It’s impossible to argue that any media outlet interviewing disgraced anchor Dan Rather on his new book isn’t engaged in a image-rehabilitation effort. But perhaps no one will embrace that mission with more obsequious gusto in the coming days than CNN’s Piers Morgan, who on Tuesday night hailed Rather’s “accuracy” and “great integrity.”
You can start with his closing words, which were only a fraction of the spit-and-polish: “Dan, please come back whenever you like. It's always fascinating to listen to you about news, about journalism. And you were very much the beating heart of American journalism for a quarter century and will continue to be so for much longer to come.”
Then we can add a few examples of the gush in every minute:
-- At the beginning, after clip of Bush in tribal garb in Afghanistan: “Fantastic, fantastic costume, I believe you're wearing there, Dan.”
-- At the first break: “Let's take a short break. Come back, Dan, and talk about your extraordinary career. The book is riveting.”
-- Later, on the book: “It's absolutely gripping to read.”
-- After the Saddam clip: “Fascinating, Dan, watching you with Saddam. I mean you've interviewed so many extraordinary characters over the years.”
Morgan claimed he watched Rather on CBS when he was in Britain: “We used to get it on the satellite channel which started in the mid-'90s. And you were such a sort of comforting voice of authority...And calm reporting and accuracy. It must to this day, and it seems like it does from the book -- it must be so distressing to you, as a journalist foremost of great integrity, that you had to leave under the cloud that you left under.”
Rather predictably stuck to his dishonest guns about how he believed these implausible Texas Air National Guard document forgeries were genuine, but this amendment was amazing:
Now, it's fair to say, 'Well Dan, we don't think -- I don't think that you proved the documents.' But we're off in the weeds now.
In the big picture, what was our job? Our job was to get as close to the truth as we possibly could do. That we did. We reported a true story. Everything in the documents checked out. It's true.
These questions about how did he get in? He got in because of his father's privilege and place. How did he manage to disappear for a year and not be accountable? Again, it's because of his father's time and place.
These are unpleasant truths. I have no joy in saying it. But for a commander in chief with that kind of record, it's fair to raise the questions. And that's what we did. It's fair to say we also paid the price.
Morgan failed to ask why, then, Rather didn’t apply the same investigative shoe leather to Bill Clinton’s Vietnam-era record of having relatives or political fixers line up slots in the ROTC or reserves for him he did not deserve (perhaps because young Clinton simply refused to show up for those slots while he attended Oxford). Rather obviously believes “it’s fair to raise the questions” for warmongering Republicans, but not for Democrats. He didn’t assign Mary Mapes to scour John Kerry’s claims to medals for heroism in 2004. Obama has zero military experience, but now the subject is apparently irrelevant.
Bizarrely, in reviewing Rather’s career, Morgan showed two video clips – one of Rather submissively asking Saddam Hussein a softball in 1990 about what he’d like to tell the American people, and a very shortened snippet of Rather questioning Bush in 1988 about an arms-for-hostages swap at the center of the Iran-Contra scandal.
Neither clip captured the extreme contrast this represented – the CBS anchor lecturing Bush and nurturing a foreign dictator’s publicity aims.
-- Rather to Bush on January 25, 1988: “You and the President were being party to sending missiles to the Ayatollah of Iran. Can you explain how — you were supposed to be the — you are — you’re an anti-terrorist expert! Iran was officially a terrorist state....The question is — but — you made us hypocrites in the face of the world! How could you sign on to such a policy?!”
-- Rather to Saddam on August 29, 1990: “Mr. President, do you think that this is a Vietnam in the sand for the United States?”
Morgan thought it was terrific that Rather was so tough with President Bush the Elder.
MORGAN: Here's my question for you: could you imagine that ever happening today? Could any reporter -- would any reporter have the guts to do it, but could any reporter do that now to a president? Be that inquisitive, that interrogatory?
RATHER: Frankly, I don't think any reporter could do it today. I don't like talking terms of guts. I know plenty of reporters who have a lot of courage and a lot of guts. But in the current environment, anyone who wanted to keep their job as an anchor person and lead correspondent I don't think could afford to do that kind of pressing, aggressive interview.
And indeed, it was controversial at the time. But that was in the 1980s. Vice President Bush was running for president. He had been involved in Iran Contra, but he didn't want to admit it. And I was pressing him.
By the way, in later years, he admitted that what he'd said in the interview was not true. But in answer to your question, I don't think it could be done today, no.
I for one have not seen any admission where Bush said “I lied to Rather in that 1988 interview.” He might have said something about Iran-Contra that Rather felt was an admission of deeper involvement than he expressed in that interview. Morgan should have pressed on this claim, but instead he asked Rather to expound on the state of journalism ethics.
This is sort of like asking Bernie Madoff about Wall Street reform, but there it was:
MORGAN: What do you think of the standards of modern journalism, taking into account all the commercial pressures, the fact that newsprint sales are crashing all over the world, the move online, the Internet explosion, bloggers and so on. When you take an overview, what do you think of modern journalism standards?
RATHER: Well, American journalism is in crisis, in my opinion. There are a lot of reasons for that, but not the least is what's happened to the business of journalism as well the practice. There's been the corporatization, the politicalization, and the trivialization of the news.
By the way, I do not exempt myself from this criticism. In many ways, we in journalism have lost our spine. We lost our grit and gut. And again, I include myself in that criticism.
I see some signs that it is getting somewhat better. But as I outlined in "Rather Outspoken," we now have situations where now no more than six, and possibly as few as four major global corporations control about 80 percent or more of our true national circulation.
Now in very big business, forgive my phrasing if you must -- very big business is in bed with big government in Washington, whether it be Republican or Democratic. And that effects what you see and hear and read in the news. That's not a good situation for us.
Because you and I know that a free press, an independent, fiercely independent press, when necessary, is the red beating heart of democracy. And we begin to diminish the standards -- you have this political and business influence. It's not healthy.
It's after this bizarre, self-important lecture that Morgan concluded with his ultimate suckup verbiage about Rather being "the beating heart of American journalism."
