Dan Rather and 'truthiness'

‘Truth’ the new movie about the events that led to the firing of 3 CBS news producers was responsible for Dan Rather suing Leslie Moonves and co. The best line about the film is from CBS; “It’s astounding how little truth there is in ‘Truth”. To rehash just a bit, Dan Rather left CBS news shortly after the 60 Minutes report ran showing a supposed letter from President Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard as less-than-stellar. The letter was revealed as a fake and the producer, Mary Mapes, was promptly fired.  Reading through the piece intently, I kept waiting for the sentence, or paragraph, or smoking gun statement from anyone connected to original report the Mapes’ crew from CBS ran in 2004 that would convince us they got screwed. In other words, tell us how the network mistreated you by ignoring a legitimate story based on sound research and reliable sources, that isn't too difficult is it? Here is a line from Dan Rather:

 "We reported a true story," he says. "There wasn't any doubt then, and there is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind now, the story was true." link

But if the story can't be corroborated by a legitimate source it essentially didn't happen. The source he had, The Hollywood Reporter points this out, lied about where he got the documents. This is something most journalists, especially a seasoned reporter, should understand how to shore up before going to broadcast with. The pressure of getting the big scoop and exposing some covered lie turning around the election is huge for newscasters and their crews. Think of the high esteem Woodward and Bernstein are held in. Rather is bitter for two reasons. CBS didn't back him up sufficiently after the tsunami of criticism over the amateur nature of the report. For someone who reported from conflict zones since the early seventies and won a Peabody award, the on-air ego crushing apology was too much. Secondly, ending the way it did with Rather suing CBS over the matter ensured that his credibility would be forever tarnished. Ironically the lawsuit was an attempt, in my opinion, to salvage some of that shine that had dulled on the anchorman's stellar legacy. If he could show some culpability on the part of the network or show some hidden effort full of political motives for the spiking of his story, he could regain standing.  It is sad how seemingly little regard for the facts this new film has though. I haven't seen it yet so I'll hold back criticism until then. The comments by some of the actors suggest it will be sloppier than the actual story it's trying to tell. Robert Redford, who plays Dan, tells the Hollywood Reporter the story is worth "going after" because the Bush administration "...tried to discredit the journalist."1 Rather and Mapes forced the hand of the network by doing shoddy work and thereby discredited themselves.  

Part of me is sympathetic to the claim the CBS is too cozy with the president and that their access depends on it. Sheryl Atkinson certainly knows what it is like to work for months and a story and have it killed over objections from ‘higher authorities’. She also quit working for CBS stating similar complaints. Dan Rather was a professional and a highly respected anchor who did great work while he was with CBS and nothing should affect it. My favorite memory of Dan Rather /was the humanity he showed on the Late Show with David Letterman shortly after the 9/11 attacks. He broke down crying on multiple occasions when retelling how residents in the World Trade towers leaped to their death rather than burn alive. It was the first time for me that I realized journalists are often deeply moved by events and stories they expose. He showed me that for all the death and suffering he had reported on, 9/11 was personal because it happened on our soil. Dan Rather is mostly guilty of being asleep at the wheel while reporting on the Texas National Guard Story. Someone with so much experience should have known better.