Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Dan Rather, Still Madder Than a Rattlesnake Trying to Bite a Fencepost
Thought Dan Rather (doing long pieces at HDNet) and CBS (stuck with Katie Couric) had moved on from the National Guard memo imbroglio? Think again: Rather has filed a $70 million lawsuit against the network for breach of contract in the manner that it handled his departure. According to the New York Times report, Rather also charges that CBS conducted a biased investigation against him under political pressure:
In the suit, filed this afternoon in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Mr. Rather charges that CBS and its executives made him “a scapegoat†in an attempt “to pacify the White House,†though the formal complaint presents virtually no direct evidence to that effect. To buttress this claim, Mr. Rather quotes the executive who oversaw his regular segment on CBS Radio, telling Mr. Rather in November 2004 that he was losing that slot, effective immediately, because of “pressure from ‘the right wing.’ â€
As the Times' Jacques Steinberg points out, however the case goes, the prospect of re-airing the Guard-memo controversy (and its investigation and internal handling) can't be pleasant for CBS. You'd think it wouldn't be for Rather either, but apparently his treatment by CBS left him feeling he had nothing to lose. And, apparently, about $70 million to gain.
7 Comments to “Dan Rather, Still Madder Than a Rattlesnake Trying to Bite a Fencepost”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About Tuned In
James Poniewozik writes TIME magazine's Tuned In column, about pop culture and society. Tuned In, the blog version, is about the stuff we used to call "TV," whether it's in your living room, on your computer or -- once the networks figure out the technology and line up the advertisers -- in your dreams themselves. Read more
RSS Feed
 |
Daily Email
Recent Posts
Tuned In - TIME.com Archives
Blogroll
- Aaron Barnhart’s TV Barn
- About Last Night
- Alan Sepinwall
- Arts & Letters Daily
- Blogher Career
- Brazen Careerist
- BuzzMachine
- Defamer
- Heather Havrilesky
- James Wolcott
- Matt Zoller Seitz
- Maureen Ryan
- Melanie McFarland
- Metafilter
- Peter Ames Carlin
- Popwatch
- Romenesko
- Television Without Pity
- Tim Goodman
- TV Guide blogs
- TV Newser
- TV Tattle
- Undercover Black Man
- Virginia Heffernan
- Zap2It’s TV Blog
More TIME Blogs
Top Stories
- Obama's Stimulus: Jump-Starting His Long-Term Agenda
- Prospects for a Truce Still Dim in Gaza
- New Data Says House Prices May Be Nearing a Bottom
- Dying for Journalism: Lasantha Wickrematunge of Sri Lanka
- The Bush Administration's Most Despicable Act
- Why Can't Big Oil Match Hugo ChÁvez?
- The Great California Fiscal Earthquake
- Why Are Deer Being Smuggled into Texas?
- Pakistan Continues to Resist India Pressure on Mumbai
- Where Has Bernie Madoff Buried His Loot?
Top Photoessays and Slideshows
- China's Electronic Waste Village
- Photos: Heartbreak in the Middle East
- Alfred Shaheen: Pioneer of the Hawaiian Shirt
- An Album of Presidents and Their Children
- Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
- The Science of Snowflakes
- Five Years Roving the Red Planet
- Presidential Days at the Beach
- New Ways to Boost Energy Efficiency
- Fidel Castro in the Jungle
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 5:35 pm
great headline. I'm puzzled by Mr. Rather's behavior. Always a bit vain, he's lost quite a bit of grace in the last few years. I think his reputation would have been better served had he quietly, graciously left CBS and skipped the lawsuit.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 6:46 am
At the height of the storm, Maureen Dowd of NY Times came up with the only explanation that made sense. She reasoned (if my memory serves) that Karl Rove, faced with the conclusion that the Air National Guard story wasn't going to go away, cooked up a scheme to tell the truth in a document which would look authentic at first glance, but which would quickly be revealed a forgery. And that our national failure at critical thinking would allow the truth to be flushed away with the false framework. A master stroke if true; I would love to see it debated.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 7:42 am
Dan Rather and his "down home witticisms" have grown increasingly tiresome. He is so far to the left in all his reporting that he is not credible as a reporter. You're 75 Danny Boy....time to RETIRE! Rather has a habit I think of not accepting responsiblility for what he himself edits and chooses to air!
This pompous ass has been paid 6 million dollars a year by CBS after 60 minutes II was cancelled...SIX MILLION a year and he was complaining? This man has narcissitic problems....6 million not enough to gently go into retirement but he still wants the #1 chair. I do not watch HDnet at all only because they hired Dan Rather!
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 9:39 am
@p_luk: Well, maybe they'll contact you now. Lawyers pursuing $70M worth of payback tend to have motivation to be thorough.
I don't know if the case will go in the direction you'd like, however, vis a vis revisiting the question of whether the original report was valid. From my (admittedly quick) read of the suit and the coverage thereof, Rather's focus seems to be much more on establishing that he was not to blame for any failings of the report--not on arguing that the report was solid. The case seems to be more along the lines of arguing that CBS made Rather out to be much more active in the story than he says he was.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 11:06 am
"I don't know if the case will go in the direction you'd like, however, vis a vis revisiting the question of whether the original report was valid. From my (admittedly quick) read of the suit and the coverage thereof, Rather's focus seems to be much more on establishing that he was not to blame for any failings of the report--not on arguing that the report was solid. The case seems to be more along the lines of arguing that CBS made Rather out to be much more active in the story than he says he was."
Actually, "the reporting" itself has never really been disputed -- its the sourcing that was the problem (I'm an agnostic on the question of the authenticity of the Killian memos, BTW).
But more interesting to me is the potential for discovery in the case --- I mean, wouldn't you like to get Sumner Redstone under oath? (Not to mention the fact that Rather is likely to try and put Bush himself under oath....)
But my guess is that Redstone will chose to give Rather his big payday than go under oath in this case. With $8.4 billion at his disposal, $70 million is chump change...
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 11:40 am
@p_luk: oh, who doesn't want to see this go to trial? Other than Viacom/CBS, that is. It's just too potentially delicious. The companies have every incentive to settle, but Rather isn't acting like a guy who wants a settlement, or at least, not a strictly monetary one. Not at this point, anyway.
Regardless, all I meant is that the _main_ thrust of Rather's argument, for now, is "it wasn't me." But that doesn't mean that Dan & Co. won't go all Patty Hewes on their asses in the process.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 11:07 pm
GOOD JOB DAN.BEST OF LUCK!