The Chris Moeller Archives

Part of our world tonight

Dan Rather said good-bye Wednesday on the CBS Evening News, and then on a taped, one hour, prime-time career retrospective. Rather has become a polarizing figure in the field of electronic news gathering- demonized by the right for alleged bias, and under the microscope by other journalists and the public because of a sloppy investigative piece involving President Bush's National Guard service record that aired on "60 Minutes 2" last September. (The show subsequently changed it's name to "60 Minutes Wednesday.")
I won't miss Rather's penchant for grandstanding, and I won't miss the outdated evening news "Anchor as God" format, once network execs develop the courage to finally blow it up. But I will miss the tenacity of Rather "the Reporter" on the nightly news.
It's unfortunate that Rather gave his enemies- political and professional- so much rope with which to hang him near the end of his run. Unfortunate, since I can't imagine his competitors even pursuing the Guard story to begin with. Between pursuing a lead too recklessly and not pursuing it hard enough, the latter is the greater sin.

Rather and CBS News have gradually slipped from first to third place over the two decades since "Gunga Dan" succeeded Walter Cronkite as the "face" of the network news division. It's difficult to measure, but I've always suspected that this is because Rather didn't project the soothing presence that Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw did. Dan never relaxed into an elderstatesman role in the industry. He still read the news with tight shoulders and an intense stare. His autobiography was entitled "The Camera Never Blinks" and Rather seemed intent on winning the staring contest.
But isn't this the preferred manner? As viewers we need to constantly remind ourselves that the information we're seeing is to be processed proactively. It shouldn't be there to reinforce our core beliefs and ideals, but to challenge them. With Rather, the news was "urgent."

The current media debate is being framed as the "old media," of which the big three TV anchors are symbolic leaders, versus the "new media," information exchangers on the internet, or if you rather, "the blogosphere," of which you are now taking part. I have worked in the first, and now play in the second, both in a minor capacity. As time moves forward, the first holds less appeal for me (and with a surprising lack of nostalgic feelings,) as the second continues to hold more and more resonance.
"Bloggers" rarely attempt to conceal their biases, and that's a refreshing commodity. It has always been disingenuous for news reporters to claim they have no biases, and I always shudder when I hear news consumers claim they want an unbiased perspective. (News organizations should have learned the lesson of Watergate that the cover-up is worse than the lie.) Bias is inescapable. You simply cannot write a story without making editorial judgments- what to put in, what to leave out, deciding what effects people the most about the story.
You can't "tell both sides" when, in actually, multiple sides always exist. A reporter's goal is not to be unbiased, it's be fair, and that's a very inexact endeavor.

The future of news lies in both television and the internet. We will still turn to the TV during extraordinary events because of the need to share certain stories with the rest of the country. We saw this in the week following September 11th, when I thought the networks did terrific work. At the time, I wanted to feel safe, and that's what they do best.
The internet, the most exciting technological advance to hit democracy since the printing press, provides a diversity of sources unmatched in history. Over time, consumers will hopefully choose sources that challenge their beliefs rather than simply reinforce them.

Despite Rather's high profile mistakes, I hope his aggressiveness plays out through history as his greatest asset. We're currently living through a period of great intimidation directed at our right to information on the part of the White House and its censors. The President and his staff release stories through "friendly" news outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Public access and media availability to the President have been severely limited, and dissent has been chilled under the disguise of public safety. In a world of Abu Ghraibs, Jessica Lynchs and Jeff Gannons, we need more reporters with Dan Rather's "bulldog" mentality.
In the end, unfortunately, he forgot to ask the tough questions of his own staff. He leaves, having alienated almost everyone in the broadcast industry and in Washington. The worse offense would be if he were universally beloved.

posted by CM @ 9:00 PM