a few steps.
(Note: Public Eye is not a part of CBS News, but CBS Interactive.)
CBS evening news is somewhere between the pits and the dregs.
You can''t understand the rationale behind the lawsuit? Mr. Felling, just read the whole complaint, which can be found via TalkingPointsMemo. Obviously, Dan Rather wants to get his story out, and what a story it is! Upper management conspiring with senior government officials to suppress and delay the biggest story, perhaps, of the decade (Abu Ghraib). A concerted effort to smear and diminish one of their own in order to curry favor with the Bush Administration.
Refusing to allow that monumental story to be aired on its own evening news broadcast? My fear and suspicion is not that it is unprecedented, but that it is not.
I am afraid that CBS has irretrievably abandoned their journalistic integrity for short term gain.
I say, good on Dan Rather for choosing this route. A book on the subject can be spun, with CBS considerable resources. In a lawsuit, someone''s going to have to tell the truth or pay the consequences, even if it takes a long time. THAT''s the rationale, Mr. Felling.
If I were CBS news president, and considering the poor ratings under Katie Couric (I like Katie, but ratings are ratings) I would seriously consider re-hiring Rather. Just hear me out here ~ ratings would rise, and Rather might just drop that lawsuit if given the chance to return. Fifteen months ago, he was bounced out of the anchor chair unceremoniously, and ratings were much better than they are now.
Look where ratings are. The writing is on the wall, and although it may be "rather messy" at this time ~ I suggest Viacom take a closer look at the Rather suit, and consider this ~ he has a good case, and with news ratings the way they are ~ the best move Viacom can make is the unique one ~ that means getting viewers back, and ratings up. If there is any intelligence at Viacom, and in the office of CBS'' president ~ it should be seen as a "no-brainer" ~ admit the same thing management had Rather say on-air, and get your anchor back in the business of reporting the news on-air ~ and get ratings back where they belong ~ UP.
"CBS imposed the unusual restrictions that the story would be aired only once, that it would not be preceded by on-air promotion, and that it would not be referenced on the CBS Evening News."
The answer is, of course, you can''t. CBS will never be trusted again as an independent source of news. You people did it to yourselves.
40. Even after obtaining nearly a dozen, now notorious, photographs, which made it impossible to deny the accuracy of the story, Mr. Heyward and Ms. West continued to delay the story for an additional three weeks. This delay was, in part, occasioned by acceding to pressures brought to bear by government officials urging CBS to drop the story or at least delay it. As a part of that pressure, Mr. Rather received a personal telephone call from General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urging him to delay the story.
41. Only after it became apparent that, due to the delay, sources were talking to other news organizations and that CBS would be "scooped," Mr. Heyward and Ms. West approved the airing of the story for April 28, 2004. Even then, CBS imposed the unusual restrictions that the story would be aired only once, that it would not be preceded by on-air promotion, and that it would not be referenced on the CBS Evening News.
38. In late April 2004, Mr. Rather, as Correspondent, and Mary Mapes, a veteran producer, broke a news story of national urgency on 60 Minutes II %u2014 the abuse by American military personnel of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison. The story, which included photographs of the abusive treatment of prisoners, consumed American news media for many months.
39. Despite the story''s importance, and because of the obvious negative impact the story would have on the Bush administration with which Viacom and CBS wished to curry favor, CBS management attempted to bury it. As a general rule, senior executives of CBS News do not take a hands-on role in the editing and vetting of a story. However, CBS News President Andrew Heyward and Senior Vice President Betsy West were involved intimately in the editing and vetting process of the Abu Ghraib story. However, for weeks, they refused to grant permission to air the story, continuously insisting that it lacked sufficient substantiation. As Mr. Rather and Ms. Mapes provided each requested verification, Mr. Heyward and Ms. West continued to "raise the goalposts," insisting on additional substantiation.