![[Photograph: Dan Rather sitting in a sunlit office with his hands on a manual typewriter. Behind him, a desktop computer diplays a Web site.]](photos/dan-computer.jpg)
This page is an archive of our previous updates from 2003. In order to keep loading time down on our main "What's New" page, we shift the stories onto this page after a while. Please note that some of the links referenced here may no longer be valid due to the phenomenon of "link decay." For even older articles, see our pages for 2002 and earlier.
2003-12-04 18:23:20 ET
The military and the Bush Administration have been displeased with Rather and his colleagues' predominantly negative reporting on the American-led effort to rebuild Iraq and have repeatedly asked Rather and other anchors to visit Iraq to get a fuller picture of what's going on beyond the confines of cushy Baghdad hotels.
"Ninety-five percent of this country is returning to normal," coalition spokesman Dan Senor told USA Today television writer Peter Johnson. "In order to capture that story, you have to travel and invest time."
But Rather doesn't appear to be moved by such entreaties. With fresh talk that CBS may shunt him over to 60 Minutes after his decade-plus ratings slump, the anchor seems more concerned about preserving his status than getting the story right.
"If you are in Iraq and there is an attack in America, you're going to look out of position, and no one wants that, particularly during a sweeps month," Rather told USA Today.
Rather's remarks were printed in the paper's Dec. 1 editions.
2003-12-03 05:00:45 ET
The anchor said, "Dozens of Iraqis were killed. Whether or not all the Iraqis were involved in attacks on US troops is a matter of some question now." Pizzey said the battle "left behind piles of twisted, burned-out cars and buses and a firestorm of anger."
"The Americans showed no mercy on the streets here," one local policeman said.
The Baghdad correspondent reported that residents were "accusing them of firing indiscriminately."
Then the producer or producers decided putting the report together went on a soundbite binge, with three remarks from locals in a row, all without providing anything from the other side:
"When the Americans came down here they were firing wildly."
"The truth matters little now."
"They attacked us, so we have to attack them in return."
Correspondent Richard Roth followed by claiming that in countries such as Spain, which currently has 1,600 troops in Iraq, the public opinion is against stationing troops in Iraq.
Nowhere in the report were any numbers to back up the claims, but a month earlier, there were numbers on the public's desire to station troops. This poll, though, was of Iraqis. Though Rather said the allied governments could "not be in tune with the majority of their citizens" on the prospect of placing troops in Iraq, it appears that Rather and his colleagues in Iraq have been out of tune with public in opinion in Iraq. Despite the repeated CBS airing of clips of Iraqis declaring such things as "Death to America" and "Long live Saddam," a poll released on November 20 found that 71.5 percent of Iraqis wanted coalition troops to stay in Iraq
2003-11-30 03:06:00 ET
Those rumors have continued to swirl about as Rather's ratings have declined and CBS's entertainment division has seen impressive gains. The No. 1-ranked entertainment network is having trouble getting someone to boost its perennially last-place Evening News out of the cellar.
But CBS's predicament is partly of its own making. At this point, there is not really anyone at CBS News in whom network execs and market researchers have confidence. Younger correspondents like John Roberts and Scott Pelley are said to be jockeying for position behind the scenes but seemed to have failed in their attempts gain traction. Neither has scored well with viewers and aside from an exclusive interview Pelley scored with President Bush on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, neither aspirant has managed to snare any memorable scoops.
Some within CBS believe the current situation is partly due to Rather's efforts to escape being forced out in a fashion similar to the way in which he ousted his predecessor Walter Cronkite. By preventing younger colleagues from acquiring any real power or notoriety, Rather has managed to remain in the anchor's chair.
"The most masterful thing he's done at CBS over the years is to convince one news director after another not to bring along a successor," argues one producer.
Bill Carter, television reporter for the New York Times agrees:
"If [CBS's] news division was stronger, I think he'd be gone. But right now nobody could point to a single person who is of a similar stature."
"Their audience has dropped to under seven million - some of the lowest numbers they have ever seen. There is a crisis at their news division."
But removing the long-serving anchor may prove difficult. Rather has said repeatedly that he has no intention of quitting and corporate brass have had little help in their quest to replace him from the likes of news president Andrew Heyward who is known for his fealty to Rather and a status-quo approach to management.
Speaking of a similar situation at 60 Minutes, one producer argued to the New York Observer that Heyward and his underlings are fecklessly procrastinating the inevitable:
"As a manager, how could you take that kind of a trademark and allow yourself to get this point?"
"Imagine you were running the world and you suddenly discovered everybody was 85 and you hadn't made plans for next year? Everybody's taking their long summer vacation and pretending it's business as usual."
But the dynamics of the succession struggle appear to be changing, though not due to actions of anyone at CBS. The impending retirement of NBC's Tom Brokaw (who has led the ratings race for most of the past 15 years) is causing everyone at CBS to wonder what kind of impact it may have on the Eyemark network's Evening News.
On the one hand, keeping Rather on while Brokaw successor Brian Williams settles in may boost CBS out of last-place but it also might give a new CBS anchor room to breathe. Or it may have little effect at all.
When CBS will decide to show Rather the door is not clear at present but it is apparently giving serious consideration to replacing the Texan following the 2004 election, one which Rather had earlier said he did not intend on covering.
"After the election, we are looking at changes," the Web site DrudgeReport.com quoted a "top network source" as saying.
A spokeswoman for CBS News denied that the network is thinking about appointing a new anchor.
2003-12-04 18:23:20 ET
The military and the Bush Administration have been displeased with Rather and his colleagues' predominantly negative reporting on the American-led effort to rebuild Iraq and have repeatedly asked Rather and other anchors to visit Iraq to get a fuller picture of what's going on beyond the confines of cushy Baghdad hotels.
"Ninety-five percent of this country is returning to normal," coalition spokesman Dan Senor told USA Today television writer Peter Johnson. "In order to capture that story, you have to travel and invest time."
But Rather doesn't appear to be moved by such entreaties. With fresh talk that CBS may shunt him over to 60 Minutes after his decade-plus ratings slump, the anchor seems more concerned about preserving his status than getting the story right.
"If you are in Iraq and there is an attack in America, you're going to look out of position, and no one wants that, particularly during a sweeps month," Rather told USA Today.
Rather's remarks were printed in the paper's Dec. 1 editions.
2003-12-03 05:00:45 ET
The anchor said, "Dozens of Iraqis were killed. Whether or not all the Iraqis were involved in attacks on US troops is a matter of some question now." Pizzey said the battle "left behind piles of twisted, burned-out cars and buses and a firestorm of anger."
"The Americans showed no mercy on the streets here," one local policeman said.
The Baghdad correspondent reported that residents were "accusing them of firing indiscriminately."
Then the producer or producers decided putting the report together went on a soundbite binge, with three remarks from locals in a row, all without providing anything from the other side:
"When the Americans came down here they were firing wildly."
"The truth matters little now."
"They attacked us, so we have to attack them in return."
Correspondent Richard Roth followed by claiming that in countries such as Spain, which currently has 1,600 troops in Iraq, the public opinion is against stationing troops in Iraq.
Nowhere in the report were any numbers to back up the claims, but a month earlier, there were numbers on the public's desire to station troops. This poll, though, was of Iraqis. Though Rather said the allied governments could "not be in tune with the majority of their citizens" on the prospect of placing troops in Iraq, it appears that Rather and his colleagues in Iraq have been out of tune with public in opinion in Iraq. Despite the repeated CBS airing of clips of Iraqis declaring such things as "Death to America" and "Long live Saddam," a poll released on November 20 found that 71.5 percent of Iraqis wanted coalition troops to stay in Iraq
2003-11-30 03:06:00 ET
Those rumors have continued to swirl about as Rather's ratings have declined and CBS's entertainment division has seen impressive gains. The No. 1-ranked entertainment network is having trouble getting someone to boost its perennially last-place Evening News out of the cellar.
But CBS's predicament is partly of its own making. At this point, there is not really anyone at CBS News in whom network execs and market researchers have confidence. Younger correspondents like John Roberts and Scott Pelley are said to be jockeying for position behind the scenes but seemed to have failed in their attempts gain traction. Neither has scored well with viewers and aside from an exclusive interview Pelley scored with President Bush on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, neither aspirant has managed to snare any memorable scoops.
Some within CBS believe the current situation is partly due to Rather's efforts to escape being forced out in a fashion similar to the way in which he ousted his predecessor Walter Cronkite. By preventing younger colleagues from acquiring any real power or notoriety, Rather has managed to remain in the anchor's chair.
"The most masterful thing he's done at CBS over the years is to convince one news director after another not to bring along a successor," argues one producer.
Bill Carter, television reporter for the New York Times agrees:
"If [CBS's] news division was stronger, I think he'd be gone. But right now nobody could point to a single person who is of a similar stature."
"Their audience has dropped to under seven million - some of the lowest numbers they have ever seen. There is a crisis at their news division."
But removing the long-serving anchor may prove difficult. Rather has said repeatedly that he has no intention of quitting and corporate brass have had little help in their quest to replace him from the likes of news president Andrew Heyward who is known for his fealty to Rather and a status-quo approach to management.
Speaking of a similar situation at 60 Minutes, one producer argued to the New York Observer that Heyward and his underlings are fecklessly procrastinating the inevitable:
"As a manager, how could you take that kind of a trademark and allow yourself to get this point?"
"Imagine you were running the world and you suddenly discovered everybody was 85 and you hadn't made plans for next year? Everybody's taking their long summer vacation and pretending it's business as usual."
But the dynamics of the succession struggle appear to be changing, though not due to actions of anyone at CBS. The impending retirement of NBC's Tom Brokaw (who has led the ratings race for most of the past 15 years) is causing everyone at CBS to wonder what kind of impact it may have on the Eyemark network's Evening News.
On the one hand, keeping Rather on while Brokaw successor Brian Williams settles in may boost CBS out of last-place but it also might give a new CBS anchor room to breathe. Or it may have little effect at all.
When CBS will decide to show Rather the door is not clear at present but it is apparently giving serious consideration to replacing the Texan following the 2004 election, one which Rather had earlier said he did not intend on covering.
"After the election, we are looking at changes," the Web site DrudgeReport.com quoted a "top network source" as saying.
A spokeswoman for CBS News denied that the network is thinking about appointing a new anchor.
2003-11-25 19:35:40 ET
We're not sure just how smart Alan Pizzey is, but we're sure he was only pretending to be ignorant when he described a missile attack on a civilian cargo plane in Iraq.
"This videotape of a shoulder-launched missile being fired was made by a group of Iraqi insurgents operating near Baghdad Airport.... The group had military targets in easy range, but they were waiting for a bigger hit.... The target was apparently a scheduled DHL cargo plane on its way from Baghdad to Bahrain."
But now it was time to play dumb: "The videotape, which has no sound on it, was given to a French reporter." There was something that puzzled him. "Why they handed the tape over for broadcast is not clear."
Could it be that the terrorists wanted their film broadcast on television to scare the West and incite new violence? Pizzey played dumb, and perhaps it was to ease his conscience. Last month a frustrated Army colonel stationed in Iraq told Rep. Peter King (R-NY):
"I just want you to know that there's blood on the hands of the American media; that my men and women are going to die because of them. We are winning this war and the only way we can lose this is if the American people lose their nerve and that's because of what's going on in the American media."
After acting ignorant, Pizzey decided to bump up his IQ in order to lecture the White House: "U.S. spokesmen here insist they are not worried. Given how brazen and ruthless their enemies have shown themselves to be, however, it may be time for a reassessment."
The AARP decided to endorse the Medicare plan after its leadership saw among other things a poll of its 35 million members in which 83 percent supported the legislation. But on CBS, the AARP's members were livid at the endorsement and were angry at the organization. Smooth-acting CBS correspondent Jim Axelrod asked one carefully selected member, "You're not going to renew your membership to AARP?" He was met with a resounding "No."
Rather introduced the report: "All sides in the debate over changing Medicare agree the powerful seniors lobby, the AARP, has been a pivotal player. It is also smack in the middle of the controversy now over what is, and is not, going to change for millions of Medicare recipients and how."
It's not clear how there could be a controversy over the group's decision when 83 percent of its members support it.
Axelrod, who strives for voice inflections as slick as axle grease, introduced the dilemma CBS had manufactured: "In the battle over the remaking of Medicare, the nation's most powerful lobbying group for seniors, the AARP, is suddenly peddling as fast as it can."
The staunch critics were introduced: "The AARP's best is not good enough for members like Bud and Barbara Schaefer…. After logging lots of C-SPAN time, what bothers the Schaefers most are the basics of the prescription drug plan." Bud Schaeffer, identified as a "Medicare Recipient," told the camera, "This bill has such a crazy setup," and wonders, "What's the sense in that?" To him the fix was easy. "All you have to do is say, 'OK. Well, let's pass a bill and give drugs to seniors.'"
At the end of his 300-word report, Axelrod was obliged to donate 24 words to say, "The AARP says in its polls, a majority of its members back the bill. So put the Schaefers and these people in the minority."
This begs the question: Why did CBS decide to interview only those who are opposed to the bill, those in the minority? Why go through the effort to locate them when they clearly do not represent the consensus? Unfortunately, CBS decided to join in the never-ending partisan scuffle over domestic policies.
2003-11-20 09:36:19 ET
"We caught up with General Clark this past weekend in Washington in-between campaign appearances. We got a revealing look at the Wesley Clark behind the impressive resume and learned why he thinks he should be the first general since Eisenhower to be president."
Rather thought Clark's resume was impressive, and that's exactly what supporters of Clark thought of the anchor after the softball exchange.
On the campaign Web site for the former general (AmericansForClark.com), the "official blog" had a discussion thread devoted to "General Clark on 60 Minutes II." The response to the interview was overwhelmingly positive, with almost all praising the performance of Clark and Rather.
Here is some of the praise for the anchor, praise which probably pleases him, because as one Clark supporter put it, "Rather probably likes Clark":
"Dan Rather is as good a newsman as there is. The biographical sketch he did on Clark prior to the interview introduced the viewers to the multi-faceted nature of Clark's personality. The interview fit perfectly with the set-up. He was revealing the person, not so much the campaign issues."
"The interview with Rather was superb."
"The Dan Rather interview, in my opinion, will be viewed as a pivotal moment in this campaign. Dan Rather pressed the general hard about the neccessary questions related to ambiguous statements made in the early campaign, but the interview progressed and was edited so as to put our candidate in his best light."
"The Rather interview was just so powerful to me...and offered a brief little glimpse into his soul, perhaps."
"I think it was the best interview Clark has ever done...good job Dan Rather! I really liked the way the questioning went and I liked the personal tone with the GREAT Dan Rather."
"I watched his interview several times. I have always loved Dan Rather; he is the best newsman in the business. Okay, ladies and gentleman, how many of you wept at the end of the General's comments about the policy differences between him and the Pentagon?"
"Dan Rather is the Man. Finally, an interview with the General that doesn't have him on the ropes defending himself from the same questions over and over again. Lazy journalism or the 'pack mentality', as Al Franken puts forth in his book "Lies and the....." seems to be rampant these days, especially on the cable networks. So this interview with Rather was a breath of fresh air, allowing the public to see the real man behind the uniform. Kudos to Rather, and might I add....if I were listening to Clark for the first time via 60 Minutes II - I'd be very impressed. We need President Clark!"
At one point Rather exploded, "You made us hypocrites in the face of the world. How could you sign on to such a policy?!" At another juncture the anchor said, "I don't want to be argumentative, Mr. Vice President."
"You do, Dan."
After the exchange ended, Bush exclaimed, not knowing the microphone was still on, "That bastard did not lay a glove on me."
After Clark's interview, one campaign supporter said enthusiastically, "Rather can come and do a full hour in the White House after THE GENERAL election." But in 1988, after Bush won the general election, Rather was never allowed to "do a full hour" in the White House. In fact, he wasn't even allowed into the White House at all, or access to the president in any venue. Throughout the entire Bush presidency, Rather was the only network news star to never get an interview with the President of the United States, despite repeated begging.
2003-11-19 14:38:19 ET
These are big stories and they have been covered as such by the major newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times. Conservative groups and media have also covered them. Liberal organizations, as one might expect, have not been as interested. Dan Rather and his colleagues work closely with such groups in deciding what's news so they, likewise, have not been interested.
That didn't surprise us given CBS News's record, what did surprise us is that, in an atmosphere of accusations of shady fund-raising by Democrats, CBS News decided on Nov. 14 not only to ignore those stories but to concentrate on an allegation of underhanded fund-raising tactics by Republicans.
What makes it so strange is that Rather and his colleagues were some of the hardest media drum-beaters in favor of McCain-Feingold. You'd think that if the previous campaign practices constituted "a danger to democracy," as Rather put it in 1999, CBS News would be apt to cover the return of "unlimited, unregulated cash now being shoveled into many campaigns" by the ultra-rich in a story about fund-raising shenanigans. If McCain-Feingold's ban on soft-money was so important, why won't CBS News cover liberal attempts to circumvent it?
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that Rather and his colleagues don't seem to think of liberal organizations as "special interests." The term is one that is frequently bandied about in politics, always about the other side's supporters. Republicans are always accusing Democrats of being dependent on them while Democrats do the opposite.
In a study we conducted last year of CBS Evening News transcripts from 2001 and 2002, we discovered that Rather and his underlings seemed to agree with Democrats. In fact, they were seven times more likely to associate "special interests" with Republicans than with Democrats.
In our recent interview with Rather's former colleague Bernard Goldberg, RatherBiased.com asked him about the disproportionately favorable coverage enjoyed by liberal groups. Goldberg argued that the disparity arises from the fact that liberal reporters believe that conservative groups are paid stooges of corrupt corporations.
Rather and his colleagues "think that big business--this is again the preconceived notion--somebody from a big corporation like a drug company starts out wearing the black hat. But anybody from a public interest, it's assumed that they automatically have no agenda other than the good of all mankind. Well they have a point of view, too," Goldberg said.
"Somehow, public interest groups are doing God's work so they're good guys, the white hats. Big corporations, well, we know they're all in it for the money so they're the black hats."
Don Hewitt, creator of 60 Minutes, detailed this bit of almost-forgotten history in his 2001 book, Tell Me a Story.
"Dan Rather, new to CBS and our correspondent on the scene, phoned me from Dallas and told me that a guy named Zapruder was supposed to have film of the assassination and was going to put it up for sale. In fact, he eventually did, sold it to Life magazine for a reputed $600,000.
"In my desire to get a hold of what was probably the most dramatic piece of news footage ever shot, I told Rather to go to Zapruder's house, sock him in the jaw, take his film to our affiliate in Dallas, copy it onto videotape, and let the CBS lawyers decide whether it could be sold or whether it was in the public domain. And then take the film back to Zapruder's house and give it back to him. That way, the only thing they could get him for was assault because he would have returned Zapruder's property. Rather said, 'Great idea. I'll do it.'
"I hadn't hung up the phone maybe ten seconds when it hit me: What in the hell did you just do? Are you out of your mind? So I called Rather back. Luckily, he was still there, and I said to him, 'For Christ's sake, don't do what I just told you to. I think this day has gotten to me and thank God I caught you before you left.' Knowing Dan to be as competitive as I am, I had the feeling that he wished he'd left before the second phone call."
2003-11-17 08:45:19 ET
The most egregious error in the piece is Block's statement that RatherBiased.com has only spoken with CBS personnel on one occasion. We don't know where he came up with this and it is far from the truth. We have spoken with a wide variety of CBS employees on and off the record for years. I related as much to Block.
Did Block visit our site at all? If so, it wasn't for any reasonable amount of time. Had Block taken just a few minutes to read the second item from Nov. 13, he would have learned that this site is not alone in thinking Dan Rather is biased--his own colleague Andy Rooney believes so as well. He told CNN's Larry King that Rather is "transparently liberal" and "should be more careful" in his reporting. But in his eagerness to please Rather, Block missed that.
Caught up in his dislike for the conservative protesters and admiration for a star, Block allowed the anchorman to pull out his old lines he's used many times over the years:
"Part of being a journalist and trying to be a journalist who pulls no punches and plays no favorites, who tries to be accurate and fair and who knows you are going to make your mistakes, is sometimes you have to face the furnace and take the heat."
Block also asked me about if RatherBiased.com had attempted to contact the CBS anchor. Unfortunately, he mangled the quote. Here's the correct version:
"I'd interview Dan any day of the week if he would sit down for an honest dialogue about bias. He hates talking about it. If he wanted to have a real dialogue on the record and discuss his reporting and the allegations of unfairness that have been leveled at him over the years, we'd probably go away. That's all we want, really; for Dan to seriously discuss his reporting instead of just rejecting all criticism instantly."
But maybe I was just wasting my time calling up Block. After all, it looks as though he had his mind made up long before sitting down in front of his computer. Check out some of the following odes:
"In the past 21/2 years my path has twice crossed that of Dan Rather, the CBS anchor who has long represented the best of professional journalism for me. Both times he was in Southern California to accept well-deserved awards."
"I was left saddened that Mr. Rather and CBS News might be hurt and the public might be misled by these silly, noisy, publicity-hungry protesters, some of whom don't even watch TV. What a contrast with a dedicated, hard-working journalist like Mr. Rather, who has spent his life serving the public and his profession."
"As he walked away, I remembered something Mr. Rather told me earlier in the evening about how journalists should act when attacked for doing their job: 'Democratic, Republican, independent, Muslim, they all try to do it,' said Mr. Rather with a shrug. 'It's our job to resist it the best we can.'
"No one has done a better job than Dan Rather."
Those last two paragraphs are particularly telling about Rather and Block. In his adulatory haze, Block didn't bother to ponder the meaning of Rather's words. They bespeak a tremendous conceit that Block is unable to see in a TV star who shares his liberal opinions. There's no doubt that if George W. Bush had said similar words about how it's good to ignore "Democratic, Republican, independent, Muslim" critics of his Iraq policy, liberals like Block would flip out (and rightly so).
It's sad that Block would be able to discern arrogance in a Republican politician but not in a liberal teleprompter-reader. --Matthew W. Sheffield
Another fashion magazine picked up on what happened. Women's Wear Daily reported on Tuesday that all past and present correspondents "arrived on time." Those attending were such contributors as Lesley Stahl, Diane Sawyer and Andy Rooney. Everybody showed, "All, that is, but Dan Rather." Everyone waited, and when CBS's star anchor finally showed up, curmudgeon Andy Rooney cracked, "It's been fun waiting for you." The angry Rather couldn't take it. "If that's the way you're going to be. . ." and stormed off.
CBS denied to WWD that Rather ever had a tantrum and claimed the only problem was a scheduling error. But despite the denial, the magazine says "people are once again asking 'What's the frequency, Kenneth?'"
This is not the first time Rather has stormed off a set. Fortunately for him, the most recent wasn't in front of millions of people.
"I think Dan is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that--I always agree with him, too--but I think he should be more careful."
Those remarks brought immediate reaction from Rather which forced Rooney to back down in his syndicated column, according to former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg.
In an Oct. 30 interview with RatherBiased.com, Goldberg said he came to that conclusion after calling Rooney up after the latter had "wimped out."
Rooney "spoke to the president of CBS News or the president of CBS News, Rather spoke to him," Goldberg said. "Didn't comment about whether there's a liberal bias or not, according to Andy Rooney, but said, 'You can't talk about a colleague that way.' As if this was about Dan Rather. This isn't about Dan Rather."
2003-11-12 21:05:47 ET
Accepting his award, Rather repeated a line he often uses to defend himself, saying that he had always held a desire "to be accurate and to be fair--as much as humanly possible--and when there's heat, face the furnace and take it."
Before Rather came onstage, Kiefer Sutherland of Fox's 24 introduced a video highlight sequence from the veteran anchorman's career. One of the clips was Rather's "legendary" (in the words of Hollywood Reporter) episode at the 1968 Democratic National Convention where, as a young floor reporter, Rather was thrown to the ground by security goons. See the clip, including Rather's famous words "take your hands off of me" as he was dragged down.
Rather chatted with Hollywood insiders while protestors gathered
outside.
But while Rather and Friends were being toasted inside, a group of protesters from the Web site FreeRepublic.com was busy roasting the anchorman outside. It made for a very fitting dichotomy for a man whose career has been marked by liberal admiration and conservative dislike.
Dressed up as a cartoon-gloved Saddam Hussein (ready for more "softball" questions from the CBS star) and Dan Rather's version of Blind Justice (balancing left and far left), the protesters held large signs and shouted out to attendees about a certain rather biased anchorman.
Jay Leno emceed the event and many celebrities attended. Also applauded were three producers from the long-time NBC hit "Friends."
Speaking to the Securities Industry Association that same day, Greenspan was upbeat on the economy, calling its current state "astonishing" and arguing that circumstances seem to "increasingly favor a revival in job creation."
Here's how Roberts reported the speech:
"The US may have the resources, but every penny is being borrowed The Iraq bill will push this year's deficit, now projected at $475 billion, to well over $1/2 trillion. The White House says not to worry. [Quote from White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.]
"But all that spending has the nation's top money man worried that the bill will come back to bite Americans. Alan Greenspan said today the long-term effects of deepening debt 'could have notable, destabilizing effects on the economy' and put at risk Social Security and Medicare benefits for retiring baby boomers.
"The biggest chunk of the deficit is from the president's tax cuts, crucial, insists the White House, to the economic recovery. But if the president can't get deficits under control going forward, experts say, benefits could collapse."
But did Greenspan really call for raising taxes as Roberts implied? Read how Newsday, hardly a conservative newspaper, reported the speech:
"'The current debate appears to be about how much to cut taxes or how much to increase spending. No significant constituency seems to support taking the actions that will be necessary to move toward, and one hopes achieve, budget balance,' Greenspan said.
"Indeed, as Congress searches for a formula to spend an added $400 billion for prescription coverage for Medicare recipients, the Bush administration is dusting off a new set of election-year tax cuts for next year."
"During his remarks, Greenspan endorsed the Bush administration's view that the best way to close that budget gap is to curb spending.
"That gives the administration some cover for a new round of tax cuts being planned for next year and the year after. [Treasury Secretary John] Snow says the idea of tax-free retirement savings accounts and lifetime savings accounts are back on the table."
In other words, what Greenspan was worrying about was future government actions like spending $400 billion for prescription drug subsidies not, as Roberts implied, the recent tax reductions. But Roberts also distorted Greenspan's views of deficit reduction; instead of favoring tax increases as Roberts said, Greenspan came out in favor of restraining spending.
It's also worth noting that during the prescription drug debate, no one at the CBS Evening News ever worried about spending causing deficits, even though the $400 billion that will be spent on subsidizing prices is over three times time amount being spent on Iraq.
Here's how Rather introduced the exchange: "Producers for ABC Television asked Keith to play a Fourth of July concert, a show hosted by newsman Peter Jennings."
Keith explained: "They come in and start putting the show together, and Pete comes in and says, 'Who does this Toby Keith think he is? And w--and he is not singing this song on my show.'"
"Peter Jennings said that?"
"Peter Jennings said that."
Rather was sure to note that "ABC disputes that Jennings said that." ABC's problem "was that the network didn't want to start the show with a song that, at times, can be very angry." The newsman said Jennings was quoted as saying, "'It was a pity about the Toby Keith issue,' but that opening the show with that song, he says, quote, 'probably wouldn't set the right tone.'"
Keith told Rather he "laughed" after hearing the explanation. "My statement was, 'Isn't he Canadian?' to a bunch of press. They laughed. And then I said, 'Well, I bet Dan Rather wouldn't kick me off his show.'"
Rather responded, "Well, I'm not going to be hypocritical. You wouldn't want me to. I like Peter. He's a good guy."
The singer shot back, "Well, I don't like him, and I'll be honest with you, too."
Dan Rather is a fan of various country music stars such as Willie Nelson and the recently late Johnny Cash, whose tribute concert contained a pre-taped message from the anchor. Whether he is a fan of his patriotic interview subject, we can't say.
Part II of RatherBiased.com's Interview With Bernard Goldberg
2003-11-05 03:55:50 ET
Goldberg's thoughts on: While liberal bias is mostly subconscious, there are some cases where it's hard not to conclude it's deliberate, especially when the subject is guns. Why CBS News shouldn't have cut out an exchange with Arnold Schwarzenegger in which the governor-elect criticized Dan Rather for being pessimistic.
|
The CBS veteran added, however, that none of his former colleagues has questioned his accounts of events and conversations at his former place of work.
"I have been criticized by a colleague, a former colleague--former not just because I'm not there but because he's not there--who said on the story in the first book about Gary Bauer being the little nut from the Christian group, 'Why did you have to mention the producer's name?'" Goldberg said.
That was the only criticism his accounts have received, Goldberg said. "But that didn't answer your question. The answer is zero," he said referring to the number of people who have expressed doubts about the veracity of his first book, Bias, which relayed the Bauer incident and also quoted Heyward as saying that the news media are liberally biased.
The other example was more recent, and for this one Goldberg thought the splice job was shameful. Right after his election Arnold Schwarzenegger gave Rather an interview and the new governor told the anchor that he seemed like "one of those guys that sees the glass half empty. I see the glass half full." Later on in the interview Rather tried to explain say, "I want to set the record straight. I'm not one of the guys who sees the glass half empty or half full. I just see the glass. [Laughter] I want to move on to other subject." Schwarzenegger was amused: "Typical journalist."
This entire exchange was omitted from the final cut and Goldberg was displeased. "I think he should have" included it. "I think if he had put that in, it would show that there are people who have issues with the media and it makes him look bigger for doing it. But a lot of journalists don't put in things--a lot of journalists don't put in things where they're being criticized."
"The honest answer is that I don't know. But I will tell you that Andrew Heyward is the brightest person that I've met in broadcasting, in terms of--in terms of--raw intellect. Not in terms of, necessarily, courage, you know, journalistic courage, but in terms of raw intellect. Your premise is correct, I think. The morning news has just been a bad joke. It's just ridiculous."
"Look, I'm glad you asked me this because I should have been more clear in the book," Goldberg said when asked what journalists he does like aside from NBC's Russert whom he singles out for praise in Arrogance.
"I don't think these are bad guys. I don't think that they're bad guys. I don't think that they're villains. I think that some are better than others but I don't think that any of them are bad guys or bad women. I think they can't help themselves because they don't look inward and they surround themselves with too many people who agree with them."
"Well, I think Costas does [a good job of being fair]. He's in the book, too. There are times when I think that Ted Koppel is better than most and there are other times when I think that he isn't as introspective as he should be," Goldberg said.
"Oh that's a great question," Goldberg said. "Do I think they're gonna go to one of the cities I mentioned? No. So in that sense it's tongue-in-cheek. The very serious point is that if they did, they would actually run into people with different points of view that would moderate theirs. Right now they can go through a whole day or a whole week or a whole month without ever running into someone who disagrees with them. That would end five minutes after they hit the ground in Tupelo or one of the other cities. That would be great. But I'm not delusional and I know it's not going to happen."
No comment from CBS on why it paid for such a "biased" film to be produced, edited, and distributed before coming to that conclusion. We're also wondering if Les might take a look at the reporting of his top anchorman.
Bernard Goldberg Speaks Out
2003-11-03 09:36:57 ET
(Today's update features the first half of our coverage of the interview; the latter half, including additional audio soundbites and a full transcript, will be released this Wednesday, Nov. 5.)
|
Listen to Goldberg's comments on: Why he decided to write another book about the subject of liberal bias in the news media. How journalism magazines completely ignore the question of political bias, making themselves irrelevant. Why liberal authors are incorrect in claiming the Right dominates the press. How Andy Rooney initially supported Goldberg's assessment of the media as being overwhelmingly liberal but backed down under pressure from Dan Rather. |
"Very, very few of them have an ounce of introspection. They don't look inward," Goldberg said, referring to American journalists. "By nature, they always look outward because they're always investigating somebody, whether it's somebody in the military or somebody in the church, or somebody in politics, they're always looking outward."
Asked about his opinion of journalism magazines which bill themselves as media criticism organs, Goldberg blasted them as willfully irrelevant for ignoring the topic of political bias.
"A lot of these magazines are written and edited by people who are part of the problem and not part of the solution," Goldberg said.
"It's all bullshit as far as I'm concerned. Let's take one case in particular: abortion. A number of years ago, quite some time ago, David Shaw of the L.A. Times ran a big series on how abortion is treated by the mainstream media and came to the conclusion [...] that mainstream journalists do not treat anti-abortion people well."
"A guy named John Leo who writes a column for U.S. News and World Report said this would have been a great subject for one of those magazines you just mentioned, the Columbia Journalism Review. Why not take David Shaw's piece and do a piece about that? Didn't devote a sentence to it."
"I'm not saying they don't believe it. I'm saying they're delusional if they really do believe it. This is crazy. This is what they point to to make their case: they say, 'Well, there's a Fox News, there's the Washington Times, there's talk radio, there are all these conservative commentators.' And I say, you know what, you're absolutely right. In the world of opinion, conservatives do have clout. But, in the world of opinion, liberals have clout, too."
"They don't make the distinction between news and commentary. What I'm saying is, I don't care if the big-city papers are all liberal, and I don't care if the Washington Times is conservative, or talk radio is conservative. These are opinion forums; that's fine with me. What bothers me is when news people have this liberal slant, this liberal outlook on life and they don't even get it. They think that they are the only species on planet Earth that can put their biases aside and simply do their job."
"Andy Rooney is better than most. Andy Rooney acknowledged on worldwide television that, in his view, yes, there is a liberal bias," he said, praising Rooney for expressing his opinion of the press.
But Goldberg was less-than-laudatory speaking about Rooney's apparent cave-in after being criticized by CBS News management. Asked why he thought Rooney recanted his statement of support, Goldberg thought it was because the 60 Minutes commentator chickened out under pressure from Rather.
"One possibility is that, ultimately, he, Andy Rooney, is like a bad boy," Goldberg argued. "He does things and then when they reprimand him, he says, 'Oh, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done it.' And that was really my point. 'You know, Andy, if you're going to be courageous, dammit, be courageous. Don't wuss out at the end. Don't wimp out at the end.' Which is what he did, as far as I'm concerned."
"Dan, rightly, I want to emphasize this, rightly had a lot of power at CBS News as the anchorman and managing editor of the flagship broadcast, the CBS Evening News. Rightly. Power comes from numbers in broadcasting. Since his numbers have gone down, I know for a fact that they've showed him what might be considered disrespect. There are certain things that are on the news that Dan doesn't want on, certain features, that they ram down his throat. And I know for a fact that he's not happy about that. And frankly, I don't blame him. [...] And I'm not talking about for ideological reasons," Goldberg said.
Dan Rather "has got physical courage. I do think that doesn't mean a whole bunch to the people in charge compared to ratings. And if they had someone to substitute for Dan, he'd be out before the news tonight."
It all started back in the late nineties as many people in rock and techno music circles began creating experimental music created from spliced words and music. The songs were often designed to be humorous but also to drive home a message about the pervasive influence of media on people's lives.
In 1999, one such band calling itself the Evolution Control Committee released a montage of Dan Rather soundbites gleaned from his newscasts, spliced together to form sentences even odder than the ones the CBS anchor is known for. The song also featured the theme music of the CBS Evening News and a background track from the rock band AC/DC.
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, particularly in television, but CBS was anything but pleased. Shortly after the song's release, a lawyer for the network contacted the band's distributor warning it to "immediately remove the Materials and any related material from distribution and display" or face legal action for stealing the theme song and Dan Rather's voice.
ECC refused, saying that "Rocked by Rape" (named after one of the phrases uttered by Rather in the song) was "very obviously a [constitutionally protected] parody of Dan Rather" that was also a commentary on the anchor's tendency to dwell on negative news:
"As we watched Rather convey the news each night, we were struck at the brutal violence that was delivered, day in, day out. Unfailingly, the good news always appeared as the very last segment of each broadcast. You may call it dessert, but we call it empty calories -- a meaningless gesture; an insincere smile to follow 25 minutes of carnage. How can we sit idly by, watching that insincere smile on Dan Rather's face? When you offer a daily parade like that, you must expect that some people will wonder just what the emperor is wearing."
Soon, other media organizations began taking note of the brouhaha. Wired magazine ran an article on the controversy as did several music industry publications. National Public Radio even played the song for its listeners.
So how did Dan take all this himself? We can't really say since no one has asked him about the song on the record. But ECC figures he's had to have heard it at least once at a dinner where he was roasted. Our guess is that Rather was better able to take the joke than his lawyers were. After all that publicity, CBS appears to have dropped plans for a lawsuit, though the band says it's still in legal limbo.
"I just want you to know that there's blood on the hands of the American media; that my men and women are going to die because of them. We are winning this war and the only way we can lose this is if the American people lose their nerve and that's because of what's going on in the American media."
These are the words that an unidentified officer asked Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to relay back home after the congressman ended his trip to Iraq. The words were passed on during Sean Hannity's Oct. 28 radio program and transcribed by NewsMax.com. King further explained, "He's lost men because of the terrible reporting and it's just creating a terrible atmosphere." The New York representative also told of his own take on the country after seeing it for himself.
"Life is so different when you're there from the way it's being portrayed in the media… What the media [don't] show is that the rest of Baghdad is traffic jams, markets open...you would have thought you were in midtown Manhattan."
"The camera can also be manipulated. At the very least, it must be turned in one direction--only one direction at a time--and it must exclude everything that falls outside its range. Who chooses what direction to point the camera, and why? We see all the time that videotape, although it seems neutral, never is -- any more than any other form of communication."
The anchor raises a good point, although he would undoubtedly be reluctant to apply it to himself, and particularly his network's selective Iraq coverage.
The reaction has been widespread. One advertiser for the News pulled it ads after an opinionated home school story on Oct. 13 to make sure the company would not fund the next negative report a day later. A home school advocacy group had asked Claritin, a maker of allergy medication, to pull its spots, and the company responded by saying, "We were unaware of the content of this specific news segment when the advertising spots were purchased several weeks ago. We pulled our advertising spots from the second portion of the news story and those did not run on the evening of October 14th."
Dan Rather said CBS had "uncovered a dark side to this largely unregulated system of education," but unfortunately did nothing to uncover the dark side of the "largely unregulated" system that gives us the news.
The book will be released Nov. 3 and in preparation for it, RatherBiased.com will be interviewing Goldberg later next week. We're giving you a chance to be involved in this as well by emailing us your questions for Goldberg. RatherBiased.com will pick the best ones and ask them. UPDATE: Since the interview has been conducted, we're no longer taking questions.
Entitled Arrogance, the book argues that the liberal slant often present in much of today's reporting is an "all but inevitable" product of the culture of American journalism.
Reporting on the Senate's vote yesterday to approve the
ban, Dan Rather voiced his dissapproval, calling the vote a "historic
hit" to "abortion rights."
Introducing an equally tendentious piece from CBS's medical correspondent that followed in the Rather tradition of recycling left-leaning activists from other media, Rather continued framing the issue in a way hostile to the legislation by using its opponents' preferred language:
"It is one of the biggest developments in the battle over abortion rights since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling supporting a woman's right to choose thirty years ago. Congress tonight gave final approval to legislation making it a crime for doctors to perform certain types of late-term abortions, legislation President Bush says he will sign into law."
Correspondent Kimberly Dozier discussed the latest violence, saying that "U.S. commanders say the number of attacks is normal." She countered, "but with one American death a day for the past week and a half, the casualty rate is picking up."
It was now time for the fretting, and what better way to get it than from emotional female soldiers? Especially from those who would inspire the sympathy of viewers in America. No male troops were selected for the report, as it would ruin the effect.
Dozier introduced the first woman by saying, "Soldiers are all too aware of [violence] and the risks they run when they leave their secure compounds." Angela Woytus of the 1st Armored Division chimed in, "You feel like a frog on a lily pad. You're jumping from spot to spot, you know, and when you get there, you're like, 'Phew! I made it.'"
Not exactly the type of comment you'd get from most career soldiers, but it's what CBS producers were looking for.
The selective correspondent introduced the next woman: "This young captain is worried it won't be long before one of her convoys gets hit and she has to call the soldier's family back home." Molly Jenks also of the 1st Armored Division said, "That's every commander's nightmare, that one of your soldiers gets hurt."
Dozier closed her motherly report with: "So in their off-hours, they try not to think about what they'll face tomorrow or how long they'll be running a gauntlet that is getting more dangerous by the day."
There's nothing wrong with seeing events from the perspective of female soldiers, but to seek out only one perspective suggest ulteriour motives. Dozier claimed excitedly that it's getting "more dangerous by the day." What does she base such a strong statement on? A week's worth of events. Next week could see more or less attacks, but to her it's sure to go up. Is this wishful thinking or merely sloppy reporting? One can only hope it's the latter, as it is the lesser of two shameful evils.
CBS had for months played up the failure of the U.S. to get a favorable resolution passed in the Security Council, but when it was finally obtained, unanimously, the vote lost its importance in the eyes of CBS's two main anchors. Rather reported that "after weeks of wrangling, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously today for a U.S.-backed resolution on Iraq." But immediately he went negative, skeptically wondering, "How much can--will--the UN actually deliver?"
Correspondent John Roberts was assigned the story, and for the first 87 words told a positive tale about the unanimous UN vote that made world headlines. But after those 87 words, it was time for 209 words of skepticism and negativity. He dug deep, but found a way even on such a triumphal day for the administration.
Roberts began, "The UN vote was an important diplomatic victory for President Bush, giving him new credibility as he seeks support for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq." He continued with the upbeat information. "Even some Democrats who had harshly criticized the president for previously shunning UN involvement in the occupation say the resolution means Iraq is now the world's problem."
Now that he got that over with, Roberts could finally get to the salient material. "But others were unmoved by what they saw as baby steps toward internationalizing Iraq and again took aim at the president's case for war." The correspondent also said the vote would was "not likely to yield much in practical terms. Big allies are still reluctant to send troops, and fund-raising may bring in only a fraction of what's needed." How Roberts knew what will happen is a mystery, but considering the CBS News Division's lack of resources, a budget smaller than that of ABC and NBC, it is truly incredible.
"The government reported today that more grandparents than ever are raising their grandchildren, and because of that, many are now living in poverty. The Census Bureau says almost 20 percent of American grandparents caring for grandchildren now live below the poverty line."
Pizzey said the Pope in his career had done such notable deeds has helping to end communism, reaching out to Muslims and Jews, and declaring "more people saints or blessed than all his predecessors combined."
But then Pizzey got in a tizzy (couldn't resist). Despite the good things, "his legacy is not without flaws. His staunch refusal to ordain women as priests and rigorous rejection of birth control, abortion and homosexuality have alienated many."
Are these flaws or are these disagreements with liberals? After centuries of the church maintaining such doctrines on various social issues, Pizzey claimed that for the Pope to continue them is in error. Certainly that's what liberals are entitled to think, but unfortunately the Pizzey appears to be one of them.
Rather's Anti-Recall Plea
2003-10-07 03:00:10 ET
"You may want to note that among political professionals, there is a wide-spread belief that Schwarzenegger probably already has a long lead in absentee ballots cast days and weeks ago. If true, only an unexpected, overwhelming turnout of no-recall voters tomorrow could prevent Republican Schwarzenegger from becoming governor."
Dan Rather always took a dim view of sexual allegations leveled at the former president. During the Clinton years, he was adamant that the press keep out of politicians' private lives. He even argued it was wrong to discuss a rape charge leveled against Clinton.
Even if the allegation "turns out to be true, it happened a long time ago," Rather said during an appearance on syndicated talk-show host Don Imus's program shortly after Clinton's Senate acquittal. "They've gotta be figuring maybe, just maybe the American public has heard all they want to hear about this and are saying, you know, 'Next; let's move on to the next thing.'"
And that was the view that Rather brought with him into his news coverage. Asked later by FNC's Bill O'Reilly why he never once mentioned the rape allegation, Rather said it was none of his business poking around in Clinton's "private sex life."
"I barely remember but I do remember it," Rather said during a May 15, 2001 interview. "But I will say that -- and you can castigate me if you like--when the charge has something to do with somebody's private sex life, I would prefer not to run any of it."
But the Broaddrick case was hardly the first time Rather came to the defense of Clinton. Like many of his fellow Democrats, the CBS honcho was suspicious from the start when a woman named Gennifer Flowers accused candidate Bill Clinton of conducting a multi-year affair with her. Even after Flowers revealed some recorded telephone conversations as evidence, Rather was still dubious about her veracity. Indeed, as one former CBS News official later put it, Rather saw Flowers as just another Republican plant:
"Dan Rather was convinced that Roger Ailes, who had no formal role in this year's Bush campaign, had in some way inspired the Gennifer Flowers story. When the draft story appeared in the [Wall Street] Journal, Rather wanted to break a story on how the Bush campaign had planted that," wrote CBSer Marty Plissner in his 1999 book The Control Room.
"In CBS's first report on the draft issue, five days after it broke, Rather, who has several writers at his disposal, gave it a headline that absolutely no one else could: ‘Bill Clinton says President Bush's 1989 Willie Horton crowd is smearing him with new campaign dirty tricks.' Rather was not pleased by CBS's failure to scoop the world on this, or on Roger Ailes's supposed planting of the Gennifer Flowers story."
But Rather's journalistic skepticism has somehow vanished now that a Republican politician is being accused of sexual misconduct--just like it did in the case of Rush Limbaugh last week where a CBS reporter referred to the National Enquirer as "published reports."
On Friday, the Evening News featured an incorrect allegation that Schwarzenegger had admired Adolph Hitler. Originally, this story had appeared in the New York Times but was later corrected. But Rather and reporter Jerry Bowen decided to go with the story anyway. Neither made any mention of the fact that the original source for the story later backtracked and said that the Austrian-born actor did not admire Hitler.
Since last Thursday when the Los Angeles Times printed accounts from several women who claim that Schwarzenegger sexually harassed them, Rather's Evening has been all over the story. It's run reports every day on the story and has featured several of the women on the air, immediately after their allegations were printed in the L.A. Times--something Rather never did during the Clinton administration.
But after his version, correspondent Elizabeth Palmer announced that "in the town of Beiji, north of Baghdad, Saddam's men have rearmed. Over the weekend they took over the town center and set fire to city hall." But that's not all. "On the outskirts American soldiers were following orders to maintain a low profile. They were staying on the sidelines. The trouble is, so were the Iraqi police." In contrast to other more positive reports about Iraqi police throughout the country, that's not what she chose to highlight from Beiji. "The idea lately has been that the Iraqi police should be keeping order. But without any training, bad weapons and no safety gear, they're not only ineffective, they're scared."
Palmer summed it up: "It's just the latest example of the missteps Americans have made from the start in this complex tribal society." To back up her assertion, she quoted an Iraqi from the Iraqi Governing Council who gave a reason for the U.S. alleged failure. In his explanation, he demonstrated an incorrect knowledge of American history.
"They have never ruled any country anywhere outside the United States as a colonial power or occupier or whatever, and so they make many mistakes, I think," said Mahmoud Othman.
It's understandable for an Iraqi to be unaware of America's history of occupations, most notably in Japan, Germany and the Philippines. But for the CBS producers, as well as Elizabeth Palmer, to either knowingly allow the clip without correction, or to not know that is was incorrect, is shameful. It represents for CBS either yet another attempt to sway public opinion or an embarrassing ignorance of American history.
CBS News in Full Limbaugh-Bashing Mode
2003-10-03 12:50:46 ET
As they did last night, both Pitts and Dan Rather refused to allow viewers a chance to hear Limbaugh's defense of his remarks about black quarterback Donovan McNabb. Both anchor and correspondent asserted that Limbaugh was enjoying his predicament. As evidence, Pitts quoted what was meant to be a mild self-confident joke the radio host said in a speech to a broadcasters association meeting.
"Limbaugh said he relished the controversy, and he did not apologize," Rather said introducing Pitts's report.
"Controversy and conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh have been companions for years, but this time it cost him," Pitts began. "Today, at a conference for broadcasters, Limbaugh was unapologetic."
Pitts then ran the following excerpt from a lengthy address in which Limbaugh devoted a significant amount of time to defending his remarks:
"This is the kind of media attention I've lived with for 15 years This is--you know, to me, if this kind of stuff doesn't happen, that's when I wonder if I'm losing it."
After that, Pitts moved on to discuss charges first reported by the National Enquirer that Limbaugh is addicted to prescription medications. While the tabloid has been known to be correct on occasion, it certainly couldn't be classified as a credible source. Not wanting to inform the viewers of the source of the story, Pitts declined to name the newspaper, alluding only to "published reports" even as the screen showed pictures from the Enquirer. He also kept Wednesday's motif of Limbaugh-as-racist:
"Florida law enforcement officials today confirmed Limbaugh is being investigated for illegally buying prescription drugs. In published reports, a former housekeeper claims Limbaugh was addicted to prescription painkillers, including OxyContin, the so called 'hillbilly heroin.'"
We're still waiting for Pitts and Rather to cite "published reports" that aliens live among us and that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian.
This time, Pitts relied on Donny Deutsch, an ad agency owner who also is known for his left-of-center views and is said to be contemplating a run for mayor of New York City. In an interview earlier this year, Deutsch called Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly the "Antichrist" and wondered "does the right wing own the opportunity to be irreverent? Provocative?"
In his appearance on CBS, Deutsch argued that if Limbaugh was guilty it would invalidate everything he'd said before.
"When you've built a career on preaching what a good life is and law and order and toeing the straight line. When... that line that you've been on is not so straight anymore, it's clearly a touch of irony here," Deutsch said (ellipsis in original).
Echoing comments from a liberal ad exec featured on yesterday's Evening News, Dick Meyer, editorial director at CBSNews.com argued that Limbaugh was finally getting his comeuppance for years of anti-black racism:
"Do I like it when the thought police, the language cops and the political correctness enforcers pounce on an utterance and declare it illegal? No, I hate it. Am I delighted to see Rush Limbaugh attacked, ridiculed and forced out of his ESPN gig? Absolutely. Justice is being served," Meyer wrote.
"Limbaugh's public shtick for years and years has had a constant hum of low-grade racism and race baiting," the column continued. "So why did the McNabb remark cause such a frenzy when so many other cracks hadn't? I really don't know. Maybe because it was on TV. Maybe because it was about football and his audience, for a change, was actually knowledgeable about what he was talking about -- and knew that what he was saying was stupid and wrong. I don't know, but as I said, I am delighted."
Introducing a story by Pitts, Rather wondered whether the newly minted ESPN host's remark was racist or just a ratings ploy:
"Still ahead on the CBS Evening News. Were or were not Rush Limbaugh's comments about an NFL player racist, a ratings grab, or both? The inside story next," Rather said before going to a commercial
Back from the break, Rather resumed his narrative:
"Radio star Rush Limbaugh's comments about Philadelphia Eagle Donovan McNabb brought calls today for ESPN to fire the self-described conservative commentator. Limbaugh today denied any racist intent when he claimed the quarterback has been overrated and generally favored by the media because he's black. Limbaugh's denial has caused questions among many people as Byron Pitts reports in tonight's Inside Story."
Pitts followed with a story putatively about Limbaugh's "denial," but somehow managed to avoid quoting from Limbaugh's self-defense (aired hours before Evening's deadline) in which the political talker denied calling McNabb a bad player:
"The comment actually was a comment aimed at the media," said Limbaugh during his Wednesday afternoon radio show. "It's totally understandable that the sports media, having made the case that it's unfair blacks had been denied the quarterback position all these years have a vested interest in their doing well, and so maybe they hype them a little bit more than they actually deserve based on field performance, pure and simple."
As unfair as refusing to give Limbaugh a chance to defend himself was, Pitts went further, associating the commentator with the past injustices faced by black quarterbacks which he had already decried.
"The debate over black quarterbacks isn't new," continued Pitts. "For decades, from little league to college, black ballplayers were discouraged from playing the position. The thinking was they weren't smart enough to succeed."
Finished with that smear, Pitts picked up Rather's earlier point and wondered if Limbaugh was just trying to boost his ratings:
"When it hired Limbaugh, ESPN said it was looking for controversy and higher ratings. With viewership now up 10 percent, they got both. And tonight in statements released by the network, they stand by their man."
While it is possible that Limbaugh and ESPN may have been trying for some sort of ratings ploy, employees of CBS News are hardly qualified to condemn such behavior given the numerous times they have repeatedly indulged in such tactics to boost the perpetually last-place ratings of the CBS Evening News such as teasing upcoming stories with the phrase, "Get ready to be outraged," interviewing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during sweeps weeks, temporarily changing Rather's sign-off, and running montages of late-night jokes. In fact, CBS News has been so desperate to increase viewership for Evening, we had to write an entire report about their attempts.
"I don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh," Johnson wrote in an Aug. 25 column. "I just don't need the aggravation. We simply disagree on too many issues. The bombastic, nationally syndicated radio talk show host has pummeled just about anyone who isn't a card-carrying citizen of his vision of good ol' white-bread U.S. of A. That would include feminists, gays, blacks, immigrants."
Unfortunately, while both Rather and Pitts correctly tagged Limbaugh as a conservative, they did not label Johnson in any way. (For further proof of Johnson's political leanings, see his Sept. 26 column praising liberal filmmaker Michael Moore.)
On Monday's CBS Evening News, Rather reported that "the FBI and the Justice Department counterespionage division now say they are investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name. . . there are politically explosive accusations about who might have leaked that name and why, and growing calls for an independent investigation."
The anchor claimed the individual was a CIA operative, and John Roberts, who filed the story, reported that conservative columnist Robert Novak "first published the leak in July, naming the wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson as a covert CIA operative." The leak of the name of a CIA operative was just too juicy of a story to be ignored, even if CBS knew that the actual facts contradicted what was in the news report, or that the actual facts were still not known.
To savor the outrage of something so horrible as a top-secret agent losing her cover, Robert's producers interviewed a former CIA director--not mentioning he served under Democrat Jimmy Carter--to express displeasure: "They've endangered the lives of agents of agents overseas. They've endangered the usefulness of a CIA operative."
Throughout all the bluster, Roberts ignored what Novak--whom he had relied on earlier--also had to say, this time two hours before the CBS correspondent's 6:30 deadline. Appearing on the Drudge Report at 4:44 ET, Novak said: "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
No one outside the CIA knows now whether or Plame is an agent or not, but it was unfair and shoddy journalism for Rather and Roberts to ignore Novak's contention.
On Sunday and Monday, American forces won two major engagements and carried out a successful, large-scale raid in northern Iraq to ferret out insurgents. All with only one fatality. Covering these events, Palmer interpreted them to be another sign that Iraqis don't like Americans.
"The fight in Khaldiyah went on for hours, and no matter how many Iraqi rebels were killed or injured, the danger is for the coalition that this will be seen as a heroic battle and will attract fighters from all over the country or even across the border," Palmer said.
"In an all-out effort to break the back of this resistance, US soldiers and Iraqi police joined forces in a sweeping series of raids across northern Iraq and in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. Ninety-two Iraqis were arrested, but in the end, all but four were released. Numbers like that show the U.S. military will have to intensify its search if it's to destroy such an elusive enemy."
Missing from Palmer's report is certain important contextual information including the fact that most parts of Iraq seem to be stabilized except for some portions of in north-central where the Sunni minority lives. Several recent polls of Iraqis from disparate sources have shown this to be true, yet neither Palmer nor Rather nor anyone else at the Evening News has reported them. While a few casualties have occurred from time to time, the fact remains that most American troops do not see much combat action and that the majority of the predominant Shiite Muslims support the United States. While such facts may not be as exciting to report, they are nonetheless crucial to understanding the complex situation in Iraq.
CBS's negative reporting hasn't gone unnoticed, though. Palmer and her colleagues' work caught the eye of USA Today television columnist Peter Johnson who interviewed several American journalists who believe their colleagues are overemphasizing negative news. One of these was MSNBC's Bob Arnot who said the U.S. press doesn't report enough on the very positive feelings that most Iraqis have towards Americans.
"I contrast some of the infectious enthusiasm I see here with what I see on TV, and I say, 'Oh, my God, am I in the same country?'"
While acknowledging the threat of increased crime and violence in post-Hussein Iraq, Time's Brian Bennett argued that things are improving. "I'm not saying all is hunky-dory," Bennett said. "But in the States, people have a misperception of what's going on."
But not everyone contacted by Johnson shared the view that Iraq is stabilizing, including CBS reporter Kimberly Dozier who argued that "each time you come back here, it feels more dangerous. We travel everywhere with security. We refer to our hotel as the 'bat cave' because basically you do not go outside without a security guy, a four-wheel-drive vehicle and a planned escape route."
Nor do things appear to be getting better, according to Dozier.
"When I was here right after Baghdad fell, I found a lot of people who were very happy that the Americans had come. Now in places like Tikrit, I expected to find the die-hard Saddam supporters. But what surprised me were the number of ordinary Iraqis, people I spoke to right after the city fell. I speak to them now and they're turning. ... When you start losing the middle class and the educated, I'm just worried about the number of people who are going to follow."
In their coverage of the recall, Dan Rather and CBS have maintained this tradition. Over the weekend, the Gallup Organization released a survey showing very strong support for removing Davis and and Schwarzenegger running well ahead of other candidates. There has been some criticism of the poll as being inaccurate. Appropriately, Rather decided to report on it:
"It's just over a week now till the California recall election," Rather began, "And Democratic governor Gray Davis and Republican challenger Arnold Schwarzenegger now see it as one-on-one combat, no holds barred. And then there's the latest poll that is also in the mix tonight as a subject of controversy, Jerry Bowen reports."
While Rather and Bowen, who has been assigned to cover the recall, mentioned the possibility of the poll being inaccurate (including Davis's objections) neither ever cast doubt on earlier surveys that augured ill for Davis's Republican opponents. In fact, they promoted them.
In mid-September, the Los Angeles Times released a poll which claimed that support for the recall was decreasing and that Schwarzenegger was trailing lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamente by a fair amount. The Times poll was criticized for predicting far lower support for the recall than every prior survey, but instead of mentioning these criticisms, Bowen's Sept. 15 report cast no doubt on the report.
The week previously, Field Research released a poll indicating that lower support for the recall and that female voters were put off by Schwarzenegger. Inspired by a Sept. 9 piece in the New York Times, Rather and Bowen ran a story that same day on "the candidate's latest problem: trouble with women" which completely accepted the Field Poll findings and featured no sound bites from Schwarzenegger or one of his supporters disputing the poll.
The latest survey shunned by the anchor is a Gallup poll of Baghdad citizens taken from late August to early September. The results showed, among other things, that most residents thought eliminating Saddam Hussein was worth the effort. On the day Rather could have mentioned the upbeat poll, he instead chose to trumpet how "a land mine apparently intended for a U.S. Army patrol in Baghdad instead went off as two civilian buses passed."
Writing in Monday's Atlanta Journal Constitution, Marshall blasted the press for "dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded [...] not balancing this bad news with the rest of the story, the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy." See the full article.
"A reminder that television sometimes has trouble with perspective, so you may want to note that in some areas of Iraq, things are peaceful," Rather added.
Creating a Quagmire: CBS's Coverage of Postwar Iraq
2003-09-16 06:26:40 ET
In the time-period from President Bush's May 1 announcement ending major military operations to Sept. 9, of the 183 stories the CBS Evening News has run about events in Iraq, 132 of them (72 percent) have been primarily about setbacks to the American effort, according to the study. Thirty-four reports (20%) focused mainly on positive developments while 17 were largely neutral.
After the president declared an end to 'major combat operations,' many Democrats felt empowered to renew their efforts as the opposition party. Unfortunately, Dan Rather and his colleagues appear to have joined them, said Greg Sheffield, Co-Director of RatherBiased.com. "Someone watching only CBS News is apt to think that Iraq is a complete disaster and that nothing's going right since positive news just isn't getting reported."
See the full report.
A new video featuring the al-Qaeda leader was aired on the Al-Jazeera network earlier this week, and this one had some instructions for Americans. It's not likely very many are doing what he requests, except possibly Dan Rather and others in the media with partisan motives.
Says the voice on the latest video, "We recommend to the mothers of the soldiers, if you like to see your sons, then hasten to ask your government to return them rather than coming back to you in coffins."
The CBS News division has certainly followed the recommendation to "hasten to ask," as well as help family members ask, for the "government to return" soldiers from Iraq.
Tuesday, Sept. 9 is when Rather most recently fulfilled the request, obviously for his own political reasons. He told of how "for the loved ones in those soldiers' hearts and dreams, life on the home front holds its own hardships; families divided by thousands of miles of ocean and...the anxiety of not knowing when or how it will end."
Then correspondent Jane Clayson told a story of one woman who wanted her husband back. "He's been gone almost seven months," Clayson reported.
The wife described how her "world's fallen apart. He's not going to come back for a long time. The situation's bad."
"She was supportive of her husband's service" at first, said Clayson, but "today, she has no hope he'll be back any time soon."
 Rumsfeld and Rather before the interview |
The newsman asked the defense secretary about a Washington Post story "which in essence says that the military top brass and the State Department in effect went around and got a change in policy."
"What is one to make of it?" inquired Rather.
Rumsfeld was disappointed. "You've never seen an article in the newspaper that isn't true? You're a grown adult. You know better than that."
The anchor responded that it's "my job to ask the question." Rumsfeld shot back, "Of course it is, and you can ask it, and I can answer it." Rumsfeld denied the Post allegation.
The next query was one Rather planned in advance by searching out a conservative critic, not a liberal one, of the Bush administration's post-war Iraq strategy.
"No one accuses [him] of not being a Republican. No one accuses him of not being a supporter of President Bush. I want to give you a chance to answer his criticism, and there's no other way to say it."
"You really reached in the duffel bag, Dan."
"Not a duffel bag. It's in the newspapers every day. Maybe you haven't seen it."
"I have."
Rumsfeld dismissed the criticism by conservative Bill Kristol and they moved on. Toward the end of the interview, Rather asked, "What question have I not asked you that I should have asked you?"
"Oh, goodness. You know, I haven't read all the papers you've read so I don't know what other stories you could have drug up and heaved at me like that."
Rather's final question of the session was about rumors of a conflict between the defense secretary and the secretary of state. "Do you get along all right with Secretary Powell?"
"Of course I do."
Rather quipped, "That's the easiest question I've asked you."
Rumsfeld took the anchor to task for listening to rumors. "You're as old as I am. You've been around listening to this nonsense, too." He called Colin Powell a "friend" and a "talented guy," and said the media manufactures these things because "it sells newspapers, it keeps the ratings for the television people." The full text of the interview is available here.
He used John McCain to prove that it was bipartisan criticism, the liberal senator and chief opponent to Governor Bush for the Republican nomination. This is the same John McCain CBS utilizes whenever they want to claim attacks on Bush are not partisan or ideologically motivated, but rather sensible and well thought out.
This time correspondent John Roberts introduced the Arizona senator: "Even some Republicans now charge that the U.S. is spread too thin."
JOHN MCCAIN: When we have to extend Guard and Reservists on active duty, when we have to ask for international forces, when we have to do the things that we are doing, it's clear to me that we need additional troops.
The other criticisms CBS aired were, of course, all from Democrats: Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and Rand Beers, a national security advisor for the John Kerry presidential campaign. But that didn't matter, because they had their maverick fig leaf.
Now that the debate has turned to paying for the war in Iraq, CBS News has, once again, aligned itself with Democrats--this time in arguing that President Bush's request for $87 billion is extravagent. Dan Rather and CBS News have championed increased federal spending of over $400 billion on prescription drug subsidies for years (four-and-a-half times more than Bush requested for Iraq and terrorism), so it was quite remarkable to suddenly see them worrying about government waste on Monday's Evening News. Introducing a piece by White House correspondent John Roberts, Rather emphasized the expense of Bush's request:
"Eighty-seven billion dollars minimum--that is what President Bush is asking Americans to spend for the war on terror, mostly in Iraq but also in Afghanistan and around the world," said Rather "Eighty-seven billion dollars--that's $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States, and that is just for the coming year, and it's on top of the $79 billion Congress approved less than six months ago. The president revealed his new price tag in a television address last night, and John Roberts reports the reaction, pro and con, is still coming in."
But Roberts's story did nothing of the sort, focusing solely on objections to Bush's plans. Just as he and everyone else at CBS News did before during the prescription drug debate, Roberts turned exclusively to a liberal think tank for analysis. As before, Roberts decided not to inform viewers of the ideology of his source, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
On the Thursday, Sept. 4 Evening News, Rather did two starkly different stories about post-Saddam Iraq. The first was a one-on-one with an American general in charge of occupying troops; the second piece was about an Iraqi group, shrouded with masks, that claimed responsibility for many of the attacks on U.S. troops in the country. Unfortunately, behavior as expected, Rather devoted more time to the veiled men, despite the fact that he admitted that "there's no way to confirm their claims."
Although it was shameful for Rather to spend more time on the
unsubstantiated claims of men with veils than with one of the most important
figures currently in Iraq, he did allow, without banishing to the cutting
room floor, a criticism of the media that Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez
made to Rather during their exchange:
LT. GEN. SANCHEZ: I think America needs to be told very clearly by, first of
all, me as a military leader and then by our press that we're not in a
quagmire. The progress is unbelievable....
RATHER: What is, in your judgment, the biggest mistake or inaccuracy that
the press, in general, is making about the situation here?
LT. GEN. SANCHEZ: I'll be very candid with you. It's the fact that the press
does not focus at all on the successes of our great American soldiers and
sailors, airmen and Marines that are operating here in this country.
RATHER: Give me one example of a success that you think is being
underreported.
SANCHEZ: Sir, I could give you a hundred.
RATHER: I'm asking for one.
SANCHEZ: Let me--the Najaf bombing that just occurred at the Ali Mosque.
This was a success in that the Iraqi security forces handled the aftermath
of that bombing on their own. That message is not in America. Independent
elections were being conducted at the village level, at the provincial
level. That's not being reported.
But later on, Rather countered Sanchez's words:
"In spite of what General Ricardo Sanchez told me, that living conditions and security are improving rapidly in Iraq, there are some Iraqis, no one can say how many, who remain willing to use violence to end the U.S. occupation. What you're going to see and hear next is disturbing, even infuriating, but perhaps important. It's a look at men who say they have attacked Americans. There's no way to confirm their claims, but certainly they appear willing to kill and to die to get Americans out of here."
