Friday
June 3 2005
RATHER'S DENIAL: Interesting irony on Larry King last
night. First King
interviewed Woodward & Bernstein, the two men responsible
for breaking one of the biggest stories of the century with the
help of an anonymous source we now know was the number two man
at the FBI. In the next hour King
interviewed Dan Rather, the man responsible (at least in part)
for one of the bigger journalistic bungles in the modern era,
rushing to air a story based on forged documents from very dubious
sources to try and influence the outcome of a presidential election.
It's clear
that Rather is still in denial about the entire episode. Exhibit
A is his willingness to cite the findings of the Thornburgh
Boccardi report in his defense:
RATHER:
I will point out that the panel, which was headed by a President
Nixon, Reagan, Bush family supporter and a journalist who said
that George Bush one was one of the greatest people he ever
met -- this panel came forward and what they concluded, among
the things they concluded after months of investigation and
spending millions of dollars, they could not determine that
the documents were fraudulent. Important point, that we don't
know whether the documents were fraudulent or not.
KING: Are you saying the story might be correct?
RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might
take that view.
KING: Do you have that view?
RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might
take that view...I understand what people write about this story,
they often say, well, they dealt with fake documents or fraudulent
documents. Let's just say gently that that's not known. That's
not a fact. And if you're going to criticize us -- and I think
we should be criticized for some of the things we did and didn't
do in reporting -- then gently I say, maybe you wouldn't want
to say that, and the panel could not and did not conclude it.
What the
panel did say quite specifically on page
14 of the report is this:
The
Panel has not been able to conclude with absolute certainty
whether the Killian documents are authentic or forgeries. However,
the Panel has identified a number of issues that raise serious
questions about the authenticity of the documents and their
content.
The use of
the words "absolute certainty" in the first sentence
and "serious questions" in the second would lead any
"prudent" person to the exact opposite conclusion Rather
suggests.
PUTTING
FAKE BUT ACCURATE TO THE TEST: Rather also mounted a
defense of the fake but accurate standard last night saying that
"journalism is not a precise science. It's, on its best day,
is a crude art." He also echoed Carl Bernstein's remark that
the job of a journalist is to "get the best obtainable version
of the truth."
Let's try
an experiment with Rather's standard. Suppose I presented you
with the following copy of John Kerry's Form 180:
This
isn't a real copy of Kerry's Form 180, of course. I forged the
entire thing myself last night. But with the exception of the
Social Security number, every piece of information on this document
(including Kerry's date of birth, place of birth, service dates,
telephone number, etc) is correct.
And
we know from Joan
Vennochi's column last week that Kerry told her personally
that he signed Form 180 back on May 20 (although no one has actually
seen a copy of it to date). So even though I forged Kerry's signature,
by definition the document I've created is fake but accurate.
Suppose
I passed this document along to a television reporter saying that
I had received it from an anonymous source. And suppose that reporter
used the document (along with Vennochi's column and Kerry's public
promises about signing the document) as the basis for a segment
on their show.
Now
imagine if the document's authenticity was called into question
and the reporter defended himself or herself using the "fake
but accurate" standard and by saying that he or she was just
trying to "get the best obtainable version of the truth."
It simply would not fly.
The
job of a journalist is verify facts and report them honestly -
and to candidly admit when and why mistakes are made. That's how
you get as close to the truth as possible and how you keep the
trust of readers and viewers along the way.
You
don't stonewall, obfuscate, and then go on television and continue
to suggest to the public there is any sort of credibility in documents
that have been so widely and thoroughly discredited. After 50
years in the business you'd think this is a lesson Dan Rather
would have already learned. - T. Bevan 9:55 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
