Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Casablanca, this coming Monday

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From Times Online

September 20, 2007

Star US anchor sues CBS over Bush war memos

Hannah Strange

Dan Rather, the award-winning former anchorman for US broadcaster CBS, has launched a $70 million lawsuit against his long-time employer, claiming bosses made him a “scapegoat” for a discredited story about President George W. Bush’s military record.

Maintaining he was sacrificed in order to appease the White House, Rather said the affair had irrevocably damaged his reputation and caused him considerable financial loss.

Rather, 75, was removed from the CBS Evening News anchor chair he had occupied for 24 years in March 2005, following months of controversy over a story he had narrated in September 2004, in the closing weeks of the presidential election campaign.

The report claimed that during Mr Bush’s time in the Texas Air National Guard – a posting which spared him from service in Vietnam – he shirked duties and disobeyed orders, relying on his political connections to avoid punishment. The explosive story, based on documents supposedly written by the former commander who covered for his transgressions, was immediately seized upon by Democrats, who had long pointed to his avoidance of Vietnam service as evidence he was a “chickenhawk” – belligerent but in reality less equipped to command the troops than his rival John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran.

Critics, however, suggested the documents had been forged. A CBS review was set up, which failed to confirm or deny the authenticity of the papers and concluded that the story had been neither fair nor accurate. The producer responsible was fired and three executives asked to resign, while Rather, despite his limited role in the story, was forced to apologise on air, a move that he claims all but destroyed his career.

The lawsuit names as defendants CBS, its former parent company Viacom and senior executives Leslie Moonves, Sumner Redstone and Andrew Heyward. Rather is “seeking damages for breach of contract, reputational harm, and fraud related to their unwarranted treatment” of the anchor.

It claims that the defendants “well knew, even if any aspect of the broadcast had not been accurate, which has never been established, Mr. Rather was not responsible for any such errors.”

By making Rather apologize publicly, “CBS intentionally caused the public and the media to attribute CBS’ alleged bungling of the episode to Mr. Rather,” the lawsuit claims. As a consequence, some news media began to refer to the affair as “Rathergate,” forever associating his name with the affair.

“Mr Rather believes these actions were driven by the defendants’ political agenda to make Mr. Rather a scapegoat and intentionally tarnish his reputation,” lawyers for the newsman said in a statement.

After spending his final few months in the job under a cloud of controversy, Rather was removed from the programme which established him as a household name, and, he claims, was marginalised within the organisation, being given fewer, less important assignments and minimal airtime on shows such as 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes II.

At the time, the anchor was earning $6 million a year, the lawsuit says. Now, Rather presents a little known weekly news show on cable channel HDNet, with ratings a fraction of what he regularly commanded on CBS.

Rather still maintains the veracity of the story, which had already been circulating for some time but had never been proved. He claims in the lawsuit that his removal was instigated by Viacom Chairman Redstone, who believed it politically expedient to assuage White House anger by discrediting Rather, long perceived by conservatives as excessively liberal. An “enraged” Redstone said the anchor and anyone associated with him had to go, according to the lawsuit, filed at the New York State Supreme Court yesterday.

Dana McClintock, CBS spokesperson, said Rather's claims were old news and that the lawsuit was entirely without merit.

The report issued by the CBS panel investigating the affair – comprised of Richard Thornburgh, a former US attorney general, and Louis D. Boccardi, a retired chief executive of The Associated Press, paints Rather as a anchor “pushed to the limit” and juggling several stories at once.

Issued in January 2005, it says Rather “relied on a trusted producer and did not check the story for accuracy or, apparently, even see it before he introduced it on the programme.”

The network hurried the story out and then blindly defended it when questions began to emerge, said the panel. It could not confirm or deny the authenticity of the memos concerned.

Rather started working at CBS News as a reporter in 1962, replacing the legendary Walter Kronkite as the Evening News anchor in 1981. He has won numerous awards for his work, which includes coverage of the assassination of president John F. Kennedy, the wars in Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, both wars in Iraq and the September 11 attacks.

However his forceful manner earned him detractors, particularly among conservatives, who frequently levelled complaints of excessive media liberalism at both him and CBS as a whole. An incident in which he engaged in a shouting match on live television with George W. Bush’s father, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, over the Iran-Contra affair, only compounded his unpopularity on the right.

A journalistic star of the old school, Rather initially took CBS Evening News soaring to the top of ratings, but by the end of his time on the programme it had dwindled to a distant third.

the irony is that dan rather was historically a conservative texas republican, just like george bush. but anyone and everyone is expendable when it comes to protecting political capital, apparently.

Smith, Topeka, Kansas

Good Luck Dan: If the Bush story had not been true, there would not have been such an effort to quieten it. I always figured there was goverment pressure or threats to qwell the story. I doubt I was wrong. What? Our government engage in censorship and deception? Nah, not the samecountry that told us all that Kennedy was shot in the back of the head while film clearly shows the bullet entering the front. Censorship is alive and well in the USA. Maybe if we could stop bragging about how great we are and face our own demons, we could conquer them and become truly great. A free press that operates without fear of repercussion, is our only hope. Go for it Dan!

EW, Louisville, Ky

Hannah, check your facts. You spelled "Kronkite" incorrectly. It's Walter Cronkite. Walter Cronkite would have never taken part in that weak "journalistic" story on George W. Bush like Dan Rather did. And that's the way it is....

Gary Ozerec, Milpitas,

During Dan Rather's long tenor as a news anchor at CBS, he displayed an ongoing liberal bias in how stories were portrayed to the public. For him to assert that the White House has any ability to hold sway over the CBS News organization is riduculous. He was part and parcel of an organized attempt to sway the 2004 election toward the Democrats. He was caught and suffered barely any punishment at all for his actions. He should have lost his anchor position years before this episode not only his, but his employer's antique and biased approach to the news.

Dan - Go peacefully into retirement and please don't embarrass yourself further with this pathetic claim.

Jonathan, Glen Rock, NJ

You have it right in the UK calling them "news readers." In the US we give them more credit than due calling them news anchors, reporters and journalist. They just read the news from a teleprompter. I think Dan has a good case if he can prove he was being paid $6 million to just read what he was handed. The Bush military story was proven false when it was revealed the the dates on the documents couldn't have been printed by the typewriters of the day; the "st" in 21st was set in "superscript" which is automatic in most word processing programs.

Any conspiracy theorist out there who think the whole thing was an elaborate setup to trap and embarass the media into running a story that could then be easily proved false? If it was-- it was brilliant and worked like a charm.

PS it's Walter Cronkite.

Doug, Long Island, NY

Dan Rather is CORRECT. I hope he wins the lawsuit. Nail CBS Dan.

Maureen Ruffino, Montreal, Canada

Having watched Mr. Rather for many years I do miss his broadcast. I believe he should not haven taken the fall for the news he broadcast. It is the news for the moment given to him to broadcast and he did just that. He did not declare it to be the word of God and anyone other than God can make errors and it does happen. I cannot help but wonder just why he had not signed something to let everyone know, he only reported what was to report. He should not have been the fall guy for this. THE PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO TELL THE WORLD, DID SO, so have them suffer the consequencies.
More power to him. We want him on the air in a good time slot, reporting the news.

Magdalene Schwing, Houston, Texas

I find it very interesting that our G.W.Bush has never been able to come forward with any proof of his service in the military.This alone should call for a full investigation into Bush's credibility.I believe Mr.Rather was partially correct and that he only had part of story.Just like the WMD's in Iraq!
Tkatzmichals

TerryMichalski, Phoenix, USA,Arizona

For a meticulous dissection of GWB's failure to serve his full military obligation, and why, please see:

http://www.glcq.com/

Additional context can be found at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/my-role-in-rathergate_b_65222.html

and:

http://www.russbaker.com/Why%20Bush%20Left%20Texas.htm

John Simkin, Worthing, Sussex

If Dan Rather, Viacom or the White House was incorrect. No one should have been fired. Whoever collected the information and reported it should have apologized and moved on. I remember the incident, but who cares anyway. Rather is a good reporter and deserves his job back. If I owned a news show, I would hire Rather at twice his salary.

Ralph, Aurora, Colorado

The thing that sunk Dan Rather is his insistence that the story is true (G. W. Bush going AWOL) even though he has no verifiable evidence (other than hearsay and conjecture). Concerning the evidence he attempted to used to sway a presidential election, when it was proven that it was a Microsoft Word document, which was supposedly written in the 70â€™s, he stonewalled everyone. That is the mark of someone who has been caught, not that some executives in CBS made him do apologize.

C.K. Anderson, Shanghai, PRC

Many years ago, Dan Rather insulted George. W. Bush's father in a T.V. interview. After that, neither Bush would ever agree to meet personally with him again.

This rankled Rather, who made it his mission in life to seek out any negative story about the Bush's, and to put a negative spin on any positive story about them.

Rather read a story disparaging Bush that he knew was questionable because his yearning to deny the younger Bush a second term in the White House was stronger than both his journalistic integrity and his desire to keep raking in 6M per year.

By the way, the documents were not genuine. It is only technically correct to say they were not forged, because that would require proving intent to deceive, which would require interviewing the forger, whose identity was never discovered.

For many in the US, Dan Rather's word was the very definition of truth.

It should make you in the UK wonder how much of what you think you know about our President is really true.

Jeff, San Diego,

Mr. Rather gave a lecture at my University a few years back. He was an intelligent, charming, and well-spoken individual both in person and every night he read the news. I do hope he gets something out of this lawsuit; if nothing else the man deserves an apology.

If all news "talking heads" are to be punished for what they've been asked to report, there are certainly better places to start the critique than our veteran US news anchors; especially the ones who know what they're doing.

Ryan, Moscow, Idaho

Having listened to Mr. Rather for many years, I do miss him. I truly believe he should not have been held reponsible for what reported. Those people that gave written info to him need to be on trial as responsible. This man was doing his job as we all loved him, rather right or wrong, he was reporting what was given to him to report. Let those who investigated and sent info to report suffer the consequences.
I hope Mr. Rather wins his case and we can have him back on the network for everyone to enjoy again.

Magdalene Schwing, Houston, Texas

Mr. Rather is another sacrificial lamb in the efforts of our not-very-republican administration to preserve the theory that our illustrious president knows anything about what he is doing.

Melanie Wood, Rohnert Park, USA

I always thought the real news behind this flap was how CBS got fed the bogus documents by intelligence officials who wanted to help George Bush's reelection effort, a domestic black op notable for its spectacular success and lack of blowback (a rarity).

Not only did the ruse shift the focus of several news cycles away from the Presidential campaign and off on a witch hunt to make Dan Rather publicly grovel before getting canned, but CBS ran the old National Guard AWOL charges by pulling a far more nationally significant story (that the White House had used documents that were known by the CIA and the White House to be forged) about Saddam's bogus yellow cake uranium purchases during the PR run up to the invasion of Iraq.

Who knows. Maybe during the course of Mr. Rather's civil litigation, we may actually discover who set who up here, and how. On thing for sure, is that Karl Rove and the '04 Bush campaign are still laughing all the way to the bank.

Bill from Saginaw

William T. Street, SAGINAW, michigan

Dan Rather "of the old school"? You gotta be kidding. Dan Rather was a leader in the new journalism of the faked interview, the set-up, the questions asked in person different from the questions asked in the broadcast version, and the manipulation associated with the fake controversies created by his long-time show 60 Minutes. Hey, I agree with his politics but it is a wild exxageration to call this guy either fair or responsible.

Tim Roberts, New York, NY