Academic

Dan Rather's quixotic quest?

By Tung Yin

I was interested in reading that former CBS news anchor Dan Rather has filed a $75 million lawsuit against CBS, alleging that the network made him the scapegoat of the Killian document fiasco.  The fiasco was a series of segments on "60 Minutes Wednesday," in which Rather reported that documents from the Texas Air National Guard demonstrated that George W. Bush had received preferential treatment while serving there during the Vietnam War; however, bloggers raised serious questions about the authenticity of the documents, and subsequent "60 Minutes" segments failed to address those concerns.  An independent commission concluded that "60 Minutes" had rushed to air the initial segment and was unable to validate (or disprove) the authenticity of the documents.

Apart from the fact that Rather still seems unable to accept that there is a difference between the story that he believes he reported (Bush received special treatment) versus the story that he actually reported (documents established that Bush received special treatment).  If the story were merely that Bush had received special treatment based on people's recollection, well, I don't know that too many people would've been surprised.  What made the original "60 Minutes" segment compelling was its assertion that documents proved this fact.

Anyway, without rehashing all of the debate over the documents (you can follow the above link for more if you really want to relive the whole gory details), what I found especially sad about Rather's lawsuit is that he asserts that he was paid $6 million a year just to read the teleprompter.  It was CBS' fault, not his, that the story was not properly sourced, as it turns out, even though you'd think that the questions being raised in the blogosphere and then in other mainstream media outlets would've led a thinking reporter to question what he was spouting on air.

Full post as published by The Yin Blog on September 20, 2007 (boomark / email).