Still "Rather" Clueless
Last night, Larry King had an interview with Dan Rather; the first such since his departure March 9th from the CBS Evening News. Below is a link that will take you to the transcript of that interview. Much of the interview revolved around "Deep Throat", and Woodward and Bernstein. Larry did ask him a few questions regarding his infamous downfall over the fake TANG memos.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/02/lkl.02.html
KING: What was it like, Dan, when it was breaking and kind of unraveling. And you were the focal point. And then you had to stand up and say we were wrong. Emotionally, what was it like for a reporter who devotes his life to this?
RATHER: It's never pleasant. But, you know, among the many things that my late father -- God rest his soul -- don't whine, don't complain, don't fall in a trap of saying it's bad luck or good luck. Stand up, look them in the eye and tell them what you know, tell them what you don't know.
And I tried to do that. I'm not a victim of anything except my own shortcomings. And it didn't feel terrific. There certainly were days when I felt I had been put to bed wet. But I always got up the next morning and said, you know what? This looks like a great day to me even during what other people might say were the worst of times.
He should have stood up and admitted that they used fake memos. But he did not, and he has not. The "fake, but accurate" mantra is something that the press is now able to fall back on, thanks to Dan Rather. Newsweek attempted that spin over their Koran desecration story. Newsweek has maintained that there is no underlying evidence to prove their story was false. Unless you take the word of the Pentagon, which came out two days after the story was printed and published that they had found no such incidents at Gitmo. And, the closest thing to "desecration" they could find was a soldier that dropped a Koran—inadvertently—to the floor. Since then, it has come out that it was a detainee that dropped it, then blamed a guard.
As for his shortcomings, it was apparent at the time that he had quite a few of them involved in the TANG memo story. He and Mary Mapes have had an ax to grind against the Bush family for quite some time. They tried the same story in 2000, but could not find any evidence showing that Pres. Bush had missed his Guard service, or that he had not served honorably. They did it again in 2004, only this time they used fake documents. And of course they were the worst of times for him. Why else would he have had the news conference where Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw stood up to defend him, and attack the bloggers for what they did. We only did what the editors should have done. We dug up the information, spoke with experts, and outed Dan Rather fairly quickly.
KING: Do you think the Republicans, the right-wing Republicans were after you?
RATHER: No. Again, I'm not a victim of anything.
I don't say, no, they weren't. I don't know. But what I do know is that I've always tried to be an independent reporter. And italicize, all caps if necessary, independent reporter. And when you do that, not everybody is going to like you.
And, certainly, there are some people in the category that you mentioned who are not all that fond of me or my work, there are some on other side of my fence who are not. It goes with the territory of a reporter. So, I'm not here to say that anybody was out to get us.
Clearly, there's some people for their own partisan, political and ideological reasons want to jump on people that they perceive to be not with them. You and I have talked about this before. And I think it's so important for the public to understand that what people in power want to do is, explicitly or implied, they want to say and they want to have you, the reporter, and more importantly, your bosses believe either you report the news the way we want it to be reported or we'll make you pay a price.
And the price will begin by calling you some name. Radical, whatever. And the mark of trying to be decent, trying to be a good reporter, is you don't succumb to that. You say, you know, look, I try my best to report the news without fear of favor. I try my best to pull no punches, play no favorites.
What is this pap from Larry? The "vast right-wing conspiracy" again? We on the right could give a rip about Dan Rather and his biases. That it until they spill over into his reporting. The TANG memos showed there was a level of bias in his reporting. In an election year, just weeks prior to the general election, you put out a story that shows that the sitting president did not have an honorable Guard record. When the story is destroyed in less than twenty-four hours, you stand your ground, and declare them authentic? We did not bring Dan Rather down because of his bias. We brought Dan Rather down because he was caught lying and peddling "evidence" that was phony from the start.
We did not jump on Rather for any partisan purpose. We jumped on him because of the journalistic felony of lying. Jayson Blair lost his job at the New York Times over lying and plagiarizing. So, why should Dan Rather be any different. The "independent reporter" line is a classic. Years ago, Rather was addressing a gathering of students. I forget the school, but during this address he stated that journalists were no longer the presenters of fact, but rather purveyors of truth. But truth, Rather forgets, is a three-edged sword. My truth, your truth, and the real truth. The job of a journalist, newsman, reporter, etc., is to present the facts to the people, and let them decide their own truth.
And as for not playing favorites, give me a break. Was it not Dan Rather that told the Clintons how much he admired them, and went as far to say that we should only be so lucky if we even had one one-hundredth of the intelligence that the Clinton’s possessed? (So much for intelligence, or was Clinton impeached by the VRWC?) He has had two interviews with Saddam Hussein, both of which were schmooze-fests for the now-in custody dictator. His interview with Castro, again much like the ones for Hussein, were nothing more than puff-pieces. Do not tell me the man does not "play favorites".
KING: As you reflect, and after seeing the report, what went wrong in your matter on the Air National Guard story? Where along the way did it snap?
RATHER: Without agreeing with the premise of whether it snapped or not...
KING: Well, I don't know another word. You might still believe the story, by the way.
RATHER: Well, without getting into that because the panel, this panel that was chosen by CBS to look into it, they issued their report. CBS adopted the report. I said at the time and I say now, I read the report. I absorbed it. I carried forward in my work. Anybody wants to know the panel's version of what happened should read the report.
The situation that we had and still have is the last line of this has not been written... We'll say this, that -- Carl Bernstein used the phrase, which is popular among journalists and I think is apt, that you get the best obtainable version of the truth. Others will have to judge how good or how bad our version of the truth was and how close we came to it. We had here was, again, the documents, which were a weakness and I'm accountable and responsible for a great part of that, and when my name is on it, I take responsibility for it. But the documents were part of a fairly wide array of information we had, that the facts that we presented as -- and some of it new information -- was supported by all kind of things other than the documents.
Now, the documents were a support for those and an important support, and when questions were raised, well, how do we know that documents are true? We had some problems. However, I do want to point out, and I -- listen, anybody who wants to castigate this or fuss with this, have at it. I will point out that the panel, which was headed by a President Nixon, Reagan, Bush family supporter and a journalist who said that George Bush one was one of the greatest people he ever met -- this panel came forward and what they concluded, among the things they concluded after months of investigation and spending millions of dollars, they could not determine that the documents were fraudulent. Important point, that we don't know whether the documents were fraudulent or not.
KING: Are you saying the story might be correct?
RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view.
KING: Do you have that view?
RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view.
First, the last line has been written on this subject. It was written the night he ran that broadcast, and told everyone in America that was watching that Pres. Bush did not serve honorably and properly. He used those memos as the backbone of the story. That was the "new" evidence that CBS finally dug up, or made up. They could not find these memos in 2000, but they suddenly appear (faxed from a Kinkos in Texas) in 2004? And there is still no explanantion provided by him or the investigators as to the superscript "th" in the memos, or the proportional spacing of the letters, or of anything else connected to them.
See, he still refuses to admit that the documents were phony, and that there is no story. Rather reminds me of OJ on the Florida golf courses looking for his ex-wife’s murderer. (OJ, here is a hint; look in a mirror.) Rather can claim that they had evidence—even new evidence, he claims—to show the story was true. But the problem with that is much like the problem with John Kerry.
Dan Rather hung his hat on those memos. John Kerry hung his hat on his Vietnam service. When Kerry’s service was called into question (Christmas-Eve-Not-In-Cambodia), Kerry ducked the issue, and had his handlers speak out against those criticizing him. Dan Rather did the same thing. At the height of the TANG fiasco, Johnathan Stein—a former high-up muckety-muck at CBS—ripped into the bloggers, and gave us the monniker we proudly where when he referred to us as "guys in pajamas". Jim Geraghty jumped in, and dubbed us the "pajamahadeen", and the rest is history. Brokaw and Jennings stood up to defend him. Even Eleanor Clift was defending him. But when the fur was flying over the memos, Rather pulled a Kerry, and hid in the shadows. He knew he was in deep trouble. He can talk about how he has the "courage" to stand up, but in the end, he ran away.
And I am unaware of a prudent person that would buy the TANG story he was trying to peddle. The president’s military records are available for perusal. Anyone can see them. He is out in the open. Dan Rather was not, and he stands up for his entire career. Does he admit that journalists sometimes get it wrong? Yes, he does. Does he admit that he got it wrong? Yes he did, but he is still clinging to the "fake, but accurate" defense. And that is why this man is still "Rather" clueless.
The Bunny ;)
Last night, Larry King had an interview with Dan Rather; the first such since his departure March 9th from the CBS Evening News. Below is a link that will take you to the transcript of that interview. Much of the interview revolved around "Deep Throat", and Woodward and Bernstein. Larry did ask him a few questions regarding his infamous downfall over the fake TANG memos.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/02/lkl.02.html
KING: What was it like, Dan, when it was breaking and kind of unraveling. And you were the focal point. And then you had to stand up and say we were wrong. Emotionally, what was it like for a reporter who devotes his life to this?
RATHER: It's never pleasant. But, you know, among the many things that my late father -- God rest his soul -- don't whine, don't complain, don't fall in a trap of saying it's bad luck or good luck. Stand up, look them in the eye and tell them what you know, tell them what you don't know.
And I tried to do that. I'm not a victim of anything except my own shortcomings. And it didn't feel terrific. There certainly were days when I felt I had been put to bed wet. But I always got up the next morning and said, you know what? This looks like a great day to me even during what other people might say were the worst of times.
He should have stood up and admitted that they used fake memos. But he did not, and he has not. The "fake, but accurate" mantra is something that the press is now able to fall back on, thanks to Dan Rather. Newsweek attempted that spin over their Koran desecration story. Newsweek has maintained that there is no underlying evidence to prove their story was false. Unless you take the word of the Pentagon, which came out two days after the story was printed and published that they had found no such incidents at Gitmo. And, the closest thing to "desecration" they could find was a soldier that dropped a Koran—inadvertently—to the floor. Since then, it has come out that it was a detainee that dropped it, then blamed a guard.
As for his shortcomings, it was apparent at the time that he had quite a few of them involved in the TANG memo story. He and Mary Mapes have had an ax to grind against the Bush family for quite some time. They tried the same story in 2000, but could not find any evidence showing that Pres. Bush had missed his Guard service, or that he had not served honorably. They did it again in 2004, only this time they used fake documents. And of course they were the worst of times for him. Why else would he have had the news conference where Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw stood up to defend him, and attack the bloggers for what they did. We only did what the editors should have done. We dug up the information, spoke with experts, and outed Dan Rather fairly quickly.
KING: Do you think the Republicans, the right-wing Republicans were after you?
RATHER: No. Again, I'm not a victim of anything.
I don't say, no, they weren't. I don't know. But what I do know is that I've always tried to be an independent reporter. And italicize, all caps if necessary, independent reporter. And when you do that, not everybody is going to like you.
And, certainly, there are some people in the category that you mentioned who are not all that fond of me or my work, there are some on other side of my fence who are not. It goes with the territory of a reporter. So, I'm not here to say that anybody was out to get us.
Clearly, there's some people for their own partisan, political and ideological reasons want to jump on people that they perceive to be not with them. You and I have talked about this before. And I think it's so important for the public to understand that what people in power want to do is, explicitly or implied, they want to say and they want to have you, the reporter, and more importantly, your bosses believe either you report the news the way we want it to be reported or we'll make you pay a price.
And the price will begin by calling you some name. Radical, whatever. And the mark of trying to be decent, trying to be a good reporter, is you don't succumb to that. You say, you know, look, I try my best to report the news without fear of favor. I try my best to pull no punches, play no favorites.
What is this pap from Larry? The "vast right-wing conspiracy" again? We on the right could give a rip about Dan Rather and his biases. That it until they spill over into his reporting. The TANG memos showed there was a level of bias in his reporting. In an election year, just weeks prior to the general election, you put out a story that shows that the sitting president did not have an honorable Guard record. When the story is destroyed in less than twenty-four hours, you stand your ground, and declare them authentic? We did not bring Dan Rather down because of his bias. We brought Dan Rather down because he was caught lying and peddling "evidence" that was phony from the start.
We did not jump on Rather for any partisan purpose. We jumped on him because of the journalistic felony of lying. Jayson Blair lost his job at the New York Times over lying and plagiarizing. So, why should Dan Rather be any different. The "independent reporter" line is a classic. Years ago, Rather was addressing a gathering of students. I forget the school, but during this address he stated that journalists were no longer the presenters of fact, but rather purveyors of truth. But truth, Rather forgets, is a three-edged sword. My truth, your truth, and the real truth. The job of a journalist, newsman, reporter, etc., is to present the facts to the people, and let them decide their own truth.
And as for not playing favorites, give me a break. Was it not Dan Rather that told the Clintons how much he admired them, and went as far to say that we should only be so lucky if we even had one one-hundredth of the intelligence that the Clinton’s possessed? (So much for intelligence, or was Clinton impeached by the VRWC?) He has had two interviews with Saddam Hussein, both of which were schmooze-fests for the now-in custody dictator. His interview with Castro, again much like the ones for Hussein, were nothing more than puff-pieces. Do not tell me the man does not "play favorites".
KING: As you reflect, and after seeing the report, what went wrong in your matter on the Air National Guard story? Where along the way did it snap?
RATHER: Without agreeing with the premise of whether it snapped or not...
KING: Well, I don't know another word. You might still believe the story, by the way.
RATHER: Well, without getting into that because the panel, this panel that was chosen by CBS to look into it, they issued their report. CBS adopted the report. I said at the time and I say now, I read the report. I absorbed it. I carried forward in my work. Anybody wants to know the panel's version of what happened should read the report.
The situation that we had and still have is the last line of this has not been written... We'll say this, that -- Carl Bernstein used the phrase, which is popular among journalists and I think is apt, that you get the best obtainable version of the truth. Others will have to judge how good or how bad our version of the truth was and how close we came to it. We had here was, again, the documents, which were a weakness and I'm accountable and responsible for a great part of that, and when my name is on it, I take responsibility for it. But the documents were part of a fairly wide array of information we had, that the facts that we presented as -- and some of it new information -- was supported by all kind of things other than the documents.
Now, the documents were a support for those and an important support, and when questions were raised, well, how do we know that documents are true? We had some problems. However, I do want to point out, and I -- listen, anybody who wants to castigate this or fuss with this, have at it. I will point out that the panel, which was headed by a President Nixon, Reagan, Bush family supporter and a journalist who said that George Bush one was one of the greatest people he ever met -- this panel came forward and what they concluded, among the things they concluded after months of investigation and spending millions of dollars, they could not determine that the documents were fraudulent. Important point, that we don't know whether the documents were fraudulent or not.
KING: Are you saying the story might be correct?
RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view.
KING: Do you have that view?
RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view.
First, the last line has been written on this subject. It was written the night he ran that broadcast, and told everyone in America that was watching that Pres. Bush did not serve honorably and properly. He used those memos as the backbone of the story. That was the "new" evidence that CBS finally dug up, or made up. They could not find these memos in 2000, but they suddenly appear (faxed from a Kinkos in Texas) in 2004? And there is still no explanantion provided by him or the investigators as to the superscript "th" in the memos, or the proportional spacing of the letters, or of anything else connected to them.
See, he still refuses to admit that the documents were phony, and that there is no story. Rather reminds me of OJ on the Florida golf courses looking for his ex-wife’s murderer. (OJ, here is a hint; look in a mirror.) Rather can claim that they had evidence—even new evidence, he claims—to show the story was true. But the problem with that is much like the problem with John Kerry.
Dan Rather hung his hat on those memos. John Kerry hung his hat on his Vietnam service. When Kerry’s service was called into question (Christmas-Eve-Not-In-Cambodia), Kerry ducked the issue, and had his handlers speak out against those criticizing him. Dan Rather did the same thing. At the height of the TANG fiasco, Johnathan Stein—a former high-up muckety-muck at CBS—ripped into the bloggers, and gave us the monniker we proudly where when he referred to us as "guys in pajamas". Jim Geraghty jumped in, and dubbed us the "pajamahadeen", and the rest is history. Brokaw and Jennings stood up to defend him. Even Eleanor Clift was defending him. But when the fur was flying over the memos, Rather pulled a Kerry, and hid in the shadows. He knew he was in deep trouble. He can talk about how he has the "courage" to stand up, but in the end, he ran away.
And I am unaware of a prudent person that would buy the TANG story he was trying to peddle. The president’s military records are available for perusal. Anyone can see them. He is out in the open. Dan Rather was not, and he stands up for his entire career. Does he admit that journalists sometimes get it wrong? Yes, he does. Does he admit that he got it wrong? Yes he did, but he is still clinging to the "fake, but accurate" defense. And that is why this man is still "Rather" clueless.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:28 PM
1 Comments:
From Rawriter
I don't know why Rather and CBS weren't taken to the woodshed when it aired a "documentary" titled, "The Wall Within" in 1988. It was a fraud. It wasn't true. It wasn't a documentary. As I recall, Rather used six "veteran." These veterans were supposed to be unable to adjust to civilian life. They couldn't hold down a job, they were drunks and drug addicts. Only one of the character was a veteran he was never in harms way in Vietnam. The other five were never in the service. They acted. After the program and Rather was exposed for the insulting, demeaning fraud, CBS stood by Rather and the story. As far as I'm concerned, Rather and CBS lost all credibility.
Post a Comment
<< Home