Rather vs. CBS, take 2

[NewsMom]

The fraud charges are back.

Here's an article I just ran across.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/media/17rather.html?_r=1


(http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090721-717343.html)

[s'news]

I'm not trying to do an impression of Spike, but I'm not sure what to make of this.

We don't know the big picture. We don't know all of what the lawyers for Rather have found in discovery and depositions. We don't entirely know what CBS has pulled up in its defense.

That they included some obviously conservative types in the process does not surprise me. Had they not, they would be attacked for that. That they briefly considered some radio types does surprise me.

But this will be interesting as it plays out.

[Roy Hobbs]

Go Dan Go! My hero has a certain dual appendage as big as watermelons.
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/490_3.jpg
This investigation will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it!

[Diplomat]

The fraud was on the part of Mary Mapes and she was, appropriately, fired.

It's not surprising that Rather would attack Governor Thornburgh or anyone else who served on the panel. Nor is it surprising that the NYT would run a story supportive of Rather, as they are of the same ideology.

[2:30]

could read that NY Times story as supportive of Rather.

Rather is lower than whale excrement as far as I'm concerned. Almost as low as Twink. But that doesn't mean he isn't right about the people who CBS hired to do the investigation.

And just because he's right about the people doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the investigation. His story sucked. It shouldn't have been on television.

But the investigators weren't some group of neutrals who were magically found. They were partisans who still did a pretty good job. The Times reported that. So what?

[Diplomat]

could read that NY Times story as supportive of Rather.

Rather is lower than whale excrement as far as I'm concerned. Almost as low as Twink. But that doesn't mean he isn't right about the people who CBS hired to do the investigation.

And just because he's right about the people doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the investigation. His story sucked. It shouldn't have been on television.

But the investigators weren't some group of neutrals who were magically found. They were partisans who still did a pretty good job. The Times reported that. So what?

Hmmm...her/his (whatever that one is) has had a change of heart about Rather and came in off the corner to tell us about it. Lovely. I'd like to see this story reported elsewhere--rather ironic to see the Times questioning anyone's ethics or motives.

I read the entire Boccardi/Thornburgh report and still don't think the executives not directly involved should have been fired. Mapes should have been fired way before she was, and Rather should have been eased out sooner as well. I don't think he willfully committed any fraud, but was far too supportive of Mapes, who did.

[wx or not]

Courage.

[Sultanosurf]

Interesting link, but isn't the more current news the judge restoring Rather's charge last week?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/media/22rather.html

Maybe it's just my perspective, but after seeing the reverence in remembering Walter Cronkite, I was also reminded of how poorly CBS treated Cronkite in shoving him out before he was ready. Which also reminded of the shabby way the whole TANG/Rather thing was handled.

Certain folks here love to harpoon Rather, but my personal experience (And a little more than casual research) has shown me that there was plenty that went wrong with the story, and although it's easy to target whoever fronts something, there was much more going on, including a rush to air the piece that came from middle management and was approved by Heyward.

Remember also that Cronkite unloaded on Bush after the 2004 election, and only barely kept his "lip buttoned" on the TANG affair, while friends say he was privately aghast at the way CBS handled it --- and (Despite his misgivings about Rather) especially furious about how the net left their anchor's butt hanging...

[wx or not]

(Despite his misgivings about Rather) especially furious about how the net left their anchor's butt hanging...

Seems to me that CBS acted so because their numbers under Rather never approached Cronkite's. When it was the Tiffany Network, you circled all the wagons, no matter what. Once ratings became king, and youth was the overriding factor in CBS' decisions, Rather was chosen as the ceremonial up-and-comer. But his numbers never reached Cronkite proportions, so CBS left the gate open for others to dismiss its actions.

[Jane Craig]

They were foolish to push Cronkite out (their acknowledgement of that seems to be the Energizer Bunniness of the 60 Minutes team). but then back in the day I thought the job should've gone to Kuralt, not Rather, and I stand by that opinion. My impression at the time was that they wanted to go for "younger, sexier" and it never quite worked because Rather was so, um, quirky.

[TVMattNYC]

Seems to me that CBS acted so because their numbers under Rather never approached Cronkite's. When it was the Tiffany Network, you circled all the wagons, no matter what. Once ratings became king, and youth was the overriding factor in CBS' decisions, Rather was chosen as the ceremonial up-and-comer. But his numbers never reached Cronkite proportions, so CBS left the gate open for others to dismiss its actions.

It's unfair to simply say that "numbers under Rather never approached Cronkite's", without acknowledging that the industry underwent a vast sea change during and after the transition.

Could Cronkite have kept up his numbers in an age of 500 channels, two-income families, and longer work schedules?

We'll never know.

[TVMattNYC]

...including a rush to air the piece that came from middle management and was approved by Heyward.

The "rush" came from TOP management, with Heyward at the pinnacle.

[Sultanosurf]

It's unfair to simply say that "numbers under Rather never approached Cronkite's", without acknowledging that the industry underwent a vast sea change during and after the transition.

Could Cronkite have kept up his numbers in an age of 500 channels, two-income families, and longer work schedules?

We'll never know.

Even if they decided to move Cronkite out as anchor, they sure never utilized him as a senior contributor the way they easily could have. And the bum's rush they gave Rather (Despite his quirkiness and all the questions about his political leanings) just reinforced how little trust the viewer could have for the net, let alone employees. Again, they could have moved Rather out of the chair and rehabbed their image, keeping him in the reins for special events and "60 Minutes," but chose not to, which is why a judge has established there still is some validity to his suit.

Who knows, maybe he was considered more a problem employee than has been revealed, but history (And ratings) has proven that you sure don't win favor by running off anchors.

The place has always been partly run by their legal department, which is why the rush to run the TANG piece before it was fully vetted was so strange. But how they've chosen to treat long-time workers, especially their flagship anchors - then go chase down somebody like Katie - sure changed my opinion about a three-time former employer.

[TVMattNYC]

Who knows, maybe he was considered more a problem employee than has been revealed

He wasn't.

But how they've chosen to treat long-time workers, especially their flagship anchors - then go chase down somebody like Katie - sure changed my opinion about a three-time former employer.

You have to understand the mindset of the new regime in place at the top, which basically boils down to this: they hate "lifers". If you've been at CBS News for more than six years, you're obviously a loser who couldn't "advance" to bigger and better things.

The only problem with that logic is, once you get to one of the Big Three networks, where else is there to "advance" to??

[wx or not]

The only problem with that logic is, once you get to one of the Big Three networks, where else is there to "advance" to??
One of the other remaining Big Two. And take all of your viewers with you. That'll show 'em.

[TVMattNYC]

One of the other remaining Big Two. And take all of your viewers with you. That'll show 'em.

SIx of one and half-dozen of the other.

Once you land at one of the Big Three, there's really no point in network-hopping. This is where it behooves networks to cultivate and retain talent.

[Diggin' Bear]

You have to understand the mindset of the new regime in place at the top, which basically boils down to this: they hate "lifers". If you've been at CBS News for more than six years, you're obviously a loser who couldn't "advance" to bigger and better things.
Amazing. Back in the day, if you did any time at CBS News, you *were* in the bigger and better things. It was truly the gold standard of journalism.

Now, most people in the business can't spell it. (But they look fabulous!)

[TVMattNYC]

Amazing. Back in the day, if you did any time at CBS News, you *were* in the bigger and better things. It was truly the gold standard of journalism.

Now, most people in the business can't spell it. (But they look fabulous!)

Indeed.

The only "network hopping" back in The Day was TO CBS, not away from it.

[Diplomat]

He wasn't.



You have to understand the mindset of the new regime in place at the top, which basically boils down to this: they hate "lifers". If you've been at CBS News for more than six years, you're obviously a loser who couldn't "advance" to bigger and better things.

The only problem with that logic is, once you get to one of the Big Three networks, where else is there to "advance" to??

For executives, advancing from the news department to something corporate.
For employees, advancing to eternity?