Joseph Planta's Commentary - thecommentary.ca

Thursday, 07 October 2004

Rather biased?

By Joseph Planta

VANCOUVER - Has this become, sadly, the way Dan Rather's career in news will end?

When CBS and Rather mercifully announced that the documents they had brought forth in a 60 Minutes broadcast not so long ago, were in fact less than reliable, it was but a pause in the firestorm that first erupted on that 60 Minutes broadcast. The documents used in a story by Rather, doubted part of President Bush's National Guard service.

Oddly enough, there aren't many in the journalism profession taking much joy in the predicament of CBS News. Oh perhaps those fair and balanced journos at Fox News, as well as Bernard Goldberg are beside themselves pleased with seeing the legendary Rather unravelled, or perhaps vindicated. However, this whole situation proves a turning point in American popular culture. The culture wars have had a turning point with Dan Rather's capitulation that the documents used were not necessarily phoney, but could not be authenticated.

The dichotomy between the left and the right has never been wider, and it signifies a change in the way the dissemination of news is perceived by Americans. And it's been a while now, that some Americans have been known to rely more on comedians like those on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, David Letterman, or 'Weekend Update' on Saturday Night Live, than the traditional newscasts of Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings. The Rather debacle proves the death knell of news as we know it.

Dan Rather has had a storied career in journalism. As a dogged reporter, he's covered some of the most important stories of the past 40 years. His tenure at CBS included a stint as White House correspondent, which groomed him for 60 Minutes, which prepared him for the anchor's chair at the CBS Evening News, when in 1981 Walter Cronkite abdicated, with the title 'most trusted man in America.' As a reporter Rather chased storms, as he did presidents. His contentious press conferences with Richard Nixon are legendary. After some testy questioning, Nixon asked Rather, "Are you running for something?" To which, Rather rather haughtily said, "No, Mr. President, are you?"

Dan Rather has been seen as a bit more than your traditional anchor. One could see traces of where he leaned politically, if not a sort of agenda emerge through his reportage. It's no wonder that recently, Tom Brokaw, his number at NBC, was deemed the most trusted man in America, and not Walter Cronkite's successor.

Gossip in media circles is that Rather has his biases. Word is that Rather has a hate-on for President Bush that dates back to the time of the President's father. There's a clever website called Rather Biased that highlights a litany of Rather's sins in being less than honest in his reporting. Imus, for example, points to two significant situations where Rather's bias rings through. First, is the night Al Gore conceded the 2000 election. Despite Gore's concession, Rather kept telling viewers that there was still hope, and that Gore could still get the presidency. Second, Imus says one night during this current administration, there was a story that was particularly flattering for this President, which every other newscast led with. On CBS, Imus claims, the story was buried deep, warranting nothing more than a cursory mention.

Journalists by nature of their profession tend to be left-of-centre. Not all are, and there are many right-wing journalists out there. It seems to be a tenet of so many journalists out there to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. Underdogs are always popular and make for more interesting stories, I suppose. What is particularly grating however is when journalists say they are unbiased yet it's so obvious that their biases creep through. It's obviously not easy to hide one's biases, because these are so obviously important issues they cover. I'm more inclined to believe partisans journalists who are honest about their beliefs, rather than supposed journalists who become a part of the establishment by virtue of an extended tenure in the public eye.

Rather's has reached the pinnacle of his business, so there maybe some liberties that one takes when at his station in life. Anchormen have always appeared to consider themselves the conscience of the nation, and that's because they have such an historically important role in television, that of telling the public the news and being able to do so with the widest possible audience, and perhaps in a most intimate setting, that of one's living room. Has Rather overstepped his role? That's the question. At 72, this whole palaver has not come at an opportune time. With his younger counterpart, Brokaw stepping down this winter, demographics and ratings will doubtless dictate that Rather ought to step aside too. Rumour is he will in the spring; however, it's not great timing considering this pall that's cast over a storied and legendary career.

Will CBS News - the network of Edward R. Murrow, Eric Severeid, Fred Friendly, and Walter Cronkite - survive? Of course. However, with every passing day, and the proliferation of different news sources, like blogs, Drudge, or even Leno and Letterman, more and more the institution of the supper hour news cast is quickly losing its relevance and importance.

***

After the first presidential debate on Thursday night, I flipped around to the post-debate coverage to see what the networks were doing. I tried to confine myself to NBC and Brokaw and Russert's coverage, though I tuned into CBS when Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) was a guest with Rather. What's up with Rather's referring to the debate as a "joint appearance" rather than the debate? The implication was clear. It was the Bush camp which demanded all the tight rules, and I suppose Rather was editorialising.

-30-

Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca

An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .