Reading the actual legal complaint in the Dan Rather lawsuit quickly (but repeatedly) reveals the extreme egotism of the disgraced CBS anchor. The first finding begins: "Plaintiff, Dan Rather, one of the foremost broadcast journalists of our time, seeks to recover damages from CBS, his employee of 44 years" for "CBS’s intentional mishandling of the aftermath" of the fake-documents story.
It added: "Throughout his career, Mr. Rather has promoted, championed, and been emblematic of journalistic independence and journalistic freedom from extraneous interference such as governmental, political, corporate, or personal interests. Defendants’ improper responses to the attacks on the Documents wrongfully damaged Mr. Rather and these values which he championed."
Rather’s brief still claimed "The Broadcast incorporated copies of documents written by Mr. Bush’s commanding officer" and complained of a vast right-wing conspiracy: "A broad, and in many instances well-organized attack on the authenticity of the Documents immediately followed the Broadcast, led by conservative political elements supportive of the Bush administration. The purpose of this attack was to deter CBS News from reporting news in a manner unfavorable to the Bush administration."
The complaint seemed to speak out of both sides of Rather’s mouth on the official CBS investigation, calling it a "biased investigation with controlled timing and predetermined conclusions in order to prevent further information concerning Bush’s TexANG service from being uncovered." The very next sentence states: "That investigation, controlled as it was, exonerated Mr. Rather."
Rather claimed that by being removed as anchorman in 2005, "the defendants sacrificed Mr. Rather’s journalistic integrity by falsely blaming him for alleged errors in the Broadcast." In the middle of the filing, Rather even claimed "Few, if any, of the blogs or media stories disputed the substance of the story that Bush received preferential treatment in connection with his Air National Guard service."
True to Rather’s titanic ego, the filing explicitly married the success of CBS to the amount of air time it provided Rather. His contract provided a "right to optimum exposure" since it was "important to CBS and Mr. Rather cooperate in enhancing such exposure so that CBS could benefit from Mr. Rather’s experience in and reputation for covering the news." It recognized "the obligations of CBS to maximize Mr. Rather’s television exposure for the mutual benefits of the parties."
Rather’s brief also claimed that he followed network directions "because he relied upon CBS’s false assurances tht it would fully utilize his services and provide him with the opportunity to restore his public image as a preeminent television journalist." He’s especially bitter about not covering Hurricane Katrina, since the filing boasts "Mr. Rather is the most experienced reporter in the United States in covering hurricanes" and had done so "throughout his long tenure at CBS, to much acclaim."
In outlining his charge of fraud against his bosses, Rather claimed that CBS boss Les Moonves and News president Andrew Heyward falsely assured him "that at all times CBS would take all necessary and appropriate steps to preserve and enhance Mr. Rather’s reputation."
It added in the next section that "CBS has continuously acted to Mr. Rather’s detriment by, inter alia, directing him to publicly apologize, and thus accept the blame, for CBS’s mishandling of the Broadcast, despite his blameless conduct."
Lawyer William Dyer, better known as Beldar has a more legal-oriented review of Rather's brief. He's not impressed at all either.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"...despite his blameless conduct."
September 21, 2007 - 08:17 ET by heldmywBWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!
<sniff> Ohhhh! Thanks for the best laugh of the day!
Dan boy! Your egregious boobery in this train wreck cost you everything. Do you really believe that CBS is going to bend over and let you yank $70 mil out of their corporate backsides? Apologize for bruising your precious ego after you lied?
You and Mapes are toast, amigo. Soggy toast. Pack it in.
This is gonna be great!
egregious boobery, but this is gonna be great!
September 21, 2007 - 09:12 ET by ThalpyIts enough to make you mad as a bear with a sore ass.
Holy Cow!
September 21, 2007 - 08:22 ET by motherbeltIs this a legal brief or NY Times editorial????????????
Tremendous Ego
September 21, 2007 - 09:28 ET by allanfFor those who are interested, the case has been assigned index number 603121/2007 in New York County Supreme Court.
I have to agree, Dan Rather's actual complaint shows tremendous hubris. At times I had to wonder if it was actually written by counsel. Although he does state some claims that have merit enough to go to trial, the his legal claims are obscured by egotistical rantings.
In the pleadings, Rather claims to have been duped into apologizing on air and not defending himself by CBS management. That's relevent, since he claims he committed no misconduct, and therefore CBS violated his contract terms. I doubt his tremendous ego will allow him to appear subordinate to management for very long. The contradictions are amusing.
The most meritorious claim is that a letter from Les Moonves, President of CBS, dated November 22, 2004, approximately two weeks after Rather was removed as anchor of the CBS Evening News stated that the network would engage in good faith contract renewal negotiations starting in November 2005, "along the lines of of our prior discussions of that possibility earlier this year"
Rather claims to have had flushed out an agreement, with CBS, in the summer of 2004 which was not reduced to writing. Rather states that when his agent approached CBS in November of 2005 about a contract extention, the network said it was not interested in extending his contract. Rather claims breach of implied convenent of good faith against CBS and Fraud. Rather was removed as anchor on November 9, 2004 and his last broadcast as anchor was in March 2005.
Although this seems like a flimsy argument it is probably enough to go to trial.
A releated claim is breach of contract. His contract stated that if he were removed as anchor of the CBS Evening News:
He claims the contract obliged CBS to give him "optimum exposure". He observed accurately, that CBS did not give him much air time after his final CBS Evening News broadcast in March 2005. The contract, according to Rather, called for him to receive the balance of his salary if CBS was not going to use his talents. So he is suing for breach of contract and lost opportunity.
Of course it does not enter into Mr. Rather's calculus the committed misconduct which hurt CBS and its reputation. No doubt the contract (which I have not seen) covers the kind of misconduct, which Rather committed. One can also argue, that given the damage Rather had done, no airtime was "optimum" for him.
I doubt this lawsuit is about money for Rather. My reading of the personalities at CBS (save maybe Redstone) is that they would have gladly bought his silence if given the chance. I hope CBS does not settle this lawsuit and proceeds to trial.
Didn't can't be serious have an age limit?
September 21, 2007 - 09:18 ET by FastEdWasn't that the reason Paley left? And I heard an audio clip of "Dan the frequency man" where he admitted HE didn't do his OWN due diligence - so where's this suit going, other than as pr for the dan man?
Note to dan - it's over, been over and we'd like you to see a shrink - I hear kenneth is good.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Gross
September 21, 2007 - 09:38 ET by HadEnoughSo much for breakfast. Thanks Dan.
Boob of all boobs!
September 21, 2007 - 10:33 ET by mytwocents"that at all times CBS would take all necessary and appropriate steps to preserve and enhance Mr. Rather’s reputation."
Dan, you can't preserve something that is already gone!!!!
Instead of paying his
September 21, 2007 - 22:16 ET by Dave RInstead of paying his lawyers in what is sure to be a losing cause, Dan should instead spend his money getting the help he so clearly needs.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.