I am not sure that all the people around the country understand the gravity of this situation with Dan Rather and the National Guard memos. It seems that many people are overlooking the seriousness of this "mistake." In a sense, I don't blame people for losing perspective because this race has been so hotly contested and there has been so much mud-slinging between Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Swift Boat Captains and MoveOn.org. It is enough to make you turn your brain off to this stuff. You can read the paper with a general anesthesia to all of the trash.
I would say that this is one time when we need to snap back to reality. This isn't like any of those other people that I just named. This is Dan Rather, CBS news and 60 Minutes. This is someone who considers himself a real live journalist and he has sullied his name and CBS' name. Dan Rather has never been considered a propagandist like the others, but this looks like a case where he (or one of his producers) was playing a partisan role in an election that is about as close as close can be.
He called his source "unimpeachable" when it turns out that this guy, Burkett, is well known for bumping up against Republicans, specifically GW Bush. This guy apparently lied about the source of the documents. Is that any surprise to any of you sitting here now knowing who this guy is? Would you trust the owner of a McDonald's to give an honest report about the quality of the Whopper sandwich from Burger King? And Rather called this guy "unimpeachable?"
This isn't to say that there isn't a story in there somewhere about Bush being a bad member of the Texas Air National Guard. I am quite confident that he was not a very good soldier. I am quite confident he had special connections to get him into the guard. I don't think there are many people out there who are defending Bush's military service. Yet, it seemed important enough for Dan Rather to go out on a limb with this "big time exclusive" type of a story to risk his reputation as a journalist? And the producers of 60 Minutes and CBS news were willing to risk their reputations over all of this too?
This just screams of partisanship. Someone at CBS decided to forego truth and probability in the name of their personal beliefs at worst and sensationalism at best. How else do explain this level of risk over a story and a source that was so suspect?
The bottom line is that we can't gloss over this. Dan Rather can't be let off the hook. It isn't even all that important to the election as far as I am concerned. It is the greater necessity of having our news programs not be this suspect. We know about opinion mongers like Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken. We know about liars/propagandists like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore. Just as we know about these impeachable sources of information, we must also be confident about our news sources like 60 Minutes, which are supposed to dwell in the realm of factual news reporting.
Dan Rather and CBS have struck a blow to that and that shouldn't be so easily forgivable.
First written at FilteringCraig.com
Article comments
1 - Hal Pawluk
So okay, Dan Rather is partisan - now what?
Any recommendations? Your piece left me hanging, waiting for that other shoe to drop.
2 - Craig Lyndall
I don't think this is done shaking out. I am just preparing for it. I don't have an an answer for you, I am just saying that the reputation has fallen in my opinion and I hope other people agree with me because I think it is a serious offense. Just talking about it is good enough for now.
3 - Bryan
I read somewhere that this might not affect Rathers career TODAY, but it may 6 months from now.
4 - norelpref
And FOX Network News is non-partisan? NBC and ABC are non-partisan? Please. What I find surprising is that Rather takes a critical look at President-Select Bush, which other corporate controlled news sources seem reluctant to do.
5 - Dawn
I have had the sinking feeling that as we slide further into the 21 century that we are striking a precarious balance between truth and fiction.
Look at "reality tv" - how much of that is actual reality and how much of it is orchestrated.
This election, some might say, is testing the very essence of democracy. With so much power and influence being wielded by the right (think Enron/big business and the entire Bush/Cheney oligarchy)- it's no wonder that people like Dan Rather (right or wrong) would lay their entire career on the line if they thought that they could influence in even the tiniest way, the outcome of this election.
That is the force of the hatred for Bush and those who oppose him.
What we really should be asking ourselves is WHY? Why is there this movement of people so determined to oust this "regime" to the extent that they would lie, cheat and steal to do so.
Talk about Manchurian Candidate - what we are witnessing is the most basic elements of conflict - a struggle at its purest core for control of the most premier nation.
My only question is - which side is best suited to lead us?
So far, Bush has done a real "bang up" job.