Going, going ...

January 21, 2005 8:02 AM

He's going but apparently not fast enough for some. The long and storied career of Dan Rather began in Texas, catapulted after his reporting on the Kennedy assassination and is marked over the decades by on-air outbursts, tantrums and what some might call just plain weirdness. Among yesterday's inauguration coverage TV highlights was Dan getting choked up at a marching band playing a patriotic song. Meanwhile, the scandal that brought him down continues. Should Rather resign now? What does he owe to the producers who have been fired? What does he owe viewers? What is his legacy? And who (or what) should replace him?
posted by terrier319 (47 comments total)

STEPHEN COLBERT: Jon, there's got to be some accountability. Dan Rather is the head, the commander in chief, if you will, of his organization. He's someone in the ultimate position of power who made a harmful decision based upon questionable evidence. Then, to make things worse, he stubbornly refused to admit his mistake, choosing instead to stay the course and essentially "occupy" this story for too long. This man has got to go!
...
COLBERT: Yes Jon, Dan Rather. CBS is in chaos, it's unsafe, riven by internal rivalries. If you ask me, respected, reputable outsiders need to be brought in to help the rebuilding effort.
...
COLBERT: Yeah, at CBS news! What possible other unrelated situation could my words be equally applicable to?! Now people need to be held accountable. The commander in chief, the vice president, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser -- everyone at CBS News needs to go!
posted by odinsdream at 8:10 AM on January 21, 2005

who should replace him?
Jon Stewart
posted by nofundy at 8:13 AM on January 21, 2005

I'm sorry he is going.
posted by semmi at 8:14 AM on January 21, 2005

Weird rumors about Katie Couric replacing him... it'd be interesting to see if she could do "serious" instead of "bubbly" as a newscaster...
posted by fet at 8:19 AM on January 21, 2005

Thanks, odinsdream. I wish I could fill my tub with The Daily Show and then luxuriously bathe in it.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:19 AM on January 21, 2005

nofundy, it's been discussed.

Asked twice, [Les] Moonves wouldn't rule out a role on the evening news for Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, whose "The Daily Show" skewers politicians and the news media each night. Moonves is co-chief executive of Viacom, which owns both CBS and Comedy Central.

posted by ..ooOOoo....ooOOoo.. at 8:28 AM on January 21, 2005

It'd be nice to see Jon Stewart get a broader audience than he does right now on cable, but I'd really hate for him to have to dumb his show down, or even worse, act like a real news anchor, in order to make CBS execs happy.
posted by salad spork at 8:29 AM on January 21, 2005

Some of the biases discussed on the RatherBiased site don't strike me as biases, just strange comments interpreted strangely by strange partisans. Is Dan Rather really such a big threat to the facts in the face of all the FoxNewsesque junk out there?

I'm sorry he is going.

Me too. He is/was colorful & honorable, but probably a little too quirky for most. His stubbornness during the AWOLgate thing certainly didn't help the accusations of partisanship, though, I guess.
posted by dhoyt at 8:30 AM on January 21, 2005

It's interesting to see how the 'Theory of Moments' has influenced modern broadcast journalism. There's a good explaination of the theory in the first link:

I think, in fact, it might be worth dwelling on the origin of the Theory of Moments, since it plays an often-unacknowledged role in the way broadcast-news stories are structured: reaching for Moments— moments of feeling, moments of visceral emotion—no matter how manipulative.

Nonetheless, the frozen moment, the poignant close, the dying fall, the expression that lingers and seems to say so much—these have become the signatures of broadcast news and a certain kind of TV-magazine show.

Dan was a proponent of this theory and strongly encouraged senior producers to wear badges that said "Moments".
posted by foot at 8:31 AM on January 21, 2005

He's still seekin the frequency.

Old and very, very busted.
posted by 1016 at 8:36 AM on January 21, 2005

Daily Show viewers: does the phrase mean anything to ya?

Dan Rather: another reason why I still don't own a television.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:42 AM on January 21, 2005

Oh, sorry for the HTML bungle.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:44 AM on January 21, 2005

Is Dan Rather really such a big threat to the facts in the face of all the FoxNewsesque junk out there?

I think it's more a diversionary tactic. Dan Rather is bumbling, I have no trouble admitting that. Jon Stewart, on the other hand, is actually sharp and (possibly) dangerous. Right-wing "news" knows this, I believe, so that's why you see the reversal. Dan Rather is treated as a true threat - even though he isn't - because when he's "defeated", it looks more like a win. Whereas Stewart is referenced as a loony, even though he's the real threat, in order to put his comments on the sidelines from the very beginning. It's actually a clever little tactic.

Paris, what phrase....?
posted by odinsdream at 8:44 AM on January 21, 2005

Solving the riddle of the Dan Rather beating
posted by calculon at 8:47 AM on January 21, 2005

"Amusing Ourselves To Death" is apparently what Paris means.

I can't really think of a good comeback, but there's one in there.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:47 AM on January 21, 2005

Ashleigh Banfield!
posted by rushmc at 8:50 AM on January 21, 2005

Strange that Dan Rather would be held accountable for bad reporting (not even a crime, and common enough to be sure) before anyone in the entire administration would be held accountable for outing Valerie Plame, a breach of National Security and a breach of law (the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.)
posted by wtfwjd? at 8:52 AM on January 21, 2005

I was under the impression that the idea in the book was that people will turn voluntarily to a mass-media system, rather than having it be forced upon them as books like 1984 predicted. They'll choose it voluntarily, because it makes the truth easier to disregard/ignore/deal with, whathaveyou. The Daily Show serves none of these purposes. It certainly doesn't make me feel better about things, even though it helps me laugh at them. For me, the Daily Show is a wrap-up of a lot of the topics I've already been reading about in the "real world," only presented in a humorous format. Perhaps I'm not taking the title of the book literally enough, Paris, but have you read it?
posted by odinsdream at 8:53 AM on January 21, 2005

Its probably best for him to go. He's had a long career, and history will probably judge his exit kindly, as a target of the current right-wing domination of national politics and the FCC.

People like personalities as an easy way to get their arms around a concept. Dan Rather is an easy target as the person identified with 'liberal media.' Although there's trash and obvious opinion as journalism on Fox News everyday, you don't have one person like a Dan Rather to get your arms around -- maybe Bill O'Reily, but he's got his own issues outside of the conservative/liberal media thing.
posted by brucec at 8:54 AM on January 21, 2005

Another nice compare-and-contrast.

Not sure where I found this, it may have been posted here, but it's worth a laugh.

I have trouble getting conservatives to address the difference between this situations honestly....not that 1016's response was "Ha ha, suck it, Rather!" and Paris's was "People who make jokes about stuff have problems."

Can anyone explain why we shouldn't compare these two situations and mourn the lack of accountability for the loss of human lives when so much is given for bad journalism? I mean, actually, someone please explain it?
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:56 AM on January 21, 2005

Edit: Worth a laugh or brief cry.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:56 AM on January 21, 2005

His replacement is totally going to be a blogger, cuz they know more about news and journalism and stuff. Maybe Glenn Reynolds.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:57 AM on January 21, 2005

Further edits: This=these, not=note.
Is it lunchtime yet? Gah.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:57 AM on January 21, 2005

http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne23.html
posted by Postroad at 9:07 AM on January 21, 2005

Tis absurd to call for resignation. At best the anyone has been able to assert is that the documents *might* be fake. That means they also might be real. A bunch of blogger yahoos saying things like "uhh, I can create those documents using Word, therefore they must be fake" strains the bounds of reason.
posted by fleener at 9:11 AM on January 21, 2005

As far as Amusing Ourselves to Death goes, Postman's thesis about television was that the medium is inherently geared towards entertainment, and that "serious" subjects treated in this medium will necessarily be turned into entertainment (e.g. the constant OJ coverage, 2001's summer of the shark, screaming pundit shows on cable news, televangelism, horse race political coverage, etc.) His problem is "serious" content masquerading as entertainment, not entertainment presenting itself as such. Whether the Daily Show would fit the former or the latter is an open question, I think.

All that said, I suspect writing in the mid-80's introduces a significant flaw to Postman's reasoning. The Daily Show averages something like 1-2 million viewers a night; network news in 1985 totalled probably 80-90 million. A network news show that had numbers like the Daily Show's would be canned immediately. The prominence of cable allows niche programming to thrive, and to remain in the niche. The Daily Show doesn't have to appeal to 30 million viewers. The CBS Evening News does. I think the recent study showing TDS viewers as more knowledgable than their non-viewing counterparts supports this claim, but I'm not 100% on that. It's something I'm hoping to look at once I've begun my PhD work next fall.

(BTW, the class I teach uses some or all of Amusing Ourselves to Death each semester and even though I have a lot of problems with Postman's conclusions, I find that it sparks a lot of good discussion in class.)
posted by aaronetc at 9:17 AM on January 21, 2005

Wow! Thanks for the link calculon. Jessamyn has a Donald Barthelme page full of stories and links.
posted by roboto at 9:23 AM on January 21, 2005

Only on Metafilter does Ockham's Razor "stray the bounds of reason."
posted by trharlan at 9:33 AM on January 21, 2005

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death

Yet before television, printing presses churned out all kinds of semiliterate partisan nonsense. There's the whole matter of yellow journalism and the Spanish-American War, right smack in the middle of that golden age of 100 years ago, and no TV to blame.

The gleeful tone of modern conservatives on Dan Rather's career is the pride of bully getting away with it.
posted by fleacircus at 9:44 AM on January 21, 2005

who should replace him?

Let's have a REAL criminal like Bob Novakula!

The wing nuts would love him and he would NEVER attempt to discover the truth of a situation.
A perfect mouthpiece for Corporate "News" Inc.!
posted by nofundy at 9:44 AM on January 21, 2005

Weird rumors about Katie Couric replacing him... it'd be interesting to see if she could do "serious" instead of "bubbly" as a newscaster...

i'm sorry, i just threw up a little in my mouth.
posted by blendor at 9:45 AM on January 21, 2005

I would now like to have a beer with Dan Rather, just to shoot the shit.
posted by malaprohibita at 9:47 AM on January 21, 2005

The entire Dan Rather thing was a nice diversion away from the real subject matter he was trying to address: Bush was AWOL.

That one document may not have had the legitimacy it should have but NO ONE yet disputes the content of the document as inaccurate.

Add to that the fact there are many other documents that back the assertions made and it becomes clear this was a diversionary tactic away from the real issue: Bush was AWOL.

Pickpockets know well such methodology.
posted by nofundy at 9:50 AM on January 21, 2005

I don't understand why Dan Rather should take the bullet for what, as nofundy said, is a few wrong pieces in a long list of researched materials. If anything I would hope it was Rather's editor and/or producer who should step down as that position (not the anchor) has ultimate responsibility for the news organization's integrity and the accuracy of the reported stories. This isn't to absolve Rather of responsibility, but rather to put accountability to those higher up in the decision making process.
posted by infowar at 10:04 AM on January 21, 2005

CJR:
Blog-Gate
Yes, CBS screwed up badly in ‘Memogate’ — but so did those who covered the affair
posted by mr.marx at 10:14 AM on January 21, 2005

maybe Bill O'Reily, but he's got his own issues outside of the conservative/liberal media thing

Bill's tough. Bill has been in combat. [Windows Media]
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:18 AM on January 21, 2005

For me, the Daily Show is a wrap-up of a lot of the topics I've already been reading about in the "real world," only presented in a humorous format.

Not just humorous but insightful—to me, that's the really remarkable part of the show, because insight (along with context) is something that I've not associated in any way with television news programming for a long, long time.
posted by rushmc at 11:02 AM on January 21, 2005

I love The Daily Show. They provide great info, some keen insight and a lot of humor. It is, basically, almost perfect.

Obviously John is flying along on two left wings but thats not a problem because he doesn't feel compelled (except for a few weeks before the election) to try and skew everything he says and does into maximum possible partisan spin.

Smart, honest about facts and honest about his views / leanings. Would that all media was like him in that.
posted by soulhuntre at 11:39 AM on January 21, 2005

Rathers passing is symbolic of his entire generation on the way out. The scary part is not that he is leaving, but who is replaceing him.. baby boomers. Baby Boomers are visionary revolutionaries. We're looking at many more years of baby boomer presidents and leadership of radicals, except instead of the liberal radicals of youth, they are the conservative radicals of old age. God help us all when they take the wheel of the worlds most powerful country.
posted by stbalbach at 11:45 AM on January 21, 2005

Dan story:

He spoke at my college graduation. I was lined up near him and got to watch the celeb-hunters approach him. A gaggle of sorority girls asked him for his autograph, and one shook his hand. As she walked away, she said to her friends in an oddly reverent tone, "Ooh, he's so soft!"

I kid you not.
posted by mudpuppie at 11:57 AM on January 21, 2005

I read somewhere that Moonvees is thinking of having a rotating anchor on the evening news. This probably is a good way to get someone much cheaper than a Katie Couric and try out a variety of styles.

As much as I like Jon Stewart I think he'd lose a lot more freedom if he took the Daily show to a broadcast network. And if he did the CBS News he'd have to do real news -- which sucks.

I don't care who they pick anyway. I've gotten to the point that the only news I consume on TV is on NWI -- CBC and ITV -- and BBC World. That and the Daily Show is all I need.
posted by birdherder at 12:59 PM on January 21, 2005

Nobody remembers, but just after he was tapped, Rather showed his true colors.

He flew to Chicago to see Studs Terkel. At the airport, he hailed a cab to go to Studs's house.

Turns out he couldn't tell the cabbie where Studs lived, a one-block street near the lake. (This is pre-cell phone days.)

Eventually, the cabbie told Rather he'd ridden him around enough. Rather would have to pay something to keep looking.

Rather refused, so the cabbie did what cabbies do with fares who stiff them. He went looking for a cop.

Of course, when they find a cop, Rather crawls out the window yelling, Kidnap. They arrest the cabbie.

Rather came back to Chicago to press charges. I don't know what ever finally happened, but that branded him a Big Guy.

Also, he was the reason we didn't see much of Walter Cronkite on CBS after '81. Cronkite was to keep doing specials, but Rather wouldn't allow it lest he be upstaged by a retired guy.

I'm glad to see him go -- prima donna.
posted by gwyon at 4:28 PM on January 21, 2005

I read somewhere that the cabbie went to jail and then people turned on Rather for being mean to the "little guy."

I'm sad Walter Cronkite didn't keep more visibly active. I really missed him when he left the news. I still do, especially nowadays. Walter Cronkite kicked ass -- we counted on him and he always came through because he truly reported the NEWS to us, what we needed to know as citizens... he was our voice of reason and he educated us without bias about things that intelligent people should know were going on & be able to make up their own minds on. It's different now. So much of the news (especially local news) is overhyped E! Channel fluff or says what people/corporations want us to hear. I don't even watch tv news much anymore... well, other than the Daily Show, of course. I heart the Daily Show.
posted by miss lynnster at 5:30 PM on January 21, 2005

Thanks for the very literate comments about amusing and/or entertaining ourselves to death.

My point is/was primarily nothing more than the title. My personal qualm with the Daily Show is that it's, well, daily; the idea of daily satire of current events is just emblematic of too few people taking too little seriously. I know that's IMHO, but it's just what feels true; there's too much wrong with the world for the mocking of current events to be daily, particularly when many people I encounter don't read a good newspaper daily.

/PP rant.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:55 PM on January 21, 2005

It's somewhat amusing that network news was more diverse 10 years ago than it is now. The rotating news caravan seems like a good bet for CBS. After all, the cobbled together combination of the CBS Early Show (minus Les Moonves' lover) seems to work cheaply and deliver value to the network if not the most viewers.
posted by calwatch at 2:20 AM on January 22, 2005

How in the world is it a "scandal" if a news story is partially based on documents the authenticity of which have not been "proven" to everyone's satisfaction (but haven't been disproved either), despite the fact that the major point - that Bush shirked his duties in the early seventies - is sound and otherwise well-documented; and yet it is not a scandal when the president (SotU address '03) and secretary of state (UN) base their claims of "Saddam's WMD" on documents *known to be forged* - claims that are also now admitted to be completely false????

Can anyone explain this to me, because I don't get it. Is it something to do with this "morality" I hear about, that right wing Americans seem to be so fond of?
posted by dinsdale at 7:34 AM on January 22, 2005

Can somebody explain to me, in words of four letters or less, what this so-called scandal is? I honestly have no clue what you people are discussing and my two second scan of the pages linked didn't give me any insight.

(It doesn't help that I'm reading this in a quarter height window at work, but it's not like I'm going to go home and fire up the good old TV and find out that way either.)
posted by codger at 11:22 AM on January 24, 2005