Posted on 09/19/2005 8:36:17 PM PDT by aculeus
NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather said Monday that there is a climate of fear running through newsrooms stronger than he has ever seen in his more than four-decade career.
Rather famously tangled with President Nixon and his aides during the Watergate years while Rather was a hard-charging White House correspondent.
Addressing the Fordham University School of Law in Manhattan, occasionally forcing back tears, he said that in the intervening years, politicians "of every persuasion" had gotten better at applying pressure on the conglomerates that own the broadcast networks. He called it a "new journalism order."
He said this pressure -- along with the "dumbed-down, tarted-up" coverage, the advent of 24-hour cable competition and the chase for ratings and demographics -- has taken its toll on the news business. "All of this creates a bigger atmosphere of fear in newsrooms," Rather said.
Rather was accompanied by HBO Documentary and Family president Sheila Nevins, both of whom were due to receive lifetime achievement awards at the News and Documentary Emmy Awards on Monday evening.
Nevins said that even in the documentary world, there's a certain kind of intimidation brought to bear these days, particularly from the religious right.
"If you made a movie about (evolutionary biologist Charles) Darwin now, it would be revolutionary," Nevins said. "If we did a documentary on Darwin, I'd get a thousand hate e-mails."
Nevin asked Rather if he felt the same type of repressive forces in the Nixon administration as in the current Bush administration.
"No, I do not," Rather said. That's not to say there weren't forces trying to remove him from the White House beat while reporting on Watergate; but Rather said he felt supported by everyone above him, from Washington bureau chief Bill Small to then-news president Dick Salant and CBS chief William S. Paley.
"There was a connection between the leadership and the led . . . a sense of, 'we're in this together,"' Rather said. It's not that the then-leadership of CBS wasn't interested in shareholder value and profits, Rather said, but they also saw news as a public service. Rather said he knew very little of the intense pressure to remove him in the early 1970s because of his bosses' support.
Nevins took up the cause for Rather, who was emotional several times during the event.
"When a man is close to tears discussing his work and his lip quivers, he deserves bosses who punch back. I feel I would punch back for Dan," Nevins said.
Rather praised the coverage of Hurricane Katrina by the new generation of TV journalists and acknowledged that he would have liked to have reported from the Gulf Coast. "Covering hurricanes is something I know something about," he said.
"It's been one of television news' finest moments," Rather said of the Katrina coverage. He likened it to the coverage of President Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
"They were willing to speak truth to power," Rather said of the coverage.
Rather sidestepped the question of what should happen to the evening news in the expected makeover. "Not my call," he said. And he said he hadn't been asked, either.
"I gave it everything I had, I didn't hold anything back. I did the best newscast we were capable of doing," Rather said.
Nevins, who almost single-handedly has kept the art of the independent documentary on television, said the HBO documentaries show real life and do it with as little damage to the subjects as possible. She said the producers and directors "respect mostly the people on the other side of the camera."
Nevins said she didn't shy away from such R-rated topics as "G-String Divas" and "Taxicab Confessions" but noted that sex and passion have been topics of literature since Chaucer's day. "The most R-rated is a body bag, not a naked body," Nevins said.
Ok. I believe it. :)
But they were never that important to me.
CBS lied about what its experts had said. It subsequently developed that they had submitted the documents to 3 experts. Two to look at overall authenticity, one to look at the signature. The signature guy authenticated the signature, subject to the caveat that he was working from copies. He said nothing of the overall document, though CBS tried to claim that he did. The other two told CBS the documents were not right. The family told them the documents didn't sound right. Burkett himself told them they could not go with the docs unless they got them independently authenticated - he was not vouching for them. So, in the end, what did they have to support the documents' authenticity? Absolutely Nothing. Even the secretary who was the typist in that office said they used regular electric typewriters. Such machines are incapable of producing such a document - it is simply and definitively impossible. Her statement about content is of no help to CBS. Fake but accurate is not an argument for authenticity. It is an admission they are fakes, and the game is over.
As for parsing Newcomer vs. the others, whoever they might be, (and I know of no authoritative refutation), give yourself more credit. If you work through it, the conclusion is inescapable. These documents have features that were impossible to generate on contemporary typewriters. Tytel concluded the font in question was simply unavailable on typewriters at the time. Period. End of Story. This is just not that complicated.
I have no problem believing the documents were forgeries. I just can't say I've come to that conclusion on my own.
As a teenager I had the experience of having demostrated something to Dad and having him criticze me for taking the chance. I replied, "It worked, didn't it?" Dad rejoined, "Once in a million!" My reaction was to repeat the (actually low stakes) stunt, which predictably (in my own recondite experience) worked again. Dad replied, "Twice in two million!"The moral of the story is that:
You claim that you "have no problem believing the documents were forgeries" and yet you set the standard of proof to infinity with your rope-a-dope "I haven't looked at it" evasion. You have not looked at it, and you will not - because it's too clear that you could not sustatin your worldview if you did look at it.
- You can always avoid a contrary conclusion if you can set the standard of proof arbitrarily high. And,
- It is easy to set the standard of proof arbitrarily high - if you are Dad talking to a young son. You need power to control the standard of proof.
From the fact that the "memos" are patent forgeries it follows not only that Mary Mapes was tendentious but that CBS as an organization was and is tendentious with its "independent commission" which was about as independent of CBS as your left eye is from your right.
As an impartial arbiter of truth, therefore, CBS News is rotten to the core. And what follows from that? All other news organizations know it - and do not say so. They do not say so, because Big Journalism is permanently in full go-along-and-get-along mode. Competition exists among the various organs of Big Journalism - but not ideological diversity. Big Journalism defines itself as "objective" journalism. But it is not objective; no human institution is. Big Journalism defines "objectivity" as not breaking the mutual admiration society pact.
I assert that there is no ideological competion among Big Media organs, even though I do not claim that they are all controlled by the Democratic Party nor even, as some would have it, Hillary Clinton. Big Journalism is a voluntary, ad hoc "organization." Big Journalism self organizes on the principle that "you never pick an argument with someone who buys ink by the carload." That is a principle which is at once arrogant and cowardly. Externally arrogant toward the general public, and internally cowardly among each other.
Each individual journalist is not able to control the course of journalism, any more than George Bush could with a breath have controled the course of Katrina. The individual journalist is not Big Journalism; the individual journalist is a mere celebrity among many celebrities. Movie stars are celebrities, not inherently qualified to speak authoritatively on farm policy for having portrayed farmers on TV or on law enforcement for having portrayed cops in the movies. And yet the Democratic politician - whether Hillary Clinton or any other - does not control Big Journalism either. All are entrained in the dervish of whirling motion, unorganized and yet systematic. All liberal celebrities, bound up in the one idea - that nothing really matters except PR.
Those who insist on any other principle, the PR Borg vociferously punishes with negative PR. They are "extreme right wing." Most of all they are "not a journalist, not objective." Thus a Bernard Goldberg can be a journalist - until he insists on a principle which is independent of, and therefore contradictiory to, the PR principle. Bernard Goldberg writes Bias, and he is an unmade man - "not a journalist, not objective."
What is the issue between those who call themselves liberals (or who, having run that word into the ground, insist on being called "progressive," or some other virtue) and those whom those "liberals" call conservatives? Conservatives, idealists that they are, have taken for granted that the issue was truth. But reality is different. The issue is not truth; the issue is whether the issue is truth. Whether, that is, the issue is truth or power.
Media bias bump.
Truth v. Power bump
All are entrained in the dervish of whirling motion, unorganized and yet systematic.
I have often wondered if the press and much of politics isn't subtly controlled by the Washington, New York, and Hollywood cocktail circuit, the same circuit that is fertile ground for gossip columnist. Just as all politics is local, all lives are ego, assuming for this discussion that ego is self.
We must remember that Communism is fantasy. It is the Big Lie. Under it all is an Earthly Paradise with no pesky God always annoying you about morals. It is an especially appealing place for the elite for not only are they not bothered by morals, that are not subject to the bubble, bubble, toil and trouble of the masses. It is a perfect fairytale where they can be nice without really having to go to that trouble. They need simply give allegiance to high-sounding ideals like social safety nets, equality for all, affirmative action to overcome slavery, day care, food stamps, welfare checks, free health care, guaranteed retirement for the elderly, and on through the liberal litany of programs. They only have to give lip service, make it all the law of the land and spend someone elses money to accomplish it. Then their world is complete and their job is done. Let someone else deal with the details and make it work.
The elite then meet for awhile once or twice a week at someone's mansion or at fancy hotels and restaurants and hug and kiss and assure each other how wonderful they are.
For someone to be rude enough to point out the emperor is naked, that all those wonderful sounding programs are doing more harm that good, is to become disinvited to the elegant orgies of goodness. Doing things to make society work takes work. That is not nearly as enjoyable as talking about it.
To try to shake people out of this reverie is to invite their wrath. Conservatives, the ones pointing out the emperor's nudity, are demonized, their reputations besmirched, their livelihoods in jeopardy. Regrettably, to understand, we must empathize with the left. They have created a beautiful world view. They are happy there. It is their reality. The only problem is human nature and facts keep spoiling the view. Conservatives are especially annoying that way. So is the Constitution. Destroying such a beautiful and satisfying reality is frightening to them, worse than death for some. So they strike back.
How do you defend a lie? With more lies, of course. That is what we see everyday in the media and on Capital Hill.
No, as you say, nothing nor anyone is objective.
The issue is not truth; the issue is whether the issue is truth. Whether, that is, the issue is truth or power
Conservatives seek truth as their guide, knowing fulfill all the work and responsibility that entails. The left seek power. That is the only way to keep the fantasy alive and to keep those pesky annoyances like morals and responsibility from intruding.
You're going off the rails here.
I looked at the evidence as best I could - given the time and energy I was willing to expend - and couldn't decide who was right. I said so.
I also said I believed George Bush behaved in the way he was accused of behaving whether or not the memos were forgeries - for the reasons I gave - and that's why I didn't care much about the memos. Another reason - strangely a version of one you advanced - was that what concerned me most was each party's proposed response to the Islamic threat, not the candidates behavior 30 years prior. I voted for Bush because I favored his approach...not because I believed he was a great guy or liked his policy or belief on other issues. I voted against Kerry because I feared the inordinate influence of political correctniks, not because I thought the Swifties had successfully discredited his performance in VietNam.
" Big Journalism self organizes on the principle that "you never pick an argument with someone who buys ink by the carload."
You may not realize it but that's a populist critique of capitalism, especially corporate capitalism. You're describing the behavior of the national association of manufacturers, the AMA, the lawyers guilds, etc, not just major media.
In fact, you're lamenting human nature. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". You think that applies only to liberals or to the major media?
The founders solution to that was to realize that there are many hands...and to try to make sure that the law protected all of them.
All liberal celebrities, bound up in the one idea - that nothing really matters except PR...Conservatives, idealists that they are, have taken for granted that the issue was truth
Found your white knight, have you? You've been watching too many B movies.
The aggressive attitude of the fighter pilot is captured in a sign in a fighter pilot's ready room:I looked at the evidence as best I could - given the time and energy I was willing to expend - and couldn't decide who was right. I said so. I also said I believed George Bush behaved in the way he was accused of behaving whether or not the memos were forgeries - for the reasons I gave - and that's why I didn't care much about the memos.I can beat any manThe fact that Mr. Bush volunteered for fighter pilot training, albeit in the National Guard, is a marker of the kind of aggressive attitude which might, at a slightly earlier stage of American political history, have inspired him to volunteer for combat duty.
in any land
for any amount
that he can count.
I noticed that you did not respond to my #212.Bush became an operational reserve fighter pilot, and maintained flight status until US involvement in Viet Nam was wound down. At that point the USAF pulled a boatload of fighter pilots back home and deactivated them. Many of them loved to fly and joined the Air National Guard. And suddenly the paucity of ANG fighter pilots turned to a glut. Instead of being an asset to the Guard, Lt Bush was competition for limited flight hours among all those combat veterans.If John Kerry had faced the decision to join the military two or three years later - at the same time as Bill Clinton - there is certainly very little in Kerry's history to suggest he would have been determined to go to Vietnam and much to suggest that he would have been a protester like Bill. And little or nothing in if George Bush's record would make you believe that he would have become an antiwar protester if he had faced the decision to join the military a year or two later, when Bill Clinton did.So if you were the commander of Bush's TANG fighter wing, would you at that point exercise yourself to make sure that Lt. Bush maintained flight status? Or would you not in fact prefer that he leave flight status and do something else? If you were in Lt. Bush's shoes in that circumstance, might you not in fact choose to do something else, and feel free to commit to an out-of-state political campaign?
Cynicism enables you to always justify criticism in any situation. But cynicism is a phoney form of superiority.
ROTFLMBO!
I replied to post #212. You just didn't like my reply. "I'm not fooled by any of those dodges."
You call it cynicism. I call it realism.
You call it cynicism. I call it realism.
I dunno, either you slipped up and just thought you posted that, or my search function doesn't work too good.Be that is as it may, if styling a factual recount of history a "dodge" is an example of your "realism" you are in fact a cynic.
Glad you liked it, and...your tagline is Oh So True!
My reply to your post #212 is in my post #208. That may seem strange but I didn't see any need to repeat myself.
Be that is as it may, if styling a factual recount of history a "dodge" is an example of your "realism" you are in fact a cynic.
Your "factual account of history" is irrelevant and incomplete whether or not it is true. If Bush had wanted to fight he would have joined the Air Force or the Marines or the Army. But he didn't. He wanted to fly airplanes and party...and that's what he did.
Well of course, any factual account is incomplete. I could have added that by the time all those Viet Nam vets were padding the rolls of Air National Guard units, Nixon had stopped the draft and wasn't sending troops to Viet Nam. By then Americans weren't spoiling for a fight in Vietnam.So yeah - Bush wasn't the second coming of Audie Murphy. He chose the National Guard when he certainly could have enlisted in the Marines. And he never claimed anything else, and he signed Form 180 directing that his Guard records be opened to the press. And he frankly said that serving at home in the Guard was not to be compared with serving in combat in Viet Nam. But that wasn't good enough for CBS and the rest of the reportercratic party; CBS knew that Bush hadn't even honorably fulfilled the Guard duty to which Bush had obligated himself.
And liberallarry knows it too; he knows it because if that were not true then Bush would be an honorable human being. As good as liberallarry, even - and somehow that is an intolerable thought. Liberals' opinion of Bush is nothing more than a picture of their own character.
Give it up, will you? I said Bush was just like a lot of other guys from the VietNam era - a draft dodger. Make what you will of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.