Rather shoddy journalism

It was a storm that launched Dan Rather’s career, and it’s a storm that may end it.

Nearly 45 years ago, Rather, then a young news director at the CBS Houston affiliate, caught the eye of his NYC bosses when he ventured out into Hurricane Carla to report – live on the network’s nightly news – the storm’s destructive powers. Barely three years later, he was called up from the minors to the majors and put to work at the CBS national desk.

Rather quickly became a household name. As a national correspondent, he traveled the country and the world, covering the Vietnam War (at home and abroad), political conventions, Watergate and, yes, more big storms. In the mid-’70s, he left his nightly reporting gig and joined the network’s famed “60 Minutes” news magazine.

And then in 1981, the CBS brass picked Rather to replace retiring anchor Walter Cronkite, the man a national magazine poll once found to be “the most trusted man in America.”

But has Rather, at 72 and more than two decades in our living rooms, now become “the most distrusted man in America?” And can he survive the political storm now that’s now swirling around him, which seemingly is of his own making?

In case you’ve somehow missed it, Rather is in hot water because nearly two weeks ago he reported in an “exclusive” on “60 Minutes II” that official Texas Air National Guard documents had been uncovered suggesting that in 1972 and 1973 then-1st Lt. George W. Bush, a congressman’s son, received preferential treatment by his superiors as he shirked his duty. Rather also promoted the story on his nightly broadcasts.

Trouble is, these documents might well be forgeries. No originals have ever been found, only photocopies. Most forensics experts seemingly doubt their authenticity, based on both typography and content. And even the administrative secretary in the young Bush’s Guard unit, who would’ve typed these kinds of documents and has reviewed the ones in question, says they’re fakes.

Yet when suggestions were made almost immediately that the documents were forgeries, Rather continued defending them, even doing from his anchor desk on the evening newscast. His higher-ups kept defending their authenticity, too.

Finally, Rather admitted – seven days after the initial “60 Minutes” story – that the documents are suspect. But he still insisted that the gist of his story – that nearly 35 years ago 1st Lt. Bush received preferential treatment – was true.

What’s amazing is that CBS cut fact-checking corners in its effort to air the story. While CBS reporters and researchers certainly worked to authenticate the documents, they failed to take seriously the red-flag warnings raised by some of their own forensic experts and accepted the documents’ authenticity.

In the end, though, CBS was reduced to admitting that they only got right the “gist” of the story. How sad.

Most telling, it seems, is the comment made a few days ago by “60 Minutes” executive producer Josh Howard to the Los Angeles Times: “My interest is in getting [news stories] right, if not the first time, then at least the second time.”

What? He wants to get it right “at least the second time”?

Wouldn’t you think that before airing a story packing the kind of punch this one had – where it theoretically could’ve derailed an incumbent president’s re-election bid – they’d insist on making sure it’s right the first time?

Dan Rather and CBS felt a need to push this report given all of the hoopla about John Kerry’s past military service. This could’ve been the counter to Kerry’s swift boat controversy. And certainly the Kerry campaign welcomed the CBS story.

Ironically, though, an anti-Bush story of this magnitude that should’ve helped Kerry has been no benefit to him at all. Instead, the uproar over the Rather flub has given more ammo to those claiming a liberal media bias against Bush and most certainly has generated at least some heartland sympathy for the president.

The controversy also has underscored – yet again – conservative critics’ claims that Rather is willing to do anything to undercut Republicans. The newsman is remembered to have intemperately gone after Richard Nixon and even Bush’s father when he was vice president. He could barely hide his disdain for George W. Bush and what he on air termed an “ideologically driven” Supreme Court during the 2000 presidential election controversy. And let’s not forget Rather’s marquis appearance in 2001 at a Travis County, Texas, Democratic Party fundraiser, where some $20,000 was collected from all who attended.

Media folk are most always suspected of having political biases, usually to the benefit of Democrats, no matter how objective they might try to be. And, to be sure, they do have biases – after all, reporters are people, too.

All the more reason, therefore, that before launching a story that could launch a thousand more, reporters should go the extra mile to anticipate every criticism and check and recheck every fact.

The Bush campaign has been surprisingly quiet about the whole matter, preferring to watch Rather buckle under the weight of his own words as CBS’ media competitors report on (and take advantage of) the stupidity of one of their own.

Still left unresolved is Rather’s future. His CBS contract runs through 2006. Some of his colleagues, however, are openly wondering if he will – or can – stick around that long.

Republicans, though, might actually want to see him stay a while longer. After all, with enemies like Dan Rather, who need friends?