It's possible to interpret Rathergate as a mere journalistic fumble, but it requires a childlike faith. A more rational interpretation is this: it's a clear-cut example of what conservatives face every election cycle -- a constant headwind from the blowhards of the Fourth Estate.
Let's break it down:
1. This isn't Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings. It's Dan Rather, the most openly partisan of the three, working for the most openly partisan of the Big 3.
2. Rather has a history not only of partisanship, but of "breaking" dubious but damaging stories late in the election cycle. Example: he's the one who gave a national airing to Ross Perot's paranoid rantings about George Bush plotting to ruin his daughter's wedding.
3. Mary Mapes, CBS's chosen fall-girl, is an ardent, outspoken liberal who loathes Bush. "Liberal" is the one universal tag her colleagues have applied to her in interviews. As per USA Today: "Mapes, 48, was described by colleagues on Tuesday as a dogged and talented journalist who made no secret of her liberal political beliefs. . ."
4. These two chuckleheads accepted a mentally-unstable political gadfly with a known vendetta against George Bush as an unimpeachable source. Tell me the same would have happened if the party affiliations were reversed. Tell me in what alternate universe this guy is an unimpeachable source.
5. In their eagerness to run a damaging anti-Bush story, Rather and Mapes ignored the reservations their own experts had about the memos.
5. Mapes colluded with the Kerry campaign in connection with these memos.
Rather knew his hand was in the cookie jar. Which is why he violated CBS's own internal regs on how to handle an anonymous source. SOP there is to give as much information as one can about the source, such as "an administration official" or "a road safety expert". I can understand Rather's reluctance though -- the phrase "an imbalanced partisan hack was quoted as saying" might have detracted from the scoop.
Posted by Discoshaman at septembre 24, 2004 12:36 AM | TrackBack