Dan Rather’s* Legacy
Within hours of the 60 minutes II report which included the now known to be forged memos about the president’s National Guard service the “new” media, aka the blogoshpere, was raising doubts about the authenticity of the documents used in the report. Within about 24 hours the preponderance of the evidence indicated forgeries. And in less than a week after the report, the secretary (from what I understand a Kerry supporter) placed the final nail in the coffin of this dead report stating that she did not type these, and giving the only two models of typewriters used in the office allowing experts to definitively state that these documents were not typed on either of these typewriters.
So, two questions remain. How is it that Dan Rather* now finds himself with so much egg on his face? And with most reasonable people convinced that the documents are forgeries why has Dan Rather* not admitted them to be at least “questionable” and begin to rebuild the pile of rubble formerly his reputation?
As to the first question, given that CBS had been working on this story for four years and had not run it due to not having any tangible “proof”, like memos, and due to the fact that after this election that four year investment of time and money is of no value at all, I see four possibilities listed in worst case for Dan Rather* and CBS news to best case for them. 1) Worst case, Dan Rather*, or someone working on this story typed these forgeries to revive the story they had been working on for four years. 2) In order to save four year's work Dan Rather*, knowingly, used forged documents in his report supplied to them by someone in or at least sympathetic to the Kerry campaign. 3) In order to save four years work Dan Rather* used documents of questionable origin in his report, but he felt the story “important” and “timely” enough that he turned a blind eye, thinking that they may get away with it. 4) Dan Rather* really had no idea these were forgeries.
1) I don't think this to be the case. I have heard rumors that the “real” documents are handwritten, or in some way would identify the source, and that CBS forged the typed documents to “protect” their source. If this were the case it would have been easy for Dan Rather* to have said that “These are retyped copies to protect our source.” in the report. Then at worst Dan Rather* would be guilty of using inaccurate documents, but avoid the possibility of forgery charges. If this is true, Dan Rather*, and any other CBS people envolved should be prosecuted for forgery, and election tampering.
2 This is a bit more plausible, though not likely. While the documents were probably directly or indirectly from the Kerry campaign or someone at least thinking they were doing Kerry a favor, it is a legacy-killing dagger for one of Dan Rather's* last reports to be found fraudulent. I cannot speak for Dan Rather*, but was I him; I would not want to risk THAT just to get my guy elected. If this is true, he should at least be prosecuted for election tampering.
3 I could most easily buy these last two. I would bet that over the years many tv news reporters and newspaper reporters have gone to “press” with “questionable” materials. Many times never being questioned, and even if found to be false, they can plead ignorant (though they really had suspicions) and print or broadcast a retraction. Dan Rather*, having been so long in the news, and perhaps having gotten away with some minor “questionable” reports in the past may have thought that his name on the report would keep questions to a minimum. This may have worked on other “usual” news outlets. However, the pressure from an increasingly LESS “unusual” news outlet has caused even the “usual” ones to ask questions. A new reporter trying to make a name for himself, could almost be forgiven the “streach”. An executive producer should certainly know better. And the anchor should be beyond reproach. If a reporter, an executive producer, and an anchor for one of the five biggest tv newscasts in the country did this he should at a minimum be fired, and given the implications to the election, perhaps election tampering charges are in order.
4 If this, the least damaging “legally” of the options, is the truth, then there would be no intentional wrongdoing. However, what does it say to Dan Rather* and CBS’s competence or lack thereof? If a relatively new reporter missed such obvious forgeries that's bad. If the anchor missed them that's worse. If the executive producer missed it, it is unbelievable incompetence.
As to the second question, I think that it is a combination of things. Obviously some of them depend on which of the above reasons is correct. However, it is safe to say that Dan Rather* is embarrassed. After all he was found to have produced a fraudulent news report. Either he knew it was, and he himself is a fraud, or he was duped by someone else. Either way, with his years of experience this is shameful. Obviously Dan Rather* does not want to be remembered as the guy who screwed up when the chips were down. His pride is certainly part of it.
Another part may be that if his reporting, right or wrong, influences the upcoming election he would prefer it influence it in the direction of his candidate. It is obvious that Dan Rather* will be voting Democratic. If he plays fast and loose with the facts in a report and it hurts President Bush, so be it. However, Dan Rather* may be willing to fall on the sword rather than allow a report that he thought would help his candidate get elected, backfire and end up hurting his candidate. One problem that Dan Rather* will have is that, with a month and a half to the election, his stonewalling may actually have that negative effect on his candidate he was trying to avoid.
As for the forged documents, since it only took a couple of hours for the amateurs to figure it out, what does it say about the so-called professionals? The professionals who had as much time as they wanted to look at the documents before going to air, since they could have waited a week, a month, a year to air this. But there was an urgency to get this out NOW. This urgency is due to the fact that this becomes a non-story the day after the election. How many other times have the press pushed forward on an “urgent” story with “questionable” evidence and gotten away with it? Do some in the press think they are above question? Does Dan Rather*?
Dan Rather*, a week after the majority of the country knew that these were forged documents said that if they are forged he wants to “break” the story. Dan, you were scooped on that story a week ago by those pajama wearing bloggers!
* Dan Rather*, once respected reporter, news anchor and ABC news executive producer, left in humiliation after using forged documents to prop up a weak story that a first year journalism student would probably have known enough to pass on. It casts a shadow of doubt on all that Dan Rather* was involved in throughout his career.
Read more about it at
ImageShack - Hosting :: 60minbusted.swf
then…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
So, two questions remain. How is it that Dan Rather* now finds himself with so much egg on his face? And with most reasonable people convinced that the documents are forgeries why has Dan Rather* not admitted them to be at least “questionable” and begin to rebuild the pile of rubble formerly his reputation?
As to the first question, given that CBS had been working on this story for four years and had not run it due to not having any tangible “proof”, like memos, and due to the fact that after this election that four year investment of time and money is of no value at all, I see four possibilities listed in worst case for Dan Rather* and CBS news to best case for them. 1) Worst case, Dan Rather*, or someone working on this story typed these forgeries to revive the story they had been working on for four years. 2) In order to save four year's work Dan Rather*, knowingly, used forged documents in his report supplied to them by someone in or at least sympathetic to the Kerry campaign. 3) In order to save four years work Dan Rather* used documents of questionable origin in his report, but he felt the story “important” and “timely” enough that he turned a blind eye, thinking that they may get away with it. 4) Dan Rather* really had no idea these were forgeries.
1) I don't think this to be the case. I have heard rumors that the “real” documents are handwritten, or in some way would identify the source, and that CBS forged the typed documents to “protect” their source. If this were the case it would have been easy for Dan Rather* to have said that “These are retyped copies to protect our source.” in the report. Then at worst Dan Rather* would be guilty of using inaccurate documents, but avoid the possibility of forgery charges. If this is true, Dan Rather*, and any other CBS people envolved should be prosecuted for forgery, and election tampering.
2 This is a bit more plausible, though not likely. While the documents were probably directly or indirectly from the Kerry campaign or someone at least thinking they were doing Kerry a favor, it is a legacy-killing dagger for one of Dan Rather's* last reports to be found fraudulent. I cannot speak for Dan Rather*, but was I him; I would not want to risk THAT just to get my guy elected. If this is true, he should at least be prosecuted for election tampering.
3 I could most easily buy these last two. I would bet that over the years many tv news reporters and newspaper reporters have gone to “press” with “questionable” materials. Many times never being questioned, and even if found to be false, they can plead ignorant (though they really had suspicions) and print or broadcast a retraction. Dan Rather*, having been so long in the news, and perhaps having gotten away with some minor “questionable” reports in the past may have thought that his name on the report would keep questions to a minimum. This may have worked on other “usual” news outlets. However, the pressure from an increasingly LESS “unusual” news outlet has caused even the “usual” ones to ask questions. A new reporter trying to make a name for himself, could almost be forgiven the “streach”. An executive producer should certainly know better. And the anchor should be beyond reproach. If a reporter, an executive producer, and an anchor for one of the five biggest tv newscasts in the country did this he should at a minimum be fired, and given the implications to the election, perhaps election tampering charges are in order.
4 If this, the least damaging “legally” of the options, is the truth, then there would be no intentional wrongdoing. However, what does it say to Dan Rather* and CBS’s competence or lack thereof? If a relatively new reporter missed such obvious forgeries that's bad. If the anchor missed them that's worse. If the executive producer missed it, it is unbelievable incompetence.
As to the second question, I think that it is a combination of things. Obviously some of them depend on which of the above reasons is correct. However, it is safe to say that Dan Rather* is embarrassed. After all he was found to have produced a fraudulent news report. Either he knew it was, and he himself is a fraud, or he was duped by someone else. Either way, with his years of experience this is shameful. Obviously Dan Rather* does not want to be remembered as the guy who screwed up when the chips were down. His pride is certainly part of it.
Another part may be that if his reporting, right or wrong, influences the upcoming election he would prefer it influence it in the direction of his candidate. It is obvious that Dan Rather* will be voting Democratic. If he plays fast and loose with the facts in a report and it hurts President Bush, so be it. However, Dan Rather* may be willing to fall on the sword rather than allow a report that he thought would help his candidate get elected, backfire and end up hurting his candidate. One problem that Dan Rather* will have is that, with a month and a half to the election, his stonewalling may actually have that negative effect on his candidate he was trying to avoid.
As for the forged documents, since it only took a couple of hours for the amateurs to figure it out, what does it say about the so-called professionals? The professionals who had as much time as they wanted to look at the documents before going to air, since they could have waited a week, a month, a year to air this. But there was an urgency to get this out NOW. This urgency is due to the fact that this becomes a non-story the day after the election. How many other times have the press pushed forward on an “urgent” story with “questionable” evidence and gotten away with it? Do some in the press think they are above question? Does Dan Rather*?
Dan Rather*, a week after the majority of the country knew that these were forged documents said that if they are forged he wants to “break” the story. Dan, you were scooped on that story a week ago by those pajama wearing bloggers!
* Dan Rather*, once respected reporter, news anchor and ABC news executive producer, left in humiliation after using forged documents to prop up a weak story that a first year journalism student would probably have known enough to pass on. It casts a shadow of doubt on all that Dan Rather* was involved in throughout his career.
Read more about it at
ImageShack - Hosting :: 60minbusted.swf
then…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home