On CNBC's Squawk Box on Wednesday, Dan Rather somehow thought it was wise to offer criticism of the way the media has covered the 2016 presidential campaign so far. The former CBS anchor, whose career was crippled after the MemoGate scandal during the 2004 presidential race, asserted that there's "too much on the horse race, not enough on the substance of the race...Donald Trump lifts the credentials for Washington Post reporter — compared to some of the things that he's proposing for the country — dramatic changes in economic policy, foreign policy...they all get under-covered." [video below]
CNBC anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Rather, "What do you make...of the recent decision that Donald Trump made, to exclude or pull the credentials from the Washington Post?" The guest replied, in part, "Well, first of all, he's entitled to do it...I don't think it's a smart political move....it's very rare in American politics when — particularly, at the presidential level — anybody can sustain hostility towards the press for very long."
Sorkin followed up by underlining that "his [Trump's] whole campaign — he embodies the idea of playing against the big institutions." Rather contended that "it fits his campaign strategy, if one could call it that. I'm not sure he has a strategy. I don't mean that in a derogatory way — that he's gotten a long way by sort of ad libbing it." He continued that "everything else that he's talking about — such things as reassessing NATO, possibly encouraging the Japanese to have nuclear weapons...his argument is that the Washington Post pales (sic) besides those things; but he's succeeding...because he plays on fear and anger; and he dominates nearly every news cycle."
Co-host Joe Kernen countered by citing the Huffington Post's blatant slant in their coverage of Trump — especially their infamous editors' note: "Is that normal? Can you imagine CBS News — or can you imagine a news organ — so this is the world we're in right now, it seems like." The former CBS journalist's answer:
DAN RATHER: Well, it is; and, so far, Trump has won. Well, put me on the record: I'm not predicting he will win. I will say, he's capable of winning in November. He has a path. You know, underscore — I'm not saying he will win, but he can win. And I think — my own opinion again — Democrats who want Hillary Clinton to be president should be afraid. They should be very, very afraid.
Later in the segment, after the liberal journalist's "too much on the horse race" criticism of the media, Sorkin raised the recent terrorist attack in Orlando: "How do you think the massacre in Orlando will impact this election?" Rather asserted that the Islamist slaughter would "benefit" Trump "at least in the short to medium run." After singing President Obama's praises for his rant against the billionaire, he offered a prediction regarding the Democrats' strategy against Trump:
RATHER: ...[F]or what it's worth, I thought President Obama's statements yesterday were measured, thoughtful — the kind of statements you expect from a leader — but keeping in mind that Donald Trump has gotten a long way by exploiting fear and anger. And recognizing that fear and anger have increased in the wake of Florida, I wouldn't be surprised to see it help him, as I say, in the short run.
In the long run, I'm not so sure — because the Democratic forces, increasingly, will be raising the question — not my question; they're already starting to raise it — is Donald Trump right on the edge of being — not exactly unhinged, but is he stable enough to be president? And that old question, who do you want answering the red phone at 3 am in the morning? I think Trump is vulnerable to those kind of attacks in the long run.
Sorkin interjected, "But hasn't he always been vulnerable to that attack?" Rather underlined that "he has been, but nobody has effectively mounted it yet. You can make the argument...that Hillary Clinton had to spend so much time trying to win the nomination that she couldn't turn on that. Also, you could make an argument the Democrats don't want to unload fully on that until after Labor Day."
The transcript of the relevant portions of the Dan Rather interview on CNBC's Squawk Box on June 15, 2016:
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: What do you make — I'm curious — of the recent decision that Donald Trump made, to exclude or pull the credentials from the Washington Post?
DAN RATHER, AXS TV HOST: Well, first of all, he's entitled to do it. It's his campaign; and if he can give accreditation to whomever he wants to and pull it out — I don't think it's a smart political move — my own personal opinion. You can say, well, I'm a reporter, so I'm biased. But it's very rare in American politics when — particularly, at the presidential level — anybody can sustain hostility towards the press for very long. The record shows that for a short time, there may be a gain to; but long poll, it doesn't play very well.
[CNBC Graphic: "Press Under Attack"]
SORKIN: But you don't — you don't think this idea — I mean, he's — his whole campaign — he embodies the idea of playing against the big institutions.
RATHER: Well, exactly — and I was going to say, it fits his campaign strategy, if one could call it that. I'm not sure he has a strategy. I don't mean that in a derogatory way — that he's gotten a long way by sort of ad libbing it, if you will, as he goes along. But it does fit — you know, listen, I'm the guy who's going to take on the big institutions. Washington Post — I'll show these guys; that will do. But with everything else that he's talking about — such things as reassessing NATO, possibly encouraging the Japanese to have nuclear weapons — I mean, so his argument is that the Washington Post pales (sic) besides those things; but he's succeeding — in so far as I can analyze — he's succeeding because he plays on fear and anger; and he dominates nearly every news cycle.
[CNBC Graphic: "Anger Across America"]
JOE KERNEN: Can I — just, the converse of this, Dan: I think about the coverage by a purported news organization, Huffington Post, of Donald Trump — started out — for the first six months, would not put him in the political section, but chose to put him in the entertainment section of the news. Now — I always like to read this — every article about Donald Trump, there is an editor's note at the bottom. The editor's note says, 'Donald Trump regularly incites political violence; is a serial liar; a rampant xenophobe; a racist; a misogynist; and a birther, who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims.' So, every single article that the Huffington Post writes on him has that as the editor's — is that normal?
[CNBC Graphic: "Media Coverage Of Trump"]
RATHER: But besides that — other than that, he's a nice guy. (Kernen, Sorkin, and Rebecca Quick laugh) I'm not sure they'd be—
KERNEN: Is that normal? Can you imagine CBS News — or can you imagine a news organ — so this is the world we're in right now, it seems like.
RATHER: Well, it is; and, so far, Trump has won. Well, put me on the record: I'm not predicting he will win. I will say, he's capable of winning in November. He has a path. You know, underscore — I'm not saying he will win, but he can win. And I think — my own opinion again — Democrats who want Hillary Clinton to be president should be afraid. They should be very, very afraid.
(...)
SORKIN: Do you think the media covers both of these candidates properly?
REBECCA QUICK (off-camera): Or either?
RATHER: The media coverage — I'm sorry?
SORKIN: Do you think — do you think the media properly covers these candidates, meaning—
[CNBC Graphic: "Race For The White House; Covering The Election"]
RATHER: No — and I include myself in this criticism; I do not except myself. It's almost cliche, but it's become a cliche because it's true: too much on the horse race, not enough on the — on the substance of the race. Again, you know, with a lot of contention, to Donald Trump lifts the credentials for Washington Post reporter — compared to some of the things that he's proposing for the country — dramatic changes in economic policy, foreign policy — matters of social policy — they all get under-covered.
But, as I say, I've done it. I do it. We all do it. It's — it's become a national ritual. And I do think that a lot of people at home watching have it in pretty good perspective — pretty good context. They understand that we all have to fill air time. We have to fill a certain amount of air time. And whether there's any real news or not, we're going to be talking about the presidential race and probably putting breaking news on it, by the way.
(...)
Let's face it: in today's digital and media environment, where you have a deadline every nanosecond, the certain inevitability [is] that the coverage will be thin and light, rather than substantive.
(...)
SORKIN: How do you think the massacre in Orlando will impact this election — and the dialogue? We have been having, obviously, debates about gun control. There's been debates about immigration; FBI; security.
RATHER: A tough one to figure — I may be tacking against the wind here, but I think at least in the short to medium run, it may benefit Donald Trump — because there is a good deal of fear and some anger about what's happening; and in the wake of something like Florida — look, I thought — for what it's worth, I thought President Obama's statements yesterday were measured, thoughtful — the kind of statements you expect from a leader — but keeping in mind that Donald Trump has gotten a long way by exploiting fear and anger. And recognizing that fear and anger have increased in the wake of Florida, I wouldn't be surprised to see it help him, as I say, in the short run.
In the long run, I'm not so sure — because the Democratic forces, increasingly, will be raising the question — not my question; they're already starting to raise it — is Donald Trump right on the edge of being — not exactly unhinged, but is he stable enough to be president? And that old question, who do you want answering the red phone at 3 am in the morning? I think Trump is vulnerable to those kind of attacks in the long run.
[CNBC Graphic: "Terror Impact On Politics"]
SORKIN: But hasn't he always been vulnerable to that attack? I mean—
RATHER: He has been, but nobody has effectively mounted it yet. You can make the argument — well, that Hillary Clinton had to spend so much time trying to win the nomination that she couldn't turn on that. Also, you could make an argument the Democrats don't want to unload fully on that until after Labor Day.
