Dan Rather, CBS And Setting The Record Straight

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- I received plenty of emails about on Dan Rather and his lawsuit against former employer CBS.

You'll remember that Rather anchored the evening news at CBS from 1981 to 2005, until the network forced him out in the wake of a highly flawed segment on President Bush's military-service record. Rather apologized publicly for his role in the piece.

Many readers who believe that George W. Bush has been a lousy president sent emails in support of Rather, strictly on the merits of their political beliefs. Their comments are sprinkled throughout this column (minus the profanity and name-calling). For the record, I liked Dan Rather, and I watched his broadcasts more often than those on competing networks. However, that has nothing to do with my criticism of the current situation.

Poor instincts

So what did readers think? Some respondents simply didn't care that Rather displayed poor journalistic instincts by airing a story based on unauthenticated documents.

But what Rather did in the CBS report about Bush was shoddy journalism. (Hey, even Katie Couric thinks so, too, as she indicated in a recent interview.) It was unprofessional because it could've been accused of reeking of bias. Rather and CBS showed this segment, with strong political overtones, in the middle of a presidential election.

Others were willing to overlook Rather's mistake because they hoped he could weaken Bush.

I don't believe a journalist merits any brownie points simply for attacking an unpopular president. But in turn, by criticizing Rather, I am not showing support for Bush. I don't care about the political beliefs of my readers, and I don't write columns to appeal to any particular group, either liberals or conservatives.

People will invariably read the same column and proceed to attack me for being too right-wing or too left-wing. I know a column "works" when red-staters and blue-staters alike blast me in unison.

Practically nothing flatters a journalist more than getting immediate and voluminous feedback from passionate readers -- even when they say I'm ill-informed, crazy and much worse. Problem was, many of the email-writers managed to confuse what they perceived to be my politics with my devotion to good journalism, which was the whole point of that column.

The funniest and most ironic emails are the ones that accuse me of being a sell-out because my future employer, News Corp. , happens to be a giant corporation. News Corp. has agreed to acquire Dow Jones , which owns MarketWatch, the publisher of this column.

Me, selling out? Get real, folks. Dow Jones is a major media company. CBS and Viacom , which previously held stakes in MarketWatch, are prominent corporations, too. So, I guess I've been selling out to business interests for the seven-plus years I've been writing this column.

Some readers also suggested that I was expressing sympathy for CBS. This would undoubtedly come as a shock to the good folks there, who have been infuriated by my columns about Katie Couric's very as anchor of "CBS Evening News."

Either a journalist has the goods to reports the story, or he or she doesn't. That is it.

I was disappointed that Rather, one of the media giants of his generation, could have goofed like this. He should have known better. The lawsuit only magnifies his image problems, too. I respect the political fervor of the readers, but the facts speak for themselves.

Keep those letters coming, folks. I can stand it if you can.

MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY: Do you care what my political beliefs are when I write this column?

FRIDAY STORY OF THE WEEK: "Huffington's vision prospers on blog" by Jefferson Graham, USA Today (transmitted via the Romenesko Web site). It seems that Arianna Huffington's company has learned the publishing game well, if its attitude toward not paying bloggers is any indication. "That's no our financial model," says Huffington Post's co-founder Ken Lerer. "We offer them visibility, promotion and distribution with a great company." Hmmm.

READERS RESPOND to Kansas City Star sports columnist Joe Posnanski and ESPN.com's Bill Simmons, a.k.a. The Sports Guy:

"As the former Vice President/Executive Editor of ESPN.com (1997-2001), Bill was one of the many writers I brought to the site. But he's not a journalist nor is he really a traditional columnist in the vein of Gene Wojciechowski, Pat Forde or Joe Posnanski, who I agree is brilliant. Simmons is a personality with a voice of the fan mentality and he serves the role well. He's nothing more or less than what he claims to be -- a writer mixing a love of pop culture and sports from his couch ... To mention Bill and Joe in the same column does both a disservice, as would mentioning the differences between CBS programs 'Cane' and '60 Minutes.' Not the same thing, are they?" John Marvel

"Fandom is Simmons' beat! He taught me the moral calculations of betting against your team and that schadenfreude is the sweetest kind of sports joy. I'll keep reading him because being a fan makes the sport worthwhile, no matter how the team is doing. Go Broncos." Nate Thompson

"Excellent critique of ESPN reporting. I find it difficult to sustain viewing for any length of time because of the blatant commercialism. You may have a column someday on the cut away shots. How many times do I have to see the coaches, usually with no expression, to merit a cut away shot? Stupid crowd behavior and phony signs need not be shown to enhance my enjoyment of any game. I want to see the game. Sideline reporters are unnecessary, and forced coach interviews before halftime or during a game are faux journalism. Obviously ESPN producers are not fans of any sport but are driven by demographics. I avoid ESPN as much as possible." George McGarrity

(Media Web appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Feel free to send email to jfriedman@marketwatch.com.)

By Jon Friedman