By Sara Pentz
When you look closely at one of the first statements made by disgraced CBS anchor Dan Rather after his disastrous “60 Minutes Wednesday” report smearing President Bush using fake documents, partisan politicians, and blind obedience to his personal political agenda—it is enlightening to see the ‘it’s-not-my-fault’ implications rampant throughout his statements. His so-called apology is one of the most insincere in all of television news broadcasting. There is not a morsel of repentance evident.
It is typical of Mr. Rather—a man who has spent his life glorifying liberal theories through his network reporting. He follows in the grand tradition of his predecessor Walter Cronkite. At least Cronkite has the honesty to admit that throughout his CBS career he was a liberal. Rather’s history is quite the opposite. He endlessly denies his liberal leanings even though they can be clearly documented over the course of his career.
The latest denial tops them all. He has accused the White House of trying to ‘smear’ him. Speaking recently at a media forum in
Rather adamantly maintains that he is politically independent and demonstrates shock that anyone would think otherwise. He guards his political independence as if his life depended on it. And, in fact, it does. If Rather is fired, dismissed, or retired early by CBS, his personal credibility will be tarnished forever. In other words he has a lot at stake. If he is booted, as he should be, it will end his career and besmirch his life’s work—perhaps a fitting punishment for so much arrogance.
This is the man who has been openly accused of liberal bias by just about everyone on the planet. He has insulted, pilloried, harangued and castigated presidents and vice presidents—all Republicans. That’s our first clue, giving lie to his argument that he is not biased. He has praised Carter, Clinton and Kerry. He has tossed softball questions to them and applauded their actions and behavior. The clues were there all along on his nightly reports and throughout the endless hours of his 60 Minutes program.
To bring home the issue of bias by Rather, here’s a brief look at the implications and contradictions in this particular statement, September 20, 2004, when Rather first addressed his use of forged documents. It will demonstrate his irresponsibility and the insincerity of his apology.
“Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 Minutes Wednesday (September 8, 2004) story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome. Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”
First, Rather said CBS, “…vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously.” Did they do that? No. They waited 12 days before even acknowledging that there might be a problem. In fact, in a bizarre statement several days into the brouhaha, Rather said he wanted to be the first person to break the story if the documents were really forgeries. Since he was actually the last person to acknowledge that fact, he then lied about his intent and therefore becomes suspect as a trustworthy reporter.
Next example: “And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.” Many weeks after the so-called confession CBS and Rather have not ‘let us know’ what issues their examination turned up. In fact, they have been so confused about how to examine the problem that they brought in two prominent outsiders to investigate. Or perhaps they did that because they were wary of their own bias. In fact, both CBS and Rather have fervently fought to maintain a cover-up of the details “…whatever the outcome”—the opposite of what they said they would do. That promise is un-kept. It is a delaying tactic used in the hopes that the entire incident will go away. The evasion needed to take this kind of stance is immense.
Next example: “I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers.” Dan Rather admits to being misled? How could that be for this seasoned professional? To admit such implies that he is not smart enough, or dedicated enough to his profession, to detect the forgeries. Or, if we are to take him at his word, is he admitting that he can easily be conned, scammed and deceived by a source? Does he really want us to think this? These are not very flattering descriptions to apply to a network news anchor—especially one who has a reputation for an inflated ego.
Next example: “…if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.” Why was Mr. Rather so blinded by the forgeries? The answer—he was not looking for truth. His sole agenda was to damage President Bush so much so that he could not allow himself to think about the possibility that the documents were not authentic. It is a monumental act of subterfuge. To this day Rather still contends that the content is true even though the evidence is fake—a blatant refusal to adhere to the principles of journalism—and to the vital relationship between the cause and effect.
In the last analysis, Mr. Rather has only himself to blame for the current rush to judge him of corrupt reporting. He has only himself to blame for being deceive, duped and misled about information he received and then spoon-fed to the American public. We can only hope that CBS will punish a man who not only lies, but also refuses to take responsibility for his unconscionable behavior.
