Did you see Dan Rather on "Larry King Live" last night?
Of course not. You were watching that re-run of "CSI." But CNN, in their infinite kindness, has sent a transcript, and I'll give you my thoughts (in itals) on some of the things Dan said.
Quick background: He's suing CBS and Viacom for 70 million smackers (LK didn't ask about the specificity of the figure, but my hunch is that it represents DR's earnings as an anchorman at "Evening News") over getting sidelined then fired for that September 2004 story on Prez Bush's National Guard record. Remember? DR and his team produced some document that said the future prez shirked his Guard duties. Blah blah blah. It was all very controversial, because some righties in the blogosphere said the doc was forged while DR/CBS couldn't prove otherwise. There was an on-air apology, a corporate investigation, Dan was put on latrine duty, and Katie Couric was hired. "Evening News" ratings, meanwhile, remain very bad.
That's the shorthand - with some massive elisions - and Dan really didn't clean toilets (his maid does that). But you get the idea.
To the outtakes!
DR: "But, you know, among the many things that my late father, God rest his soul, taught me, is don't whine, don't complain, don't fall in the trap of saying well, it's bad
luck or good luck. Stand up, look them in the eye, 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."
My take: Um, Dan, if your own shortcomings are to blame, then why are you suing? Maybe you should go over this carefully with your lawyer before taking the stand.
DR: "The management -- the ownership and management. And, you know, what they did was they sacrificed support for independent journalism for corporate financial gain. And in so doing, I think they undermined a lot at CBS News..."
My take: Um, Dan. What financial gain? Did Bush write Viacom chief Sumner Redstone a check to take you off the air? Again, talk with your lawyer about this.
KING: But there were some erroneous things in the report, right, weren't there?
DR: That has not been proven. What -- the one place, the one place that we were vulnerable -- I acknowledged it and wish we hadn't been was -- I want to make it very clear, nobody to this day has shown that these documents were fraudulent. Nobody has proved that they were fraudulent, much less a forgery, which they're often described that way. The facts of the story, the truth of the story stands up to this day.
And what is journalism?
Journalism is trying to get at the truth, trying to separate bull shine from brass tacks. And the brass tacks were in that story. The story was true.
My take: Fine Dan. Let's say the story WAS true. But what about the documents? Fake or real? Would you swear on your dear father's grave they were true? And isn't it incumbent on the journalist - that would be you - to conclusively establish that they were genuine documents, and not necessarily incumbent on that independent commission? And how can the overall story be "true" if you can't determine with a hundred percent certainty that the documents in question were "true?" Isn't journalism trying to separate the bull shine from the brass tacks?:
DR: Now, I was in a supervisory role... In this particular situation, in a hurricane, Republican National Convention, President Bill Clinton was having heart surgery and we had this President Bush story. Plus, "60 Minutes" had, at that time, a very good story questioning some of what was being said about why we needed to go to war and have we gone to war...I did the best I can. I did work on this story. But my role in this particular case, as it was in some others, was to have a supervisory capacity. However...
My take: "Supervisory?" Please define this word, Mr. Rather. Does it mean you oversaw it, and to what degree? And didn't you do some of the interviews as well? That must mean you had a "participatory" role as well, correct? And in your supervisory capacity, did you not demand the veracity of those documents be established beyond any doubt?
DR: Our problem started, Larry, when we did Abu Ghraib. We did Abu Ghraib on "60 Minutes II." We broke that story worldwide with a really good team of people. Right after that, the corporate -- the network wanted to cancel "60 Minutes II".
My take: CBS wanted to cancel "60 Minutes II" because the ratings were terrible, not because of Abu Ghraib, Dan. And by the way, doesn't Abu Ghraib belie everything you've just said about CBS caving to the White House? It was one of the single most damaging stories of the entire war.
DR: I do want to make a point, Larry, here, that somebody will look at it and say he's suing for $70 million. For me, it's not about the money. It is about this principle of what we're going to do with our democracy.
My take: When someone says it's not about the money, it's about the money.
DR: Point one, I don't take programs to air. That can only be done by management and with the approval of the corporate side. I don't have a button on my computer that takes "60 Minutes" to air. That belongs to other people -- the executive producer and the president of the division.
My take: But you did, Dan, have a direct say over what went into "Evening News." And the document story appeared there as well.
DR: [LKL at this point airs a video of DR's on-air apology] CBS News and this reporter fully believed the documents were genuine. Tonight, after further investigation, we can no longer vouch for their authenticity. The failure of CBS News to do just that, to Properly fully scrutinize the documents and their source, led to our airing the documents when we should not have done so. It was a mistake. CBS News deeply regrets it. Also, I want to say personally and directly, I'm sorry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Does your lawsuit belie that?
RATHER: No, but it puts it in context. First of all, note that this was about the documents, not of about the truth of what we reported in it..Where we were vulnerable is that we couldn't demonstrate to everybody's satisfaction that the documents [were genuine but] what the story reports isn't true, because it was true.
My take: Whoa Nelly - you're saying two things here, DR. That it doesn't really matter whether the documents were fake or not - the story was true anyway. The jury and judge will take one look at this statement and throw the case out. Stick a fork in this lawsuit right now.
KING: Your lawsuit asserts the following about that apology: "Despite his own personal feelings that no apology from him was warranted, Mr. Rather had read the apology as
instructed."
So you were instructed to read that. It was written by someone else.
RATHER: Most of it. Nearly all of it was written by somebody else. That's correct.
KING: Who was...?
RATHER: And that -- I stand by that. That's correct.
My take: So you stand by the apology? Good Lord, this is getting nutty.
DR: Career-wise, it was not a comfortable... I didn't want to apologize. I didn't think we should apologize. But, as I say, I cared enough about CBS news and it was put to me that way...
My take: Good Lord, this getting really nutty.
DR: If God smiles and we'll be a little lucky, we will be able to make a legacy of the principle that independent journalism is very important in our way of life and our government.
My take: After everything we've just heard here, there is no case.