I don't know whether CBS is "dumbing down" and "tarting up" the news these days because I don't watch CBS News. In fact, I don't watch any news on the "big three" networks. If CBS is dumbing down and tarting up the news, however, the organization is merely continuing a trend that's been taking place for decades. That's the main reason why I stopped watching.
Dan Rather himself was not above "tarting up" the news (here I'm using the term in the non-sexist sense Rather says he employed). Indeed, Rather lost his job at CBS after, to put only slightly too strongly, "making up" the news. Icon though he may be (at least to Jeff Hoard), Rather ran a story peddled by anti-Bush forces purporting to show that President Bush had shirked his duty to the Texas National Guard. This was an old and unproven story. But Rather claimed to have something new -- documents that proved the case against Bush.
These documents, however, were obvious forgeries. It took bloggers about half a day to expose them as such (you can follow the complete unraveling at the Power Line archives for September 2004 staring on Sept. 9). But Rather was in a hurry to tart up the news and tear down the president during the middle of an election campaign. Thus, apparently neither he nor his staff discerned the problematic nature of the documents, as they would have done had they met basic journalistic standards.
In another part of the same story, Rather claimed that Bush jumped the line to get into the Texas Air National Guard. This was based on assertions of Democratic operative Ben Barnes that apparently were contradicted by information in the possession of Mary Mapes, Rather's producer for the segment.
Rather not only ran his phony story, he continued to defend it after others had done the work he had his staff should have performed through which the documents were discredited. I have no faith that Katie Couric is putting on a quality news broadcast, but I doubt that she's using fake documents to discredit candidates in the midst of a campaign.
Rather's post on this blog illustrates why, however bad Couric may be, she probably represents an upgrade for CBS. Rather wears his liberal agenda on his sleeve (at one level, I always respected him for that). He is itching to see stories about, for example, "how the war on terrorism has changed how we understand and interpret our Constitution and our bedrock values as a free and democratic society." I doubt that Rather knows enough law or American history to deal seriously with this topic. Has he studied how our "bedrock values as a free and democratic society" fared during other wars? Has he compared the rights being accorded to foreign terrorists today with the treatment of various kinds of combatants in other conflicts?
What Rather is equpped to do is produce "tarted up" stories promoting the agenda implied in his post -- placing more limits on the administration's efforts to prevent attacks on the U.S., redistributing wealth, changing our health care system. It's a legitimate agenda, though one I mostly oppose. But it's not the job a newscast to push that agenda, and Rather's transparent desire to do so shows, once again, that he was not the "honest broker" Americans might reasonably expect a news anchor to be.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. Surprise, but I have no comment.
I just read that Howard Dean (who I liked until today) has made a dictatorial decision to disenfranhise Florida Democrats' primary votes if our party moves our primary to January 29.
Its no secret that I am a loyal lifelong Democrat, and I put my money and my fingers to the keyboard to support the Democratic message of hope. Since 2004 I have commented daily on political issues spreading the Democratic message. Since News Bloggers opened on AOL, I have donated one to two hours a day of my time spreading the Democratic message of hope for free, when I used to be paid to write before I had to retire for medical reasons. In 2006, I had an op-ed piece published in the hometown newspapers of EX Republican incumbents Clay Shaw and Mike Sodrell. In 2006 I gave money to Democratic candidates and causes at least 7 times.
Until, I have received assurance from my own party that I have not been disenfranchised in our own primary, all that has stopped immediately. If I am disenfranchised in my own party's primary, my utter inactivity, including not voting, will continue.
I did not turn my back on my party, the DNC turned its back on me. I guess Howard Dean believes enraging the hardest working Democrats and the most generous in a state where the national election is often decided is a good idea. Is he delusional?
Anyway, Paul, until I have received assurance that my own party has not disenfranchised my primary vote, I won't have you to kick around, and other commenters won't have me to kick around. So, have a blast.
If and until the DNC assures me that my primary vote is not disenfranchised, I'm on auto silence. If I receive assurance that my own party will not disenfranchise one of its hardest workers - I'll be back, as critical as ever.
Phil at 12:57PM on Jun 14th 2007
2. The disputed Rather documents are far from the only indications that Bush indeed went AWOL during his final months of Guard duty -- hence the status of this as an "old story."
Of course the larger issue is that Bush used the National Guard to avoid combat service in Vietnam, that like Cheney, Wolfowitz, and other architects of the catastrophe in Iraq, Bush thinks that facing death for our country is a fine thing for OTHER Americans and their families -- Bush and his family can't be bothered (the elder Bush's actual experience in combat is no doubt part of the reason he had less of a bloodlust during his stint in the White House than his chickenhawk offspring).
By the way, do the Bush Bobbysoxers at Powerline have any family members serving in Iraq? Could Mr. Mirengoff perhaps share his illustrious military career with the rest of us?
richter at 2:41PM on Jun 14th 2007
3. "By the way, do the Bush Bobbysoxers at Powerline have any family members serving in Iraq? Could Mr. Mirengoff perhaps share his illustrious military career with the rest of us?"
Do all liberals enjoy non sequiturs? It is amazing how broadly they are used by the left and the weight people think they carry.
Eric B. at 3:16PM on Jun 14th 2007
4. The interesting thing to me is how Rather, and a number of other "name" people who have been caught openly being dishonest, are still sought as valid commentators. And incidentally, Rather didn't admit to his liberalism; on the contrary, every time evidence was presented that made the position indisputable, he disputed it and claimed to be too professional to do such a thing.
Mike Sigman at 3:25PM on Jun 14th 2007
5. You appear to be stating that it is somehow illegitimate for Bush to order troops to Iraq because he did not serve in Viet Nam and his own children do not serve in the military. If this is your sentiment, I think it is very wrong headed. I would agree that military service is a proper concern for voters to take into consideration when electing a president. We are better off with a president who served in the military because we will then have a commander in chief who has a greater understanding of the military.
Once a president is elected, however, his past military service or the service of those close to him should become irrelevant. A president needs to send troops into combat based on his best judgment not his own past service. If it is the correct decision to order troops to a combat zone the President should do so regardless of his own past record of service.
I think your position if a bit disingenuous. Something tells me that your comment was more of a cheep shot against the President rather than serious commentary. My hunch is that you would be against the President’s actions in Iraq whether or not he served in Viet Nam and your attack on his lack of service was you simply looking for the closet rock to throw. If I am wrong please let me know.
Greg at 3:26PM on Jun 14th 2007
6. My comment in 5 was intended for richter.
Greg at 3:27PM on Jun 14th 2007
7. Eric B writes: "Do all liberals enjoy non sequiturs? It is amazing how broadly they are used by the left and the weight people think they carry."
All comments carry weight, unless commenters personally attack other commenters. Obviously you felt you could make a difference when you wrote your comment.
Hey Greg - I'm glad you clarified who your point was directed to. I'm officially a non-participant in all political discussion until Howard Dean gets treated for his megalomania. When I think of all the hundreds of hours I devoted to my party, and disenfrancisement is my reward - they're on their own. I'm certainly not the greatest writer in the world - but was good enough that I'm getting paid over $60 an hour just to be retired; and senior partners used to fight over who got me to write the motion. To me, its the height of stupidity to alienate hard working and hard donating Democrats in the most important state in the nation - but i guess our dictator Dean knows more about this than I do. Not one dime, not one comment, and not even a vote until he gets off his high horse. I'll still comment on non-political issues, and work for the (D) local party on local issues - but otherwise, its time to spend more time on my art. Which means we don't get to politely argue and enjoy the argument anymore. Someone else will have to be the (D) lightening rod until this is corrected.
Phil at 3:38PM on Jun 14th 2007
8. Phil,
There is only one solution to your predicament. Join us on the Republican side. It is much easier to have a positive attitude in life without all the hate and negativity that seems inherent with the Democrats.
Greg at 3:45PM on Jun 14th 2007
9. Greg, Bush and Cheney hardly did something as passive as merely "not serving" in Vietnam -- they actively dodged service while supporting a war that sent OTHERS to their deaths. And today, they wage a deadly conflict that kills OTHER Americans' children, while their own chidren are not serving. That is a very legitimate and very serious moral issue.
richter at 4:29PM on Jun 14th 2007
10. Oops -- Greg, I posted my response to your original question before I read your asinine comment above about "hate and negativity that seems inherent with the Democrats." My apologies for taking you seriously. I won't make that mistake again.
richter at 4:32PM on Jun 14th 2007
11. Hey, Eric B -- how about sharing YOUR illustrious military career with the rest of us? If you are in fact NOT a gutless chicken hawk happy to have others die for you while your injuries are largely confined to choking on your sixth beer while you watch Fox News, then please accept my apologies. But somehow I suspect that you did not write that post from a foxhole in Anbar Province.
richter at 4:40PM on Jun 14th 2007
12. Richter, - The moral issue depends on how you come down on the war in Iraq. If the President is doing the right thing he should not be dissuaded by any of his past actions. His only consideration should be what’s in the best interest of the nation. If the President is doing the wrong thing in Iraq he should not be saved even if he had served in Viet Nam. The point is that the question of military service is an issue in the selection of a president not in how a president should properly carry out the duties of his office. That is why I think your criticism of the President in this context is misplaced.
Greg at 4:41PM on Jun 14th 2007
13. I guess according to Richter we should only let the military make a decision about what the military does. I guess if we went according to that, we would be involved in Iraq indefinitely since according to the military polls and record reenlistment rates, military members want to stay there and finish the job.
Of course by that token, if Richter is not gay or married, he shoudl have no valid opinion on Gay Marriage. If he has never had an abortion, then he should not have an opinion on abortion. If he does not run a business he should have nothing to say about business taxes or capital gains. If he is not rich, he shouldn't have an opinion on "taxing the rich" the line goes on and on.
I notice none of the Democratic candidates have any military service. I wonder if they all "Dodged" service...certainly not like Bush did, by piloting one of the most dangerous planes with such an exemplary record. Kerry of course was able to gin up 3 purple hearts in less than four months of service by filing after action reports when no other service member in his battalian had seen any action. Some how Kerry came away with no one out of the 200 some people serving with him having any resepect for him and vociferously denying his claims. Like his christmas in cambodia.
In Richters world, being a president means you have to have service in order to deal with the military only if you were in Vietnam for a few months, and only if you are a democrat, and only if it was last election of course.
jim p at 5:39PM on Jun 14th 2007
14. I'll be concerned about what Democrats think of George W. Bush's military status once they've explained to me why this was NOT a concern of theirs when they nominated William J. Clinton for the Presidency.
Until I hear a satisfactory explanation for this inconsistency, I feel completely confident ignoring what seems to be nothing more than a partisan cheap shot.
Phil Weingart at 7:00PM on Jun 14th 2007
15. Richter, your comments are irrelevant, immaterial, and, amazingly, also simply wrong. I served during the Viet Nam period. I performed hazardous duty, but never saw combat action. But I put 3 years of my life on the line for slave wages. Bush flew jets, which, in case you don't know it, was far more hazardous than the duty performed by countless hate-spewing Democrats from that era. Please tell me, what did Bill Clinton do back then? What did Bill Bradley, All-American, do back then? I could go on and on. The fact is, there is not a shred of credible evidence that Bush avoided duty during Viet Nam. And, if he did, one would assume John Kerry (from his statements back then) would applaud him. The bottom line? Find a new hobby horse. Nobody with a triple-digit IQ is fooled for a minute by the "Bush was a draft-dodger" nonsense.
JimInNashville at 11:31AM on Jan 8th 2008