In the aftermath of Rathergate, journalism will never be the same

By Carol Devine-Molin
web posted September 20, 2004 

This is really gearing up to be a very special election year for the
GOP. The Republican Party had a fantastic convention --
couldn't ask for better -- and President Bush has surged ahead
of Senator Kerry in his bid for reelection. The latest Gallup poll
has Bush leading Kerry, 55 percent to 42 percent among likely
voters. And now, another terrific turn of events is playing out
before the public eye. The mainstream media is being unmasked
as corrupt and exceedingly biased in a spectacular way. In
attempts to aid their brethren at the Democratic Party, CBS
liberal elites - including Dan Rather and "60 Minutes II" staff -
have managed to immerse themselves in a cesspool of their own
making involving documents that were almost certainly forged.
Moreover, all this is having seismic implications for the state of
the mainstream media, which was patently outmaneuvered by
bloggers on the Internet.

Dan Rather has been a dyed-in-the-wool liberal for as long as
anyone can remember. But his urge to slap the Bush family
around is even more basic. As former Senator Bob Dole noted,
"Dan Rather does not like anyone in the Bush family that I know
of, unless maybe one of the dogs." And, of course, his point is
well taken regarding Dan Rather's personal animus toward the
Bush family. Mind you, Papa Bush publicly scorched Dan Rather
during a 1988 interview when the grandiose reporter jumped
ugly on him wielding the Iran-Contra controversy. In response,
the elder Bush adeptly reminded Rather of his churlish behaviors
when he walked off a studio set for seven minutes leaving the
audience in the lurch. That unpleasantness has to stick in the
craw of thin-skinned Rather. However, the ongoing attempts to
somehow club President Bush with his Texas Air National Guard
service -- which resulted in an honorable discharge I might add
-- are certainly not limited to the efforts of CBS and their
anchorman. It involves a gaggle of the regular suspects from the
Left.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan summed it up
succinctly in a September 15, 2004 briefing, stating: "In terms of
the timing of these old, recycled attacks on the President, it's
clear that this is an orchestrated effort by Democrats and the
Kerry campaign". Moreover, it's being done because Kerry is
"falling behind in the polls", and, amazingly, the Left has resorted
to beating that same old dead horse – Bush's military service –
one more time.

Kerry's camp got nothing else to work with since they can't
effectively capitalize upon their candidate's pathetic twenty-year
Senate record. And repeatedly raising the issue of Bush's
National Guard service, and floating the Leftist canard that the
National Guard is essentially a refuge for draft dodgers, is going
to come back to bite Kerry big time. Veterans and their families
are already very upset. The truth is that many members of the
National Guard have been called up to serve in wars throughout
the years.

Essentially, this controversy represents the politics of personal
destruction, coldly served up by liberals without conscience. For
them, the end always justifies the means. And besides, the Left is
bitterly angry that their candidate is bound to lose. Therefore,
Republicans should expect only increasingly vicious assaults,
even after Bush wins on Election Day. For these crazed Left-
wingers, the controversy over the so-called Bush memos will
only reinforce the notion that they'll have to cook up better
"evidence" against the President in order to thwart his agenda
and, if possible, to destroy him politically. Besides, the Left
views these attacks on Bush as retribution for the impeachment
that former President Clinton was forced to undergo.
The GOP and its allies in the alternative media have both the
Democrats and their surrogate, Big Media, on the defensive.

And, in a watershed event colloquially dubbed "Rathergate", the
Right-leaning crowd on the Internet was able to torpedo liberal
propaganda-in-the-making by the highly partisan CBS network.
This has provided the conservative blogosphere with improving
stature -- even a bit of prestige -- as a news source that
promptly vets news stories and assiduously researches facts. I
have no doubt that the liberal bias, incompetence, and fraud of
the mainstream media will continue to be exposed by their
legitimate competitors in the emerging alternative media, with the
Internet now a prime player. And obviously, the consumers of
news will be more inclined to gravitate toward alternative media,
as it proves more reliable and relevant than much of what is
offered by the media elites. In fact, the Internet and talk radio are
creating a wonderful synergy that attracts considerable audience,
serving up interesting and lively debate concerning news of the
day. Like the pamphleteers of the American Revolution that
diligently disseminated vital information, Internet bloggers are
today's energetic citizen reporters that work hard to develop
accurate stories and put them out for public consumption as
quickly as possible. The laws of competition are in full effect, and
bloggers that promulgate inaccuracies will soon fall by the
wayside.

Given the tremendous bind that CBS now finds itself in, the
question du jour is whether a major news organization such as
CBS can survive once its credibility and integrity have been
successfully challenged. Moreover, it appears certain that
significant crimes have been committed here, and CBS is not a
victim in this matter -- they're perpetrators. CBS had every
reason to question the authenticity of these documents, but chose
to ignore obvious red flags. That makes them complicit, plain and
simple. In essence, Rather and CBS were hell-bent on airing
their "scoop", and they threw caution to the winds. They didn't
care that they were smearing a president with forged documents,
and with the intent of influencing the outcome of a federal
election. Now we have Congressman Christopher Cox (R-Calf.)
and others insisting on a congressional probe and demanding that
justice be done. And, in a New York Times piece dated
September 19, President Bush is quoted as saying to The
Manchester Union-Leader, "There are a lot of questions and
they need to be answered…I think what needs to happen is
people need to take a look at the documents, how they were
created, and let the truth come out."

From the get-go, CBS and its employees have been slow to
respond to this brouhaha. At first CBS and Rather adamantly
defended the documents in their possession as "authentic". They
are now engaging in a bizarre sort of rolling disclosure, as they
begin to hedge their public statements. In fact, it's absolutely
Monty Pythonesque – "No, no, no, definitely not, well maybe,
maybe, yes, OK, yes" – as they slowly move down the road of
admitting that these blatant forgeries are well, blatant forgeries.
Mind you, they haven't said "yes" yet; they're still in the "maybe"
stage as of this writing. The president of CBS News Andrew
Heyward is now characterizing the documents as "accurate", but
can no longer bring himself to use the word "authentic".
Remember, it took Heyward an entire day to issue a two-
sentence statement, and he managed to misspell the word
"corroborating" despite the fact that the statement was almost
certainly vetted by a phalanx of attorneys. Nobody thought to
utilize the spellchecker? The fact that the President of the United
States is now commenting on the matter has got to be cause for
further angst over at CBS. It's hard to stop laughing, and as a
conservative, I admit there's an element of schadenfreude in my
glee.

To continue, Dan Rather has changed his tune as well, and is
now underscoring that the "thrust" of the documents is what we
should all be focused upon. I know he's trying to finesse the
situation, but his approach is so darn lame. Gee, we're still
supposed to believe what the documents say, even though
they're fakes? Well that doesn't sound like very good journalism
to me, or to any other American with basic common sense.
Rather has also stated, "If the documents are not what we were
led to believe, I'd like to break that story.'' Too late Dan.
Everyone else in America already knows that those documents
are frauds. This kabuki dance on the part of Heyward and
Rather is making CBS the laughing stock of the news industry,
and the joke making the rounds is that that the two are engaged
in some type of suicide pact. Why else would they have engaged
in such idiotic behaviors that are bound to do irreparable harm to
their careers, and possibly their personal lives? The fact of the
matter is that CBS and Rather are desperately seeking a way out
of this mess and out of criminal liability. Sorry guys, forget it,
your goose is cooked.
 
Now, for the background to this gripping tale: The White House
has accused Kerry of "coordinating" attacks that allege President
Bush received preferential treatment, disobeyed a direct order to
get a physical, and failed to fulfill his National Guard service. This
is essentially the same recycled twaddle that the Democrats and
their surrogates trot out against George W. Bush each election,
but with one new twist -- this time, the CBS partisan network
had possession of military documents that supposedly
substantiated the Left's allegations. One memo in particular,
ostensibly authored by Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian (Bush's former
squadron commander at the Texas Air National Guard), stated
he was pressured to sugarcoat Bush's performance rating. The
media elites, arrogant as usual, didn't count on the savvy and
sassy Internet blogosphere that promptly vetted the memo(s) and
questioned their authenticity. Individuals knowledgeable about
computer typography at the Freerepublic, Littlegreenfootballs,
and Powerlineblog websites almost immediately realized that
CBS was dealing in forged documents created with Microsoft
Word. Subsequent evaluations by a number of document
experts, conducted at the behest of various media organizations,
also appear to corroborate the initial results from the
blogosphere.

Personally, I think the talk of the crack-up of the mainstream
media is highly exaggerated. It's been weakened for sure, but it's
not going to crumble anytime soon. Do not underestimate the
power of these huge media conglomerates – such as Viacom that
owns CBS -- and their ability to garner support from allies such
as liberal politico Senator Hillary Clinton. They despise the
Internet because it challenges the official line of the liberal elites.
Now we can't have free-flow of information unfettered by
gatekeepers, can we? Sure, there's a whiff of fascism to this type
of thinking. Liberals are going to continue to shore up their
primary propaganda institution – the mainstream media –
because propaganda is vital to their cause. Moreover, the Left
will certainly be gearing up for ways to discredit and tear down
the Internet, of that you can be sure.
 
My job here is to provide thoughtful analysis that points up the
significance of events within the larger context or scheme of
things, and to make an educated guess where things are headed.
And, of course, my analysis is being filtered through a
conservative prism that colors my perspective -- I make no
bones about that, and it's salient for those that write political and
social commentary to be honest about their ideology. No one in
life is truly objective. Our psyches are brimming with all types of
baggage. It's pure hubris on the part of the liberal media elites
who lay claim to objectivity while spouting their drivel from their
ivory towers. Here's the deal for consumers of news: In order to
develop informed opinions, it's vital to read, watch or listen to a
number of media sources, both mainstream and alternative media
sources. Don't let anyone fool you; it's hard work. And in the
process, you'll find those sources that you've come to trust and
rely upon more than others.

Carol Devine-Molin is a regular contributor to several online
magazines.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com