Rather Biased
This NYT report, that is … rather biased in its presentation of Rather’s GOP bias claim against CBS. He doesn’t have any grounds to squawk on the legitimacy of documents he used to trash George Bush’s National Guard service, because they were fake, so he’s going after the process that led him to bail. It takes a while, but after you slog through the memos and lists of names that Rather and NYT hope will demonstrate shocking right-pandering bias, you’ll learn that CBS, aware of its reputation for leaning left, bent over backwards to ensure balance on the panel that looked at Rather’s reporting.
Mr. Rather attracted the ire of Republican bloggers and talk radio in particular after the segment, which was broadcast on a weekday edition of “60 Minutes” in September 2004. It purported to have unearthed evidence about favorable treatment extended to President Bush during his Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard.
The network eventually responded to its critics by saying it could no longer vouch for the authenticity of the documents on which the report had been based. The network also commissioned an investigation led by Dick Thornburgh, a prominent Republican and former United States attorney general, and Louis D. Boccardi, a former chief executive of The Associated Press, not so much to verify the documents, but to determine how the segment got on the air.
In its final report, which was issued in January 2005, the panel cited a breakdown in standards by CBS in rushing the Bush segment onto the air but found no evidence of liberal bias in CBS’s preparation of the segment.
By the time the panel’s report was issued, Mr. Rather had already announced that, under pressure, he would step down as anchor of “CBS Evening News.” But he did not leave the network until more than a year later.
In September 2007, he filed the $70 million lawsuit charging that CBS had violated his contract and that the investigation was compromised. A New York State Supreme Court judge has since jettisoned parts of the suit, including Mr. Rather’s contention that CBS had engaged in fraud.
…
Some of the documents unearthed by his investigation include notes taken at the time by Linda Mason, a vice president of CBS News. According to her notes, one potential panel member, Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire, was deemed a less-than-ideal candidate over fears by some that he would not “mollify the right.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Thornburgh, who served as attorney general for both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, was named a panelist by CBS, but only after a CBS lobbyist “did some other testing,” in which she was told, according to Ms. Mason’s notes, “T comes back with high marks from G.O.P.”
Another memorandum turned over to Mr. Rather’s lawyers by CBS was a long typed list of conservative commentators apparently receiving some preliminary consideration as panel members, including Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan. At the bottom of that list, someone had scribbled “Roger Ailes,” the founder of Fox News.
Asked about the assembly of the panel in a sworn deposition, Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News, acknowledged that he had wanted at least one member to sit well with conservatives: “CBS News, fairly or unfairly, had a reputation for liberal bias,” and “the harshest scrutiny was obviously going to come from the right.”
…
Jim Quinn, a lawyer at Weil, Gotshal & Manges who is representing CBS, said in an interview that whatever Mr. Rather had learned in the discovery process would not help his case. He said it was the network that had gained the most ground, especially in persuading the judge to dismiss five of the seven original claims by Mr. Rather, as well any claims against individual CBS executives …
Mr. Quinn also said CBS would consider asking for a summary dismissal of the case, once the process of discovery had concluded … “We feel the case is meritless.”
Still, Chaim B. Book, a Manhattan employment lawyer who is not connected to the case, said that Mr. Rather and his team had already reached something of a milestone.
“Getting through discovery and getting a case significantly closer to trial, in and of itself, is an achievement,” Mr. Book said. “Discovery, besides being expensive and time-consuming, can lead to embarrassing disclosures.”
Achievement accomplished, with an assist from NYT. The scribbler vaguely alludes to, but neglects to state outright the cause of the rightwing ire, which is that the documents were in fact forgeries, and that the forgery was obvious enough that a bunch of bloggers were able to figure it out. NYT also neglects to mention that Rather’s producer fed the bogus slam to the Kerry campaign. Unclear on the merits of the content what greater purpose this lawsuit-update article is supposed to serve. Which leaves us with the lesser purpose, that it would appear to be something fed to the NYT by the Rather camp to get a win in the public mind, by bolstering the impression that he has been wronged, even if his cry-baby, waste-of-time/money lawsuit doesn’t have a toehold. NYT gets points for its game effort to make Rather not look like Don Quixote.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:41 am on Monday, November 17, 2008
12 Responses to “Rather Biased”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:19 am
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/17/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Editors and reporters who have worked at The Post tell innumerable stories of Mr. Murdoch calling to order up specific articles, often with a specific slant. And only one topic interests him as much as newspapers, his underlings say, and that is politics.
“He influences the political coverage, as directly as you can possibly get at The Post, but also with other newspapers,” said Michael Wolff, a writer who was given access to Mr. Murdoch, for a book to be published on Dec. 1. “He’s on the phone with them all the time, telling them what they should do. It is the job of those newspapers to imagine or divine or intuit what he wants.”
jules crittenden was
November 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
jules crittenden was hired by Rupert Murdock, now working for one of Rupert’s top executives until Rupert can buy back the paper.
jules crittenden little more than a Rupert Murtdock Inc. sockpuppet predictably regurgitating GOP, right-wing talking points in order to feed his family.
Google “With Obama, Murdoch Defies His Image” in today’s New York Times for the above quotes.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Thank you, davemartin456. It’s “Murdoch,” as in “jules crittenden little more than a Rupert Murdoch Inc. sockpuppet predictably regurgitating GOP, right-wing talking points in order to feed his family.” Not “Murdock.” Not “Murtdock.” Murdoch.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
One of the most common traits of a lefty argument is beginning every so-called “refutation” with “But what about…”, never answering the specific criticisms.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
More specifically, we know that ‘Jules’ is paid, by ‘Rupert’, in well-worn bills of small denomination, in innocuous re-cycled brown paper bags, if and when the ‘newsreports’ filed by ‘Jules’ are in accordance with the instructions …
Dave, who is paying you to deliver these shocking exposés? And have you checked the ‘Toronto’ connection?
Cheers
November 17th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
“The network eventually responded to its critics by saying it could no longer vouch for the authenticity of the documents on which the report had been based.”
Yeah, that kind of comes with the territory when you’re using documents which are obviously forged.
Thank goodness we have the internet these days to make sure guys like Dan Rather can’t run this crap, and get away with it.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I wish my dark lords Murdoch and Purcell would pay me to hold forth here, but seeing as they don’t I may start charging davemartin456 for the privilege of posting his anti-”Murtdock”/Purcell rants. He clearly knows nothing about how either operation works, and doesn’t appear to actually read the Herald or he’d be aware it is a free-speech zone. Unlike some major metro dailies in Boston I could name. Hey davemartin456 … see that paypal icon at left? You want to keep up the stock lefty regurgitation? Cough up!
November 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Hi Surls. That “Batsh*t crazy” thing was funny as sh*t..
November 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Actually that was Dave S. out in Maine who did that. I’m a different Dave S., out in California.
You can always tell which Dave S. is which by remembering that he’s the smart one, and I’m the pretty one.
;)
November 17th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
How many Dave S’s could there possibly be?
November 26th, 2008 at 1:12 am
[...] Jules Crittenden » Rather Biased“He influences the political coverage, as directly as you can possibly get at The Post, but also with other newspapers,” said Michael Wolff, a writer who was given access to Mr. Murdoch, for a book to be published on Dec. 1. … [...]