Dan Rather And The Ghost Of Richard Nixon
By Ron Marr (09/17/04)
In my dream I see a man, shoulders slumped, walking slowly toward a helicopter. He mounts the steps, exhaustion and defeat evident in his stance. Just before disappearing through the door (almost as an afterthought) he stops and turns toward a small crowd of ardent supporters. He throws one arm in the air, then the other. Both hands display a "V" for victory.
And then the man departs in disgrace, a victim of his own lies and cover-ups. A once brilliant career has been destroyed by hubris, arrogance and power.
In my dream that man is not Richard Nixon. It is Dan Rather, long-time anchor of the CBS Evening News. It is somehow ironic that Rather, the reporter who dogged Richard Nixon throughout the Watergate scandal, is now the protagonist in his own circus of stonewalling and evasion. In many ways, Rather appears to have become that which he once despised.
The crux of the scandal is this; did a network journalist use the power of his nightly soapbox to help defraud the public, or was he merely the victim of a hoax? Did his personal hatred of George Bush and conservative beliefs lead him - via the use of what many experts now say are forged documents - to abandon objectivity and truth? Or, was he a pawn of Machiavellian political operatives.
There may never be a certain answer to this question. However, based on Rather's pattern of bias over the past few years (from Clinton to gun control to social issues of every flavor) I would tend to believe that the answer falls somewhere toward the left of middle.
Dan Rather has long struck me as less than forthright in his reporting. Most recent, though he was almost gleeful while "exposing" George Bush's National Guard record, he did not give the same attention to claims by the "Swift Vote Veterans" that John Kerry lied about his actions. In the latter instance Rather was correct in his actions; the unfounded accusations should not have been broached by an "objective" news source. But when it came to George Bush, Rather was ready to go with all guns blazing.
This is not the route taken by an objective reporter. It is the agenda-driven speculation of a political partisan.
But I doubt this was any conspiracy in the standard sense. More likely, Rather SO wanted this story to be true that he failed to engage in the due diligence that is supposedly the duty of a reporter. He used documents on his "60 Minutes" report that at least two experts (Hired by CBS) refused to authenticate. He still stands by the story, even after the wife, son and secretary of the man who allegedly signed the documents (dead 20 plus years and unable to refute) said that the papers were phony.
It should be noted that the secretary in question claims that the content of the documents is true, just not the documents themselves. She has also publicly stated that George Bush is "not qualified" to be President. No surprise then that CBS has featured her on a follow-up "60 Minutes" interview. They conveniently have not featured the wife and son, who are Bush supporters.
I find it plausible that Dan Rather BELIEVES George Bush received special treatment during his Guard days. I think he BELIEVES it so strongly that his own opinions became the only facts he needed. Even without hard evidence, he BELIEVES in his own unproved supposition. In his arrogance, and because he does have the power, he felt it was his duty to present suspect documents to the American people as fact.
It is the typical and consistent liberal arrogance that one must protect people from themselves, lie to them for their own good. It is the typical and consistent liberal hubris that BELIEFS always supersede facts. Rather and his cronies know that accusations tend to stick, even if later proven to be utterly false (retractions and corrections are usually buried on the back page and rarely seen). He wanted to bend opinion to help bring down George Bush, in any way possible.
Thus, firm in his convictions, Rather aired a story intended solely to hurt the President, to perhaps lend a hand in helping defeat him in the November elections. It's really quite sad, for a once respected journalist has now transformed himself into the video version of Jason Blair. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Rather is not operating on the premise that "where there is smoke there is fire." Far more despicable, for a journalist, he has proceeded on the assumption that "where I think there should be smoke, we will start a fire."
I am the first to admit that my experience has led me to be suspect of the motives and methods often common within the journalistic fraternity. I recall once being assigned a story investigating the effect of media violence on kids. Not relying on local sources, I sought out and interviewed top experts all over the country. Their conclusion was that though media violence can desensitize, and though it can be a factor that contributes to "real" violence, the overwhelming consensus was that the role of the family (not TV or video games) serves as the main determinant.
But the paper's editor (proudly liberal and a fan of social legislation) wished to show that TV violence unquestionably leads teenagers to violence. She cut out every quote that implied otherwise, and made no bones about the fact that her BELIEFS took precedence over fact. The story ran, re-written heavily and without the majority of facts or the statements of learned experts. It ran without my by-line, for I informed the company I would immediately resign if the pack of unsubstantiated lies was presented as my work.
I've seen similar scenarios time and again over the years, and I'm reminded of them because of what is now known as ā€¯RatherGate." This is not a story of a reporter dedicated to truth. It is a story of hubris, arrogance and pride. Worse, CBS seems determined to dodge the question, to claim they were fooled (perhaps by Karl Rove's minions, as liberals are now hinting) or that their original experts did not share their fears.
Dan Rather, in a published interview, had this to say:
"It's never been fully, completely denied by the Bush-Cheney campaign or even the White House that he (Bush) was suspended for meeting the standards of the Air Force or that he didn't show up for a physical," he said. "The longer we go without a denial of such things-this story is true."
That statement borders on the ravings of a fanatic. Excuse me? A story is true because someone doesn't deny an unfounded, unproved rumor? Since when? Why should an accused be forced to acknowledge spurious claims. That only gives the claims an air of legitimacy.
The burden of proof is on the reporter. It is not on the accused. By Rather's reasoning every defendant in America is guilty until proven innocent. It's amazing how this man has gone from upholding journalistic integrity to advocating a practice that would be denounced by any first year journalism student in American. Such seems to be an ever-increasing practice in the halls of journalism, however, as ideology drives news organizations to convict an accused sans evidence or trial.
Unfortunately, there will be little fall-out from the scandal. The networks have too much power. They know, given time, other matters will crop up and they will be knocked from the front page. People forget, and quickly. One US Representative (Chris Cox of California) is calling for a Congressional investigation, but such will never get off the ground.
Funny, isn't it? Janet Jackson exhibits a "wardrobe malfunction" at the Superbowl and Congress goes wild. The public is inflamed, and the networks bow and scrape and apologize, promising to clean up their act.
But in the face of a potential attempt by Dan Rather and CBS to bring down a President via lies and innuendo, the networks are amazingly silent. They claim innocence and infallibility, refuse any semblance of culpability or responsibility. In their arrogance, they believe they can do no wrong. Their crimes are just, by their thinking, because their cause is just.
Richard Nixon felt exactly the same way.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ron Marr
