Tuesday, June 20, 2006
what's the frequency, skippy?
it comes as a surprise to no one, but a disappointment to many, that dan rather is leaving cbs for good. the latimes:
it is our opinion that the hardly-ever-right wing has been gunning for rather for a long time. cbs news long remained the last hold-out against slavering groupthink that love the boy-emporer, and (in our opinion), ever since rather nailed george bush, sr., the neo-cons have plotted long and hard to take rather down.
the systematic swift-boating of mary mapes's awol story (a mere minutes into the broadcast), along with the resulting dixie chicking of rather himself, made it clear that the conservatives were trying to eliminate one of the last vestiges of true fairness in journalism. but, according to the latimes, rather's departure had nothing to do with that fiasco:
according to network sources, the decision to end cbs' relationship with rather was not directly tied to the furor that erupted in fall 2004, when he reported a story that questioned president bush's service in the texas air guard.
rather eventually apologized for the reporting flaws in the piece, which an independent panel determined as based on unsubstantiated documents. he stepped down from the anchor desk in march 2005. while network executives believe the news division has largely recovered from the controversy, the incident shadowed rather's reputation after 44 years at the network.
"reporting flaws"? really? mapes herself writes at the huffpo:
courage, dan.
cbs news officials confirmed today that longtime anchor dan rather is ending his four-decade run at the network after executives declined to renew his contract as a full-time correspondent for "60 minutes."
rather's departure marks a sharp break with cbs' past and a sour ending for the veteran newsman, who sought to remain at the network where he anchored the evening news for almost a quarter century.
but cbs officials, preparing for the arrival of anchor katie couric this fall, wanted to signal a fresh start for the news division and spotlight a new generation of broadcasters, according to people familiar with the internal thinking.
yes, that's right, you did jusr read a sentence with the words "katie couric" and "thinking."rather's departure marks a sharp break with cbs' past and a sour ending for the veteran newsman, who sought to remain at the network where he anchored the evening news for almost a quarter century.
but cbs officials, preparing for the arrival of anchor katie couric this fall, wanted to signal a fresh start for the news division and spotlight a new generation of broadcasters, according to people familiar with the internal thinking.
it is our opinion that the hardly-ever-right wing has been gunning for rather for a long time. cbs news long remained the last hold-out against slavering groupthink that love the boy-emporer, and (in our opinion), ever since rather nailed george bush, sr., the neo-cons have plotted long and hard to take rather down.
the systematic swift-boating of mary mapes's awol story (a mere minutes into the broadcast), along with the resulting dixie chicking of rather himself, made it clear that the conservatives were trying to eliminate one of the last vestiges of true fairness in journalism. but, according to the latimes, rather's departure had nothing to do with that fiasco:
according to network sources, the decision to end cbs' relationship with rather was not directly tied to the furor that erupted in fall 2004, when he reported a story that questioned president bush's service in the texas air guard.
rather eventually apologized for the reporting flaws in the piece, which an independent panel determined as based on unsubstantiated documents. he stepped down from the anchor desk in march 2005. while network executives believe the news division has largely recovered from the controversy, the incident shadowed rather's reputation after 44 years at the network.
"reporting flaws"? really? mapes herself writes at the huffpo:
they claimed that cbs used forged documents and they repeated that lie so often that it stuck. the mainstream media picked it up, repeating bloggers' criticisms without making any serious effort to investigate the story. but then that would have required real legwork, something that very few were willing to do on this subject.
as for document analysis, it is a mind-numbing and arcane discipline, an imperfect undertaking reserved for courtroom use, not for headlines or internet political battles. document analysis is certainly not meant to be done at 11 o'clock at night by someone with no training or experience sitting in front of a glowing computer nursing a grudge and spoiling for a fight. but that's precisely how the right's attack against dan rather and cbs news was launched.
that first anonymous analyst (who turned out to be a republican activist lawyer) raised questions about the memo using only a single shot of a faxed document digitally transmitted to his computer screen. those kinds of transmissions radically change the way a document looks. his analysis was worthless.
the laundry list of problems that critics claimed they saw in the memos has turned out to be bunk. there never has been any definitive proof that they were forged or falsified in any way, despite a multi-million dollar investigation into the story by viacom. the reasons we put them on the air remain valid: the content of the memos was corroborated by people familiar with bush, his unit and his commander; the dates, times and details intricately matched what we know of the record; and two experienced and respected document analysts, who examined copies that had not been faxed or digitally recreated, concluded that the papers showed every indication of being real.
it's too bad. the dixie chicks, at least, were able to record another #1 album. rather, who dealt less with the creative and more with the tangibly factual, found himself like a man without a country, since this country is no longer interested in facts.as for document analysis, it is a mind-numbing and arcane discipline, an imperfect undertaking reserved for courtroom use, not for headlines or internet political battles. document analysis is certainly not meant to be done at 11 o'clock at night by someone with no training or experience sitting in front of a glowing computer nursing a grudge and spoiling for a fight. but that's precisely how the right's attack against dan rather and cbs news was launched.
that first anonymous analyst (who turned out to be a republican activist lawyer) raised questions about the memo using only a single shot of a faxed document digitally transmitted to his computer screen. those kinds of transmissions radically change the way a document looks. his analysis was worthless.
the laundry list of problems that critics claimed they saw in the memos has turned out to be bunk. there never has been any definitive proof that they were forged or falsified in any way, despite a multi-million dollar investigation into the story by viacom. the reasons we put them on the air remain valid: the content of the memos was corroborated by people familiar with bush, his unit and his commander; the dates, times and details intricately matched what we know of the record; and two experienced and respected document analysts, who examined copies that had not been faxed or digitally recreated, concluded that the papers showed every indication of being real.
courage, dan.











