A shamed newsman may not be the best example of how to justify your journalism.
For most Americans, Dan Rather could be resting in a number of positions on the character scale – from a shame of an otherwise established career, all the way down to being a fabulist, if not an outright liar. For the most part, though there remains a negative connotation for the former newsman – with journalists being the exception.
The people with the highest discerning opinions on professional matters seem to be the ones who feel most sympathetic towards Dan Rather. In the current media environment, the man who falsified documents to undermine George Bush’s career and character has continued to receive support. Rather, despite being criticized on social media almost every day for his incoherence, is given much more light criticism by his peers, which leads to a somewhat narrow approach from Rachel Maddow.
In a Vanity Fair profile that is centered on the next phase of her career, Joe Pompeo was willing to invoke the most glaring aspect of her past phase – her lengthy, almost nightly, focus on Donald Trump and the Russian collusion non-scandal. That was anchored by the scandalous Steele dossier. This now proven document, which was subsequently disproved, was what was used to support the claim that Trump conspired with the Soviets in order to win 2016.
Maddow insists on valid claims, likely because she has so much faith and import in her storyline. Maddow was established as an authoritative left-wing voice over the years and became FoxNews’ only primetime competitor. Her credibility would be severely eroded if she acknowledged the unproven truth of this storyline.
However, it is her decision on how to defend herself that is the issue. Curiously, she chooses a comparable incident, which today is considered a clear example of journalistic negligence.
As Pompeo brings up the topic of the collusion storyline – suggesting it delivered a sense of false hope, and even daring to compare it to Newsmax coverage of the 2020 election – Maddow decided to invoke Rather’s infamous issue as she embarks on rewriting history. This is all the more valuable when you do it to make others believe they are interpreting reality.
“Do you remember what the Dan Rather scandal was about?” she said, referring to a 2004 controversy in which the legendary newsman’s career came to a screeching halt over a 60 Minutes segment based on allegedly forged documents that CBS News failed to authenticate.
Pompeo delivers all of the journalistic sympathies that still reside for Rather with his use of “allegedly” here. This implies that CBS might have incorrectly ended the celebrated career of Rather because of disputed details. It is not possible to prove that the documents claimed to be from the 1970s used fonts and formatting found only in Microsoft Word 2000 programs. “Allegedly” still remains, possibly as a way of propping up Maddow’s shaky defense.
The story of George W. Bush getting a sweet gig in the National Guard so he didn’t have to go fight in Vietnam was true. Somebody giving Dan Rather a forged document, so he had a screwed-up news story about it, is fascinating, and it’s an interesting thing about CBS News. But it doesn’t mean that the National Guard thing about George W. Bush was not true! It just—it neutralized it. It made it go away. The whole affair became a Dan Rather scandal. That’s what’s going on with the dossier.”
So she is beginning with the all-too-common rejoinder from media elites in these instances – the risible trope of “false, but accurate.” But there are a few issues with her attempt at legitimacy. It was not a secret that George Bush served in the National Guard. He was an experienced pilot in that area during those years. Instead of being assigned to active duty overseas, Rather claimed that he had found evidence of influence.
Maddow’s Steele dossier insistence was the basis of the entire story. Remove Rather’s doctored docs and George Bush is still flying jets domestically. Maddow has nothing left but vapor after deleting the dossier. She also elides the detail that, absent Rather’s hard proof of power wrangling placing Bush in The Guard, the controversy was not at all evident. For one simple reason, this is still a mystery.
Maddow will attach her prior insistence on a document that she now associates with one widely considered fraudulent, except for select journalists. Her attempt is to say, “THatAlthough the truth of this document is false, it was true nonetheless.,” except without it there is no real story. The document was the story in her case. Unlike Bush’s service, Trump’s teaming with the Russians is not tangible unless the Steele dossier is valid. Mueller did not prove collusion and the Mueller probe was unable to find any evidence beyond what is contained in the Steele dossier.
That Rachel’s beloved document has since become entirely invalidated means she needs to now rearrange the missing facts to fit a new narrative. Resting on the laurels of another completely obliterated document and shamed journalist in order to recast her storyline does not help her cause – it underscores the vacancy of her journalism.
After Rather had presented only one report, he was arrested and taken to court. Rachel spent many years pushing her story. She cannot admit to its lack of foundation, and so – just like Rather – she needs to maintain there is an amount of validity, in order to maintain relevancy.
About Post Author
