It's almost Oedipus Rex -- Oedipus also was determined to establish the truth. And that story also ends with a deposition ...

Posted by: Michael Brazier at September 21, 2007 4:08 PM | Permalink

Jay,
In many ways, it is a paradigmatic scenario in cultural war theater, a momentary judicial challenge to the Fox News World that sets the parameters our media betters live by. Rather's gesture has an evangelical fervor I have come to expect from mainstream media representatives of the right, but have seldom observed in the MSM from the left outside of relatively marginal figures such as Bill Moyers and Keith Olbermann.

You are right to suggest that this does look to be better theater than journalism. We'll find out soon enough: Does Rather the reporter have a real lead that amounts to something, or is this some form of repetition compulsion where personal pride brings him to demand yet another personal shaming?

It was the Boston Globe that put the TANG story on the map. The credibility of the charges concerning Bush's lack of guard service thus stands or falls with the status of the Boston Globe story.

The evidence to date suggests that CBS did a shamefully bad job of reporting--to the point that their efforts have became a pretext to ignore the Boston Globe's previously established and entirely unrelated journalism challenging Bush's claims regarding his service. In other words, CBS's bad reporting is entirely compatible with Bush having been AWOL, but you'll have to challenge the Boston Globe to claim otherwise, not Martha Mapes.

How Rather intends to make himself a winner even on this scenario remains a mystery. The report I saw mentioned that he was cut out of the story-checking loop on the memo story, which implies he was later apologizing in his own name for someone else's mistake. (If true, it would be eerily reminiscent of George Tenet publicly apologizing on behalf of the CIA for Stephen Hadley's private insistence on ignoring the CIA.)

If that's the strategy, Rather is standing up for Rather and is just as determined to take down CBS as LGF and the Freepers who think of Rather and CBS as one and the same thing. At the very least, it should be interesting to get corporate's view on this. The most interesting part of the story to me will be how the picture of CBS management looks from the perspective of Rather's lawyers. Accord to LGF, CBS's management is the heart of the liberally biased MSM beast. According to Rather, CBS's management are the handmaidens of MSM right wing authoritarians and their highest priority is appeasing the White House, even in defiance of the truth as they know it if necessary.

Given that culture war theater is grounded in these stark and mutually exclusive alternatives, something would seemingly have to give in the course of the trial. But then what are the odds that this episode of cultural war theater will change anymore minds than previous episodes have? We'll see soon enough.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at September 21, 2007 5:15 PM | Permalink

There are so many contradictions revealed by the complaint (pdf is here) that the only way the suit makes sense is as theatre.

The most obvious is the apology. Rather has now admitted that he reads things on the air that he does not believe just to keep his job. He looks us in the eye and tells us he's sorry when he's not. He has claimed that he presented stories he didn't do the work for and didn't check. He now claims that when he said he resigned voluntarily he was lying. He has shown that when he told the Los Angeles Times, "I'm of the school, my name is on it, I'm responsible," he was really just joking.

That's some pretty serious damage to his reputation that the fruits of the lawsuit will have to overcome.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 21, 2007 8:41 PM | Permalink

Dr. Rosen: - I stopped by here to see your take on the Rather story. I learned of your site from the "Hack Who Wrote Rosen" thread at my nominal home, The Next Hurrah. I found your site excellent and, with one belligerent exception, your commenters superb. At any rate, I think you are quite right that there is a significant amount of self serving theater here. That aside, there is a lot of good that can come from this in delving into the biases and motivations of major broadcast news, and attendant political pressures. Also, the final TANG story has never been told, and there are many misconceptions of the facts by both the left and right. I would urge you not to base definitive conclusions about where Rather is mentally and what he personally is up to, by the contents within the four corners of the complaint. It may appear to be a narrative, but it is first and foremost a legal document crafted by lawyers. I have a bit of experience here; and my reading of the complaint reveals it a great source of factual tidbits and information; but not an accurate overall picture of what they have and where they are necessarily going with the exception of opening up their desired theories and "persons of interest" to pursue. Rather has fantastic lawyers; Sonnenschein, Nath et.al. are first rate, and the lead, Marty Gold is superb. Theater it may be, but I predict that several of the acts will surprise and intrigue you. Thanks again for the great discussion on the "Hack" story.

Posted by: bmaz at September 22, 2007 5:51 AM | Permalink

That's some pretty serious damage to his reputation that the fruits of the lawsuit will have to overcome.

Jay, I think you missed one of the primary premises of the complaint --- Rather was asked to "take one for the team" (CBS News) with the (implied?) promise that the team would show him as much loyalty as he showed the team. Rather expected CBS to give him the opportunity to rehabilitate his reputation, and CBS consistently denied him that right.

In other words,the lawsuit is designed specifically to deal with issues you raised.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 22, 2007 7:10 AM | Permalink

Okay, I could see that line of argument, Paul.

I don't know how you rehabilitate a reputation when the man whose reputation it is remains in complete denial about the events that caused him to lose it. It seems to me he only confirms that the loss is just by entering into this action.

As I said in the post, "When your document examiners won’t back you up, and your story is about the documents, you have no story." Rather just rolls over this, and when he says things like "no one has ever proven the documents fraudulent" in explaining why he thinks the story true, thus clinging to "not definitively fake yet" as a evidentiary standard he's willing to stake his reputation on, you have to wonder if the client understands his own interests.

I think there's a substantial chance, given what I said about self-dramatizing, that he does not.

Now, all that aside, and addressing bmaz from Next Hurrah, I can see the potential the case has for interesting revelations about CBS, newsy tidbits about the internal investigation and turmoil, and even further information about Bush's military service. CBS was a mess then, so it's going to be ugly. I have no doubt they were wronged--screwed--by Bigfoot Rather, but it's also possible they wronged him. It was a panic situation in a dysfunctional company.

(See Greg Sargent on an interesting Abu Ghraib story in the court filing. CBS did not want to run it and almost didn't. )

I find it especially sad that comment thread people over at the Huffington Post are cheering on the deluded and disgraced and disgraceful Mary Mapes. But I long ago realized that I strongly dissent from what the die-hard left and culture war right think of this case. I expect no movement on any side there.

I'm with mainstream newsroom opinion on this one. You don't go on the air in September of an election year with a damaging story about a President up for re-election unless you have it nailed, and they weren't even close to having it nailed.

Everyone in investigative journalism knows what "you haven't got it" means. It does not mean the story is untrue; it means you haven't brought it to the standards of verification needed for the story to hold up, especially when attacked. When you haven't got it, you don't run with it. No good can come to Dan Rather until he accepts this.

The reason Rather didn't know about the weaknesses in the story before the story aired is that he was out playing anchorman, not reporting. And this is where a self-image that denies who he is, professionally, hurt him badly. Which is what my post is about.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 22, 2007 10:42 AM | Permalink

Of course it's theater, Jay. This is what happens when professional journalists -- especially those on television, for crying out loud -- start believing their own hype. If you hear the voice in the promos long enough, you begin to believe it.

I've written that the unintended consequence of this suit is that it "focuses attention on the self-centered nature of a once-proud institution, one that lost its way in the lust for significance within a culture it was supposed to serve."

I think many in the professional press have engaged this issue internally and that we're seeing (albeit slowly) important change. It's 2007, after all, not 2004. The question is can an enlightened press afford to relive this saga?

Posted by: Terry Heaton at September 22, 2007 11:00 AM | Permalink

Everyone in investigative journalism knows what "you haven't got it" means. It does not mean the story is untrue; it means you haven't brought it to the standards of verification needed for the story to hold up, especially when attacked. When you haven't got it, you don't run with it. No good can come to Dan Rather until he accepts this

Well, IMHO, the problem was that Mapes did have the story nailed -- "the story" being that Bush was lying about fulfilling his military obligations. What Mapes failed to "nail down" were the bright shiny objects (the Killian memos) that made it worthy of 60 Minutes II.

Keep in mind that the narrative described by the memos is completely consistent with the existing record, that Bush's superior officer confirmed the narrative, and that the White House point person on Bush's military records, Dan Bartlett, made no effort to dispute the contents of the memos, and called the story "old news."

I don't think that Mapes and Rather are in denial about what happened -- both of them are fully aware that they relied on a "trusted source" who proved to be unreliable, and the story had to be withdrawn as a result.

They just look at what happened from a different perspective than you do. Lets face it, if every journalist who ever got careless and reported something that couldn't be verified got canned, there wouldn't be any reporters. Its clear, at least to them (and to quite a few others) that what happened with the Killian memos story was a case of highly selective persecution -- and a highly selective (and politically motivated) lack of corporate support.

I mean, here is some stuff from the Post article you cited that is without any factual basis, and/or demonstrates a willingness to carelessly make statements of fact that, because of a lack of thoroughness, are unreflective of the actual facts, indicative of the mainstream media's rush to judgement....

• Word-processing techniques. Of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents.

while this is true, the question is why proportionately spaced documents that were being produced by TexANG from at least 1971 were NOT released with the rest of Bush's records, and only became available on 9/24/2004 as a result of an FOIA lawsuit.

• Factual problems. A CBS document purportedly from Killian ordering Bush to report for his annual physical, dated May 4, 1972, gives Bush's address as "5000 Longmont #8, Houston." This address was used for many years by Bush's father, George H.W. Bush. National Guard documents suggest that the younger Bush stopped using that address in 1970 when he moved into an apartment, and did not use it again until late 1973 or 1974, when he moved to Cambridge, Mass., to attend Harvard Business School.

actually, there is absolutely no evidence that Bush actually used the Longmont Avenue Address in "late 1973", and its highly doubtful that Bush was using in in 1974. Although Bush's discharge papers gave Bush's address at Harvard (with the wrong zip code), and that same address was used in the confirming order issued by TexANG (with the same wrong zip code), on January 30th 1974 mail was sent to Bush's by the Air Force at his last known Houston address (on Westheimer Ave.) A subsequent document, notifying him of a new job code, was sent to Bush on March 7 at the Longmont Ave address, but by May 1 mail was being sent to Harvard again (but with the correct zip code). The likeliest explanation for the use of the Longmont Ave address -- used in the middle of the spring semester -- is that it was listed as Bush's parents address, and used because Bush was not answering his other mail from the Air Force.

One CBS memo cites pressure allegedly being put on Killian by "Staudt," a reference to Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, one of Bush's early commanders. But the memo is dated Aug. 18, 1973, nearly a year and a half after Staudt retired from the Guard. Questioned about the discrepancy over the weekend, CBS officials said that Staudt was a "mythic figure" in the Guard who exercised influence from behind the scenes even after his retirement.

What the Post doesn't mention is that the memo that mentions Staudt (see page 6) clearly differtiates between Staudt and the TexANG leadership to wit... "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges...[TexANG HQ in] Austin is not happy today either" (emphasis added).

I could go on, and on....

the Washington Post story that you cited includes at least one statement with no basis in fact, but Howard Kurtz still has a job. It also contains a variety of other statements that are just as (if not more) questionable -- and reflective of a lack of thorough investigation -- as are the Killian memos --- let no one screamed for the heads of Dobbs and Kurtz.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 22, 2007 2:13 PM | Permalink

Jay,
A core aspect of the complaint is that Andrew Hayward and Betsy West took up CBS's corporate interest in appeasing the Bush administration by directly intervening in the standard editorial process. This managerial intervention in news judgement was unpecedented, but happened with both the Abu Ghraib story and the TexANG story and for explicitly political reasons.

According to the complaint, the practical result of politicized managerial intervention in the editorial process was that authority and control for vetting the story were usurped by management even as they refused to take any responsibility for the outcome they were explicitly and exceptionally in charge of. When the story blew up, management proceeded to scapegoat the very people they overruled and sidelined in deference to the Bush administration.

The claim is that management took over authority for the editorial process but publicly placed blame for management supervised failure on the very people they had themselves sidelined in the process. It's as if the head coach of a football team tells the offensive line coach he will personally draw up this week's offensive line strategy and when the quarterback gets sacked and suffers a season-ending concussion the head coach begins publicly bitching about the incompetence of the offensive line coach he had directly demoted to only advisory capacity that week.

I agree that the cost of admission for Rather is so high on this one it's hard to see how he comes out ahead. The primary reason being the one you point to, his willingness to bend to corporate will and present talking points he doesn't believe rather than resign. To me, it puts him in a place very much like George Tenet agreeing to apologize on behalf of the CIA for errors at the National Security Council. He alienates actors on every side and simply looks like an opportunist. That's where Rather is right now. He's burned all his bridges. By his own admission he has betrayed his conscience and the truth as he understood it. He will always be a traitor to the right. Not a pretty place to be.

If he detests corporate CBS for their capitulation to Bush administration coercion, then he need only look in the mirror to see part of the problem since he aided and abetted it by consenting to play the lead role. And he certainly won't be getting any sympathy in Freeperland.

To a degree, this complaint seems to bring ammunition for both sides of the culture war. CBS reporters had information damaging to Bush which leads the right to suspect them. Avowedly pro-Republican management figures who see the political future of CBS and Viacom at stake intervene and politicize the editorial process simply because they don't want to piss off the White House. Telling the truth about Abu Ghraib in a manner people will remember is seen as just too costly to CBS because they need administration and Republican good will for future corporate plans so management directly intervenes by delaying and ultimately burying the Abu Ghraib story for explicitly partisan and corporate profit-minded reasons.

The most curious claim is that management refused to seriously consider the facts of the case as related by their investigator as they had already formed an opinion on political and economic, rather than journalistic grounds. None of this makes up for Rather's complicity, but it is simply incompatible with the right's claim that CBS is out to get Republicans when it is pretty clearly run by a devoted Republican who personally identifies corporate CBS and GOP interests. The complaint draws a damning picture of a CBS corporate management for whom journalistic integrity is very low on their list of priorities.

There is a deep disconnect between the facts of a GOP management supervised vetting process producing the Killian memos perceived as an attack on the GOP with the complaint's description of a GOP management supervised white wash subsequent to the journalistic failure on the part of GOP-friendly management itself. Why would such a rabidly pro-GOP management lead vetting process, a group that intervened precisely in the name of raising evidentiary standards, proceed to approve what appears to be one of the weaker prime time broadcast news stories of the last several decades? That part of the complaint simply doesn't add up.

Lastly, it strikes me that the most likely real world result of this legal complaint is not that Rather's reputation gets rehabilitated. It is that the still disgraced Dan Rather gets paid for what looks like a pretty strong case for breach of contract and malicious libel. It was apparently concern for this same money that led Rather to cooperate in disgracing himself in the first place. This suit strikes me as having much more to do with financial self-interest than any serious possibility of rehabiliting Rather in the court of public opinion.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at September 22, 2007 2:23 PM | Permalink

p.luk said "if every journalist who ever got careless and reported something that couldn't be verified got canned, there wouldn't be any reporters."

Doesn't this go to the very heart of why the press has so little credibility with the public? In the real world, those who screw up pay a price; when journalists screw up they keep their jobs and keep reporting lies.

I think the public sees the hypocrisy of the press, who are always howling about "accountability" for politicians and corporations, but have so little interest in accountability for themselves.

And if the Rather lawsuit is the trend, no journalist
can be fired because he/she can always claim that he/she was a "scapegoat".

I'm looking for Judy Miller to hit NYTimes with a multi-million dollar Rather-suit, for getting thrown under the bus on the Plame and WMD business----and Judy went to jail, which Rather never did.

I do hope this goes to trial, which I doubt it will, because it will expose even more of the ugly side of journalism. The Plame case, which the NYTimes kept beating the drums to investigate, ended up hurting the press and Times more than it did Bush---we got to see how cozy "reporters" are with their powerful sources. I'm thinking the unintended consequences of opening up the Rather/CBS/TANG thing will show how CBS attempted to co-ordinate with the DNC/Kerry campaign, and other unsavory information---this will not be a plus for journalism and the press.

If it's true that sunlight is the best disinfectant, the press is long overdue for a thorough and complete cleansing----they have become sloppy and arrogant by hiding behind the First Amendment and liberal courts for too long, and as a result, the public does not trust them. What power does the press have if no one believes them?

The press is not above the law---when they lie about people or events, even in order to promote the established narrative, they need to pay a price.

Posted by: QC Examiner at September 22, 2007 3:05 PM | Permalink

If he detests corporate CBS for their capitulation to Bush administration coercion, then he need only look in the mirror to see part of the problem since he aided and abetted it by consenting to play the lead role.

Mark, I don't think you understand the chronology. At the time that Rather agreed to "take one for the team", he was not aware of the fact that CBS management was, in fact, acting to placate the White House. CBS was telling Rather that it was important for CBS News to get the "scandal" behind it, and move forward. Rather 'took one for the team' - then left him bleeding in the road.

proceed to approve what appears to be one of the weaker prime time broadcast news stories of the last several decades?

I think that were you to scrutize any prime time newscast, you'd find a lot of weaknesses even worse than this story. There was nothing all that "weak" in the story about Bush's dereliction of duty -- it appears especially weak only because of the intensity of the assault against it.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 22, 2007 3:29 PM | Permalink

this complaint seems to bring ammunition for both sides of the culture war.

I think that is unquestionably true, and that it will happen exactly that way.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 22, 2007 3:48 PM | Permalink

"He thinks CBS will settle. BeldarBlog, written by an attorney who in the past has done some work for CBS News, agrees. Because “courtroom truth” is not “boardroom truth.” In the end CBS will protect the boardroom’s narrative, and settle to prevent fatal blows against it"

But, the thing is, Rather does not have to settle. It is not unilaterally CBS's decision. I will bet dollars to donuts that Rather will not even think about settling until he has taken every deposition, requested every document, and collected every other type and form of evidence possible prior to discussing settlement. I think that those that think this is about money for Rather, and that he will be bought off by it to stop, are sorely mistaken. I see no indicia whatsoever that this is being constructed as a vehicle for settlement by Rather's attorneys; in fact, quite the opposite. People who think this is the case may also want to consider who Rather's legal team is and what their history shows.

Posted by: bmaz at September 22, 2007 4:05 PM | Permalink

Paul: I suppose it would come down to parsing the talking points Rather delivered, but the complaint refers to his being coerced into giving an apology he felt unnecessary and possibly untrue. The worst part is that the talking points seem to have presented him as personally apologizing for the outcome of a process in which he was effectively and exceptionally sidelined.

As Jay as already suggested, he just can't have it both ways: either he takes responsibility for the reporting he delivers or he doesn't. He has to choose one or the other. If it isn't his reporting and management pushed him out of vetting the story why take the fall? He himself claims to have been coerced. Regardless of his future knowledge of the partisanship of the later "investigation," he claims to have already been opposed to what he agreed to say at the time he said it.

I realize it is unfair and a very high bar, that the division of labor in the news room makes this kind of judgement-call difficult on a daily basis, but if as opposed to taking the fall he stood up and said, "I have had a long career based on my credibility as a reporter. This apology violates my conscience and will unfairly damage my well-earned reputation as a reporter determined to speak truth to power. I will have no part of it," I think Dan Rather would have come out much better in the long run.

That is a possibility that was completely in his power regardless of his lack of foreknowledge regarding future management betrayal. Management had already intervened and explicitly politicized news judgment. Did he really need the Thornburgh investigation to know where he stood on that count? Saying "I refuse to be the fall guy for management failure" would have radically lessened his disgrace in my eyes and probably improved his viability as a journalist in the future. I understand your point that they betrayed the deal they privately struck with him, but I'm not sure how taking one for a team you already know is corrupt (hence the Tenet reference) can ever be the right choice--or even in his own enlightened self-interest--regardless of the deal he thought he had struck with management.

I would guess he was motivated in part by simple survival strategy because he was determined not to let Republicans run him off the air, he felt that would be giving them just what they wanted. But that choice calls to mind maxims such as "Cutting off your nose to spite your face." It is it really worth compromising your integrity, credibility, and good name and faking an apology in order to stay in news as a discredited lightening rod who has himself admitted culpability for precisely what the enemies he wishes to spite have accused him of? I can't see how management's betrayal of his deal seriously alters that calculus--seriously alters how radically Rather loses with that deal even if management did keep its part of the bargain.

He basically claims his Killian memo apology was an MSM-GOP show trial. Well, there wouldn't have been any show trial if he hadn't played along. How does whether or not they keep his 60 Minutes deal substantially affect his utter loss of credibility by virtue of agreeing to participate in a show trial where he effectively confesses and apologizes for acts that were not his own?

It really passes all understanding I can muster. A Dan Rather who lived up to his self-understanding as a heroic journalist who fights only for truth would have just said no. As Jay has already effectively argued, that means Dan Rather is not who he thinks he is. For all of my interest in the light this case has already shone on White House and corporate GOP manipulation of the media powers that be, as far as Dan Rather's public reputation goes by all appearances the trial can only serve to confirm his opportunism, regardless of where your political sympathies lie. Hard times demand hard choices and it looks to me like Dan Rather made a very bad one.

Is there something I'm missing here?

Posted by: Mark Anderson at September 22, 2007 4:19 PM | Permalink

Rather does not have to settle. It is not unilaterally CBS's decision.

I agree completely. I think it is quite likely he won't until he's gotten a lot of stuff out. We could say he will seek only a narrative settlement, not paid in cash.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 22, 2007 4:28 PM | Permalink

bmaz: I'll take your word for the track record of the attornies. And I don't doubt that Rather seeks to discredit CBS. So your reading that perhaps he is not inclined to settle is intriguing and very plausible.

But I still have to wonder--how does shaming CBS lessen his complicity in the very acts he is purportedly attempting to expose? I think that is where the difficulty in rehabilitating his reputation lies for me. In the very act of distancing himself from the journalistic failure he apparently was not particularly responsible for, his own complaint exposes a new failing, "I, Dan Rather, journalistic hero agreed to lie to the American public in the MSM show trial of the century."

How does the power of discovery and sending CBS's GOP operatives down in flames make the shame of that act go away? He seemingly seeks to replace a story of journalistic malpractice with a story of moral and ethical failure. Can that really take Rather and his lawyers where they want to go?

Where is the percentage in confessing to moral failure in order to distance yourself from journalistic failure? How would that help to restore your good name? It strikes me as deeply Quixotic, regardless of any financial motive or lack thereof. It is the lack of logic in the argument for salvaging his reputation that led me to suggest that a financial settlement is the only positive I can see coming out of this for Rather personally.

If he took responsibility for caving to CBS pressure now, I could take Jay's description of this as Rather's stab at the last big assignment CBS wouldn't give him a little more seriously. Then perhaps this could be a little more effective as Rather's last public stage to redeem himself for playing a part in the show trial, to show that he has a spine now even if he didn't then, and he will use it to expose GOP and corporate manipulation of the news. Then perhaps we could conclude that Rather may have stumbled and disgraced himself, but now at least he has returned to fighting the good fight.

That, at least, makes a little bit of sense. But as long as Rather seeks to evade both journalistic and moral responsiblity, it is very hard to take the case for rehabilitating his reputation very seriously.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at September 22, 2007 4:43 PM | Permalink

Anderson sez:"CBS's corporate interest in appeasing the Bush administration by directly intervening in the standard editorial process...(t)his managerial intervention in news judgement was unpecedented(sic)..."

If only it was true. Unfortunately for partisans, there is a wealth of information showing that the Kennedy Administration intimidated and intervened in press coverage, to say nothing of how left-wing hero, Bill Moyers used his power to intimidate the press and spin the Viet Nam war to LBJ's advantage.

Left-wing, right-wing, Democrat, Republican----the establishment press caves to political pressure---which is why they have no credibility with the public----but nice try framing this as a Bush-only event. Unfortunately for you Anderson, the facts do not support your opinion.

You just look stoopid when you stoop to partisan BS.

Posted by: QC Examiner at September 22, 2007 4:44 PM | Permalink

QC Examiner: When I described this act as being "unprecedented" I was simply repeating an assertion in Rather's legal complaint. I readily agree that previous administrations have certainly tried and sometimes succeeded in influencing news coverage. I also agree with Jay, however, that Bush 43 has taken "playing hard ball" to a whole new anti-political, anti-democratic level.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at September 22, 2007 4:57 PM | Permalink

I realize it is unfair and a very high bar, that the division of labor in the news room makes this kind of judgement-call difficult on a daily basis, but if as opposed to taking the fall he stood up and said, "I have had a long career based on my credibility as a reporter. This apology violates my conscience and will unfairly damage my well-earned reputation as a reporter determined to speak truth to power. I will have no part of it," I think Dan Rather would have come out much better in the long run.

That is a possibility that was completely in his power regardless of his lack of foreknowledge regarding future management betrayal.

I really have to disagree, because at that specific point in time (i.e. the day after Burkett told CBS he'd lied about his source for the documents) a "principled resignation" would have looked more like an admission of guilt -- and a pre-emptive resignation. I mean, the fact remained that there had been a screw-up, and he had failed in his "supervisory" responsibilities -- he trusted in the judgment of "the team", and did need to acknowledge that he bore some responsibility. Its really tough to resign on principal because the brass wants you to issues an apology for CBS News when you are the face of CBS News.

Essentially, the broadcast was one big clusterf*ck --- the people who should have been ensuring that the documents were authentic were AWOL themselves, most notably 60 Minutes II executive producer Josh Howard. But for various reasons, including the fact that this was literally his first show as Exec. Producer, and he was probably wanted to start out with a bang and was sufficiently intimidated by the Rather/Mapes combo not to demand the right answers to the right questions, Howard failed miserably in his job. But the entire system failed -- and one of the big reasons it failed was because this was a "Dan Rather" story, and nobody really wanted to challenge Dan Rather (or, by extension, Mary Mapes).

That, at least, makes a little bit of sense. But as long as Rather seeks to evade both journalistic and moral responsiblity, it is very hard to take the case for rehabilitating his reputation very seriously.

Mark, I don't think that Rather is trying to evade all responsibility. If you watched him on Larry King, it was pretty obvious that he didn't consider himself blameless -- that he failed in his "supervisory" role.

Ultimately, I think that Rather is suing because the extent of the journalistic "sin" that was committed was grossly exaggerated -- and the exaggerated reaction to that sin has resulted in severe damage to his reputation. Rather thinks that Redstone, Moonves, etc are responsible for this, and their motivation was anchored in a willingness (if not an eagerness) to kow-tow to White House pressure in order to line their own pockets.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 22, 2007 5:44 PM | Permalink

The record of network news chieftains who have gotten calls from the White House attempting to prevent news from airing is long, and involves many presidents and both parties; but of course it's exceeded in length by all the calls and cave-ins we don't know about because they never came out. I would add that some of these requests from the White House are legitimate and some not. Some pleas were heeded, some were not. The situation is more complicated than anyone's formula for how it would play out.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 22, 2007 5:50 PM | Permalink

Mark - I agree with your, and Dr. Rosen's, thoughts for the most part about Rather and the acceptance of responsibility thing. I guess I might give just a slight bit more potential slack due to the fact that there was a team player aspect and he still had to 60 Minutes part of the gig to protect, or at least so he thought. Once he determined to bring this action, however, it would be a tactical legal mistake to engage in such public introspection, even if he fully believed that, until the suit is resolved. Were I his lawyer, I would tell him under no circumstances will he do that. On the whole though, I very much understand your position on this.

Also, the brunt of the discussion so far seems to be Rather's motivation and desired results vis a vis CBS and major media in general. I think that is a major focus, but but gives short shrift to what appears to me (although it is not nearly as obvious in the complaint; thus why I said above don't focus to hard on the complaint alone) to be an equal quest to settle a score with BushCo on TANG, Abu Ghraib, and their efforts to take him out. None of BushCo are named defendants, but this is about them as much as CBS if you ask me.

Posted by: bmaz at September 22, 2007 5:57 PM | Permalink

Paul writes: Howard failed miserably in his job. But the entire system failed -- and one of the big reasons it failed was because this was a "Dan Rather" story, and nobody really wanted to challenge Dan Rather (or, by extension, Mary Mapes)...

I agree strongly. Everyone at CBS failed, big-time. Rather's involvement raised the stakes and silenced doubts at the same time, a toxic and explosive combination.

I tried to warn CBS about this. Not kidding. No one there was reading my blog, of course, and I had no reason to think they would be, but... Here is what I wrote on Sep. 11, 2004, the Saturday after the story aired (Wednesday, Sep. 8):

It completely elevates the episode and charges it with political and cultural tension that the anchorman, Dan Rather, presented the CBS report Wednesday Night accusing Bush of disappearing from Guard duty. If Sixty Minutes had presented a damaging story of that kind at the height of an election campaign and it turned out to be based on forged documents, that would itself be a crisis. But it was Dan Rather on Sixty Minutes, and it is now Rather on the hook if the documents are fake. (Indeed, Rather told the Los Angeles Times, “I’m of the school, my name is on it, I’m responsible.”) That brings in Rather’s celebrity, the corporate iconography in which an anchorman is always involved, the succession drama at CBS News now that Rather is 72 years old, and the enormous venom out there for Rather, who is seen on the Right as a man of many political sins.

Readers may judge for themselves, but I think it's a pretty good road map to what went down, and the risk of keeping Rather at the center of the furor.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 22, 2007 6:07 PM | Permalink

Paul: I follow your logic. My first response is that Rather's own complaint paints a very different picture of the vetting process. It strongly emphasizes the claim that Rather was not in charge, that he had less authority and time to pursue these matters than usual, and that this was at the direct behest of Heyward, West, and Moonves who represented to him that they had it covered.

Is that compatible with your take on Rather failing in his supervisory responsibility? I read the complaint as stating precisely that he had been relieved of supervisory responsibility and ultimate authority, that these were now matters in the hands of Heyward and West, not staff producers or reporters or anchors.

Do you see the truth as somewhere in the middle, or would you say that the legal filing includes wishful or revisionary moments?

I'm afraid I didn't see the Larry King appearance. I'll check youtube to see if any of it is available there.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at September 22, 2007 6:09 PM | Permalink

Jay and Paul,
Doesn't the legal filing explicitly claim that Moonves, Heyward, and West did directly and successfully challenge Rather's authority on the Killian memos and the Abu Ghraib story? Doesn't the reading you and Paul are advancing here directly call into question the veracity of Rather's legal filing in that regard?

How do the two of you see that falling out?

Posted by: Mark Anderson at September 22, 2007 6:16 PM | Permalink

"Do you see the truth as somewhere in the middle, or would you say that the legal filing includes wishful or revisionary moments? "

If memory serves me correctly (too lazy to reread the filing) Rather was not relieved of his own supervisory authority per se... instead, Heyward (and West acting on Heyward's behalf, but not Moonves) exerted his own authority as head of CBS News, which of course exceeded Rather's (and Howard's) authority. It wasn't a question of "challenging" Rather's authority -- on Abu Ghraib the big shots used their authority, and delayed the broadcast. And based on the filing (and other stuff) I think its safe to say that Heyward considered part of his job to be to make sure that politically sensitive stories were presented 'properly'.

I do think that there may be some "fudging" with regard to who wanted this program rushed. Rather acts as if he (and by extension, Mapes) had nothing to do with it.

But my guess is that everyone wanted this story rushed -- keep in mind that USA Today published their own copies of the memos (including two that were not published by CBS) the day after the broadcast. I think that everyone involved was afraid that waiting another week represented a serious risk of losing that part of the 'scoop' altogether. And because everyone knew that the story was solid, they got sloppy with the sourcing.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 22, 2007 6:55 PM | Permalink

Some folks have made the point that they hope the thing is not settled.

Rather needs to prove it's true and CBS needs to prove it's false. If it's false, then Rather screwed himself, without CBS' help.

If the stuff is false, Rather loses.

So CBS, if this comes to the mat, will be trying to prove Rather's stuff is false. They have deeper pockets. They also have a television news show on which to talk about it.

It may be easier to cry for what remains untold of Bush's military records at this date. During and shortly after the campaign, although there was a bunch of noise about the Bush record, it was slightly offset by the unavailability of Kerry's records. He said he'd release them and he has not. Too great an effort toward Bush might generate more effort toward Kerry. But no major journalist AFAIK ever challenged Kerry after he first said he'd release his records. The point, of course, was not to embarrass Kerry, but to embarrass Bush, so Kerry was left alone except by the right. No MSM bothered him.

Now that he's officially a nobody, any cries to get his records can be dismissed with a sneer and their is no offsetting pressure which might keep the pressure on Bush down.

In case you haven't heard, some of the speculation is that he got a nasty discharge due to hanging with the seamiest side of the anti-war movement while a commissioned officer in the USN. Further, Carter upgraded it, and the redone doc, with John Warner's signature on it, is hidden in some vault someplace.
If such were not the case, or something like it, the reasoning goes, Kerry would have released his records.

This is particularly odd, if there were nothing amiss, since Kerry was, in part, running on his miltary history and Bush was not "reporting for duty" (speaking of theatricality). It's particularly odd when Kerry keeps his records under wraps while running on their putative contents, and it's particularly odd when the MSM go after Bush's records when he is not.

Well-a-day. Hope this goes to trial

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at September 22, 2007 7:55 PM | Permalink

I think on Larry King Live Rather barely allowed for the possibility that he was responsible for what went over the air with the Sep. 8th story. He begrudingly says he had something to do with it, but tries to suggest the editing, vetting, checking and "good-to-go-ing" was taken out of his hands.

I think they were all involved, and all have responsibility for blowing it.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 22, 2007 7:57 PM | Permalink

p.lukasiak: And because everyone knew that the story was solid, they got sloppy with the sourcing.

Have you ever looked into how one Captain Alfred Dreyfus came to be convicted of treason against France? Everyone in the French Army just knew he was guilty, so discrepancies in the evidence didn't trouble them ... but what everyone knew, wasn't true.

Regarding the forged memos, if the CBS news executives had yielded to pressure from Bush and killed their story, they and Rather and Mapes would all be far better off than they are now. It doesn't make sense to suppose Bush even applied pressure, but if he did, Heyward resisted it. The one thing the story can't possibly be is "White House and corporate GOP manipulation of the media powers that be"; the only one manipulating CBS News was Rather himself.

Posted by: Michael Brazier at September 22, 2007 9:17 PM | Permalink

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Jay. I thought Rutten did a pretty good job, as well.

It's a somber thing to see the ruined house that Murrow built now reduced to a shabby backdrop for the last act in the ego theater of Dan Rather.

I also went back and read Ernest Miller's, Incompetent AND Unethical: The Story of CBS News' Response to Criticism of the Killian Memo Forgeries

Posted by: Tim at September 22, 2007 9:51 PM | Permalink

The hapless Dan Bartlett and his WH cronies really did roll the press on this one.
They weren't clueless.
They went, "huh?" "What, now?" "We don't know anything about....what was that again?"

THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD NOT DENY!!!!

For days.

"You guys got enough rope, yet?"

And you're supposed to the smart ones. Sheesh.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at September 22, 2007 10:14 PM | Permalink

I don't think anyone is going to find evidence of "pressure from Bush." That's Rather blowing smoke. What they might find is CBS executives worried about the reaction from Washington and making decisions based on that sense of alarm.

Rutten of the LA Times--thanks for the link, Tim--summarizes the shockers in Rather's lawsuit from the newsroom point-of-view. This is why the reputation recovery part of the suit is so odd:

The former anchorman now says that he had little, if anything, to do with the reporting, sourcing or fact-checking that went into the Bush segment. He was busy elsewhere -- covering a hurricane and former President Clinton's heart surgery. Other people reported and vetted the charges against Bush; Dan just went on camera and recited them -- sort of like a court clerk.

If that's true, it's beyond reprehensible. The anchorman of the "CBS Evening News" went on camera and told the world that a wartime president of the United States had deliberately evaded military service himself, even though the anchorman had no firsthand knowledge that the charge was true?

...He now says that the retraction and apology he delivered over the air was not true. He says that he never believed the segment was wrong or that there was anything for which to apologize. Rather says, moreover, that the apology he read was written for him by a corporate employee of CBS.

If that's true, it's the most shocking of all his admissions. Rather was not simply the anchor of the "CBS Evening News"; he was its managing editor. If he knowingly broadcast something he believed was false, it's a stunning breach of journalistic ethics. Moreover, if he aired something that was concocted by CBS' corporate staff rather than produced by the news division's journalists, he cooperated in an unforgivable surrender of the standards that separate the business and news sides in American media organizations.

I like "the last act in the ego theater of Dan Rather." That's what it seems like to me.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 22, 2007 11:15 PM | Permalink

here's my problem with these "newsroom" types like Rutten...

If that's true, it's beyond reprehensible. The anchorman of the "CBS Evening News" went on camera and told the world that a wartime president of the United States had deliberately evaded military service himself, even though the anchorman had no firsthand knowledge that the charge was true?

Rutten assumes that the Killian memos were the "proof" that Rather used to say that "a wartime President...deliberately evaded military service."

Where does Rutten come up with this? Certainly, at no point has Rather ever suggested that the Killian memos were the "proof" that was missing for those who believed, without proof, that Bush "evaded military service." The Killian memos were just more evidence to support what was already known -- and Rather (and Mapes) have consistently emphasized how the documents supported (and were supported by) the narrative described by the documents released by the White House.

Should Rutten be fired -- not just fired, but vilified for all time -- for his failure to fully research this piece before making this completely assinine claim? Rutten simply ASSUMES that if Rather wasn't in charge of verifying the authenticity and provenance of the memos, that Rather's larger point was without any basis whatsoever.

CBS would never have gone with this story were it not 100% sure of the truth of the underlying claim -- that Bush had blown off his military obligation after fulfilling less than 2/3s of contracted obligation -- and serving less than half of the time he'd agreed to serve as a fully trained fighter pilot.

CBS had the proof...the Killian memos were just the bells and whistles that made the story "big" enough for 60 Minutes II.

But nobody is gonna demand Rutten's head, because its open season on Dan Rather right now....just as it was open season on Rather three years ago.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 22, 2007 11:59 PM | Permalink

But what you are missing, Paul, is that the Killian Memos were the reason for running the story when they ran it, along with the interview with Barnes finally saying on camera what he had told others before.

The news in the story was that new evidence, hard to refute, had emerged-- not the fact that Bush had benefited from special treatment. From Rather's set up on that fateful night:

Did then Lieutenant Bush fulfill all of his military commitments?

And just how did he land that coveted slot in the Guard in the first place?

Tonight, we have new documents and new information on the president's military service and the first ever interview with the man who says he pulled the strings to get young George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard.

You're also missing the fact that when you are vetting a story like this--which you know will be attacked even if or especially if it's true--all that matters for the vetters is verifiability: the truth claims you can verify and how strong the means for verifying those claims are.

That's why documents that cannot be authenticated are such a disaster for a story of this type. And that's why I agree with Mark Liberman when he says to Rather and Mapes: "You ruined the case for GWB’s military irresponsibility and mendacity… You messed up. Deal with it."

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 23, 2007 12:15 AM | Permalink

Despite some sympathy for Rutten's feelings as a journalist about the original Rather situation and the reputational damage he feels; I have to agree with p.lukasiak about the duplicitous and uniformed factual allegations and inferences Rutten makes. Here is another instance:

"In fact, the adjectives that come to mind as you assess the substance of what Rather now has done are wanton, reckless and irresponsible. Let's put aside the fact that Rather has no evidence that the network's owners were anything but understandably embarrassed and angry at having their single most recognizable journalist air something as incompetently put together as the "60 Minutes" segment in question. Let's ignore any questions over why Thornburg and Boccardi -- two men with unimpeachable reputations in their respective fields -- would join a conspiracy to "get Dan Rather."

At least Rather had the underlying germane facts about Bush and his disgraceful and fraudulent Guard service; Rutten certainly did not on his reporting on Rather's lawsuit. Had he checked the Larry King transcript, read the Kurtz Washington Post Piece, or reviewed any number of sources, he would know that the plaintiff does indeed claim to have evidence in this regard some of it previously unknown. Unless Rutten has a crystal ball, or Karnac's turban, so as to know that the future proves Rather and his attorneys to be flat out lying; Rutten has been disingenuous, at best.

Rather's hands are certainly not clean in this story, but to blithely assert that there is no grime on the other side and that the facts as currently believed in public lore are all correct is naive and unbalanced. Time will tell how this works out, but it sure seems, unfortunately like so many things in life these days, like there are, before it has hardly even started, two polarized sides/views and they are both somewhat certifiable.

Posted by: bmaz at September 23, 2007 1:34 AM | Permalink

One other batty Rutten quote:

"Thornburg and Boccardi -- two men with unimpeachable reputations in their respective fields"

That is laughable. Thornburg and Boccardi are very impeachable. In fact, Thornburg has close enough ties to the Bush family that it was arguably improper for him to serve as the arbiter of truth here.

Posted by: bmaz at September 23, 2007 1:41 AM | Permalink

MOONVES

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Rather, and I won't have it, is that clear?! You think you have merely stopped a business deal -- that is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity, it is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations! There are no peoples! There are no Russians. There are no Arabs! There are no third worlds! There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immanent, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars! petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars!, Reichmarks, rubles, rin, pounds and shekels! It is the international system of currency that determines the totality of life on this planet! That is the natural order of things today! That is the atomic, subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and you will atone! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Rather?

(pause)

You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen, and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and A T and T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They pull out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories and minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Rather. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by theimmutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Rather! It has been since man crawled out of the slime, and our children, Mr. Rather, will live to see that perfect world in which there is no war and famine, oppression and brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you to preach this evangel, Mr. Rather.

DAN
(humble whisper)

Why me?

MOONVES

Because you're on television, dummy.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at September 23, 2007 2:28 AM | Permalink

But what you are missing, Paul, is that the Killian Memos were the reason for running the story when they ran it,

Jay, I don't think I'm missing that -- not when Rutten is going off about about Rather's lack of "firsthand knowledge", and I respond by saying

CBS had the proof...the Killian memos were just the bells and whistles that made the story "big" enough for 60 Minutes II.

(BTW, how many journalists do have actial "firsthand knowledge" of the stuff they report on. Mostly, its just hearsay...repeating what others have told the reporter. )

And that's why I agree with Mark Liberman when he says to Rather and Mapes: "You ruined the case for GWB’s military irresponsibility and mendacity… You messed up. Deal with it."

No one has more reason than I do for being angry about how Rather and Mapes "ruined the case for GWB's irresponsibility." But I disagree that they did "ruin the case."

I mean, the mainstream media was more than willing to repeat completely the unsubstantiated "Swift Boad" allegations. Even after individuals who were making those accusations were discredited, the reporters who used these individuals as sources didn't lose their jobs -- and the exposure of one set of SwiftBoat lies didn't stop the media from continuing to give credence to other Swift Boat lies.

Indeed, the "Swift Boat" allegations -- and the medias willingness to spread those lies without vetting them properly, act as a funhouse mirror to the Killian Memos story. With the Swift Boats, you have "facts" being reported that were in opposition to existing documentation, being spread by individuals with direct connections to the GOP and the conservative movement. With the Killian memos, you have "facts" being reported that were backed up by Bush's own military records whose source was someone with no significant party/liberal movemment connections.

To me, the abject hypocrisy of the media for going after Mapes and Rather on this story, when they happily repeated the lies of the Swift Boaters without any consequence, is the real media story.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 23, 2007 7:15 AM | Permalink

There are two assertions in the recent comments.

One is that Bush really did cheat on his Guard service. That is so true that you needed forged documents to make the case. Right. The contradictions to that, such as the "special treatment" crap have been shown to be crap so often that only journalists could believe anybody would believe them.

The other assertion, that the Swifties had been rebutted, is also nonsense.

Let's say this: You guys know better. You just haven't figured out that everybody else knows better, too. That's why your credibiilty--as a profession--would sink in a septic tank.

And your complete uninterest in Kerry's records is also a bright and shining reminder of what journalism is all about. Which everybody knows, as well.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at September 23, 2007 9:16 AM | Permalink

To argue that Bush's service in the TexANG was proper, regular and honorable defies credulity. For Christ's sake, even Bush has refused to deny that. Whatever beef you have in relation to Kerry's records, and I will assume for the sake of argument only that your complaint is valid, is completely irrelevant to the question of the veracity of Rather's reporting and propriety of the investigation and resultant action thereon.

Posted by: bmaz at September 23, 2007 9:39 AM | Permalink

Paul: To understand why people lost their jobs over the TANG story and not Swift Boat reporting I think you have to imagine a story like this....

Dan Rather reporting for Sixty Minutes. Did John Kerry earn all his medals in Vietnam? And just what kind of discharge did he receive when he left the military? Tonight, we have new documents and new information on the candidate's military service and the first ever interview with a man who served on Kerry's boat and says the candidate lied about drifting into Cambodia.

... where a lot more of the news organization's prestige is on the line. Do you recall a story like that?

Perhaps you think there were presentations in the news media analogous to it. If so, I don't recall them. I recall insufficiently skeptical coverage, underestimating the Swifties, he said/she said journalism that shamefully wussed out, along with strategy coverage that moved away from questions of truth to "how this was playing..." "could this hurt Kerry?" and so on.

I think the Swift Boaters fraud and smear campaign was one of the lowest points in American politics recently, and that to this day it dishonors everyone who believed or supported it. But the sins of the journalists in that one are of a different type than this one.

In particular, the relationship between Mapes and Rather on the one hand and Bill Burkett on the other does not resemble the relationship between any news person presenting the Swift Boaters' story as credible and any Swiftie supplying the documentation that allegedly makes it credible.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 23, 2007 11:34 AM | Permalink

Dr. Rosen - I agree completely. Swift boat and Rather are two different animals. for that matter so is whatever the Kerry records story that richard, and maybe others (can't recall) have raise as well. Rathergate really is a unique stand alone gig; at least in recent memory. That is one of the reasons I think the litigation will be so fascinating.

Posted by: bmaz at September 23, 2007 12:18 PM | Permalink

I agree that the litigation may prove fascinating. This is because it's a case where everyone is dirty, and many of the participants think they are clean.

Note to all: This thread will not be used to re-fight the details of the Kerry medals or Kerry military records "controversies," such as they are. Attempts to do so will result in killed posts and there will be no explanations. If you want to praise the Swifties as truthtelling heroes and thus slime yourself right in front of us, I suppose you can do that, but keep it really, really short because it's embarrassing for everyone.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 23, 2007 1:09 PM | Permalink

Dan Rather reporting for Sixty Minutes. Did John Kerry earn all his medals in Vietnam? And just what kind of discharge did he receive when he left the military? Tonight, we have new documents and new information on the candidate's military service and the first ever interview with a man who served on Kerry's boat and says the candidate lied about drifting into Cambodia.

First off, Jay, we are talking about two different kinds of stories. The "killian memos" narratives were backed up by the Bush military records -- there is documentary proof behind the narrative described in the Killian memos. The Barnes interview was a reinteration on camera of testimony given under oath by Barnes years earlier pursuant to a lawsuit that had nothing to do with Bush's military service per se. (In other words, there was nothing especially newsworthy about Barnes' interview, other than the fact that he was repeating his story in an on camera interview.)

The lies of the Swifties were not backed up by Kerry's military records (which, contrary to Richard's assertions, Kerry did release; and unlike Bush Kerry allowed even his medical records to be examined by journalists, and the Navy opened up its archives to journalists who went digging through the files looking for dirt -- and coming up with information that directly contradicted the Swift Boat liars), and the story told by the general was brand new -- and contradicted earlier accounts that he gave.

Specifically with reference to the general, he was taken very seriously by major media outlets:

NBC/Lisa Meyers whose interview is uncritical

Myers wasn't fired.

Tom Brokaw (covering the GOP convention) treats Schacte's lies as fact

Brokaw wasn't fired.

Boston Globe which does point out the contradictions and inconsistencies in Schlacte's various accounts...

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 23, 2007 1:16 PM | Permalink

Schacte retired from the Navy as a Rear Admiral, not a General. He was not a member of the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth.

A better example for Schacte might be Novak's: "Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the swift boat veterans dispute ..."

Although Schacte's account was disputed by others, the Globe article does not "point out the contradictions and inconsistencies in Schlacte's various accounts..."

Posted by: Tim at September 23, 2007 4:29 PM | Permalink

Dr. Rosen et al: Rathergate is really interesting, but am I nuts for thinking that the actual story here is GWB's evasion of his military obligations? All the reporting screw-ups in the world on subsequent stories about exactly how Bush accomplished that do not change one basic fact: we have a wartime President who likes to pose in flight suits but who couldn't be bothered to fulfill his actual military obligations when he was asked to do it. How, exactly does Rathergate take that issue off the table? Well, I guess one way is if the media agree tacitly ag