{"id":66253,"date":"2005-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-03-09T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/03\/09\/le-depart-du-liberal-dan-rather\/"},"modified":"2005-03-09T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-03-09T00:00:00","slug":"le-depart-du-liberal-dan-rather","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/03\/09\/le-depart-du-liberal-dan-rather\/","title":{"rendered":"Le d\u00e9part du \u201clib\u00e9ral\u201d Dan Rather<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le d\u00e9part du lib\u00e9ral Dan Rather<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t9 mars 2005 Aujourd’hui, une l\u00e9gende de l’information t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9e am\u00e9ricaine, Dan Rather, quitte CBS et prend une retraite qu’on jugera, selon le mot classique, bien m\u00e9rit\u00e9e. Il a donn\u00e9 sa d\u00e9mission \u00e0 la suite d’attaques men\u00e9es contre lui par la droite dure soutenant GW Bush, apr\u00e8s sa prise en compte de documents mettant en cause le pr\u00e9sident am\u00e9ricain pour les conditions de son service dans la Garde Nationale. Les documents se sont av\u00e9r\u00e9s \u00eatre des faux. L’affaire fit de Rather une victime de la droite am\u00e9ricaine et, par cons\u00e9quence indirecte, pour certaines m\u00e9moires tr\u00e8s courtes, un v\u00e9ritable lib\u00e9ral. Il n’en est \u00e9videmment rien. Rather est un homme de l’establishment<\/em>, avec la touche lib\u00e9rale, aussi l\u00e9g\u00e8re qu’une plume. Sur l’essentiel, il fut toujours litt\u00e9ralement au garde-\u00e0-vous.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe mot (garde-\u00e0-vous) n’est pas d\u00e9plac\u00e9. C’est le cas lorsque Rather, en pleurs d’\u00e9motion devant l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement (le 11 septembre 2001), le drapeau et les consignes de GW Bush, d\u00e9clare lors du show CBS Late Show<\/em> de David Letterman (le 17 septembre 2001) : \u00ab George Bush is the president. He makes the decisions, and, you know, it’s just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. And he’ll make the call.<\/em> \u00bb M\u00eame \u00e9tat d’esprit quelques jours plus tard, le 2 octobre 2001, dans Entertainment Tonight<\/em>: \u00ab If <\/em>[Bush] needs me in uniform, tell me when and where I’m there.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRather n’a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9compens\u00e9 de son z\u00e8le patriotique puisqu’il a \u00e9t\u00e9 mis en pi\u00e8ces par la droite am\u00e9ricaine apr\u00e8s son faux pas de septembre dernier, qui le for\u00e7a \u00e0 la d\u00e9mission. C’est la dure loi du syst\u00e8me : ce sont les plus radicaux qui ont toujours raison et le lib\u00e9ral doit constamment se garder sur sa droite et sur son extr\u00eame droite. Mais tout cela, ce sont des jeux politiciens, rien de bien s\u00e9rieux. L’essentiel est que jamais le syst\u00e8me n’est mis en doute. Pour le reste, Rather \u00e9tait un des journalistes les mieux pay\u00e9s aux USA (il fut le premier \u00e0 d\u00e9passer le $million annuel, il y a une quinzaine d’ann\u00e9es) et sa retraite sera confortable.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCi-dessous, nous vous pr\u00e9sentons un texte du groupe FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting<\/a>) qui salue le d\u00e9part \u00e0 la retraite de Rather par l’analyse critique d’une carri\u00e8re exemplaire d’homme de l’establishment<\/em>. Dan Rather est la d\u00e9monstration incontestable que le syst\u00e8me am\u00e9ricaniste est un tout, qu’aucune opposition (lib\u00e9ral ou autre) n’est possible, que la seule opposition est hors-syst\u00e8me, chez ceux qu’on nomme plut\u00f4t des dissidents.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(Pour lire ce qu’il est par contre convenable de penser, lire ce qu’en dit le Christian Science Monitor d’aujourd’hui<\/a> et comparer avec le texte de FAIR.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Rather’s Retirement and \u00a0\u00bbLiberal Bias\u00a0\u00bb<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tFAIR, March 2, 2005<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn March 9, Dan Rather will step down after 24 years as anchor of the CBS Evening News. Media retrospectives of Rather’s career will likely refer to the long-running right-wing critique of Rather’s supposed \u00a0\u00bbliberalism.\u00a0\u00bb But the notion that Rather has used his CBS platform to disseminate left-wing propaganda over the last two decades does not hold up to scrutiny.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIf Rather can be accused of anything, it’s the same bias one can see throughout the mainstream media: an unwillingness to challenge official power and policy. And it’s a bias that Rather has admitted to embracing; speaking at a Harvard forum on the media (7\/25\/04), Rather offered no apologies for uncritical reporting on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbLook, when a president of the United States, any president, Republican or Democrat, says these are the facts, there is heavy prejudice, including my own, to give him the benefit of any doubt, and for that I do not apologize.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Off to War<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tRather has openly advocated for various U.S. military actions. In a speech at the National Press Club (6\/25\/99), he had this to say about the bombing of Yugoslavia:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbWhen U.S. pilots in U.S. aircraft turn off the lights [by bombing civilian electrical stations], for me, it’s ‘we.’ And about that I have no apology.\u00a0\u00bb (Civilian infrastructure, of course, is protected by the Geneva Accords, and deliberately attacking it is a war crime.) Elaborating further on his approach to war reporting, Rather said, \u00a0\u00bbI’m an American, and I’m an American reporter. And yes, when there’s combat involving Americans, you can criticize me if you must, damn me if you must, but I’m always pulling for us to win.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThat position was unchanged a few years later (CNN, 4\/14\/03):<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbLook, I’m an American. I never tried to kid anybody that I’m some internationalist or something. And when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition of ‘win’ may be. Now, I can’t and don’t argue that that is coverage without a prejudice. About that I am prejudiced.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAfter the September 11 attacks, Rather made an appearance on CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman (9\/17\/01) and announced his willingness to do more than just root from the sidelines: \u00a0\u00bbGeorge Bush is the president. He makes the decisions, and, you know, it’s just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. And he’ll make the call.\u00a0\u00bb Rather issued a similar call on the show Entertainment Tonight (10\/2\/01), according to a transcript from the conservative Media Research Center (10\/3\/01): \u00a0\u00bbIf he needs me in uniform, tell me when and where I’m there.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Paying Tribute<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhen they make their case against Rather, conservative critics are fond of pointing out that he has made flattering statements about Democratic politicians like Bill Clinton. But that would seem to have less to do with Rather’s partisanship than with his fondness for power. After Ronald Reagan’s death (CBS Evening News, 6\/5\/04), Rather recalled that Reagan \u00a0\u00bbwas the great communicator, yes. But he was also a master at communicating greatness. He understood that, as he once put it, ‘History is a ribbon always unfurling,’ and managed to convey his vision in terms both simple and poetic. And so he was able to act as a conduit to connect us to who we had been and who we could be.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAccording to the Media Research Center (6\/6\/04), Rather appeared choked up during a June 5 broadcast dedicated to Reagan, during which he said, \u00a0\u00bbMay we share his optimism and may his steed hold steady as he completes his journey. We will think of him always when the West wind blows.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIt wasn’t just Reagan; during the 1996 Republican National Convention, Rather fawned over Elizabeth Dole’s \u00a0\u00bbtremendous\u00a0\u00bb performance (8\/14\/96), even dubbing her \u00a0\u00bbmy fair Liddy.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAnd Rather’s alleged fondness for liberalism certainly doesn’t run very deep: During the 1992 Democratic National Convention (7\/13\/92), Rather had this to say about former presidential candidate and civil rights activist Jesse Jackson: \u00a0\u00bbThere have always been two Jesse Jacksons. There’s Jesse the radical, who preaches rage and black separatism. That Jesse has always angered whites. And there’s Jesse the self-promoter, who preaches desegregation and compromise.\u00a0\u00bb Take your pick: Jackson’s either a radical black separatist or a \u00a0\u00bbself-promoter.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

By the Numbers<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tIf Rather were indeed liberal or just more liberal than his network competitors one would think that the CBS Evening News would include more critical perspectives in its newscast, particularly during a Republican administration. But FAIR’s study of guests and sources appearing during coverage of the Iraq war (3\/20\/03-4\/9\/03) actually found that Rather’s broadcast had the highest percentage of official U.S. sources (75 percent) and the lowest number (less than one percent) of U.S. anti-war voices (Extra!, 5-6\/03).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tA FAIR study of all the network news broadcasts in 2001 (Extra!, 5-6\/02) found that CBS Evening News had the most Republicans and the fewest Democrats (76 percent vs. 23 percent). The difference between CBS and the other networks was slim, but such analysis belies the notion that Rather’s network or any of the others have a left bias.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00bbRathergate\u00a0\u00bb<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tIt’s a good bet that Rather’s retirement will draw significant attention to the so-called \u00a0\u00bbRathergate\u00a0\u00bb controversy the 60 Minutes report (9\/8\/04) on George W. Bush’s National Guard service that relied on dubious documents. But instead of revealing partisanship in Rather’s work, the episode falls into a pattern of sloppiness on Rather’s part in his eagerness for certain stories including stories that benefit Republican administrations. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOne early controversy remains relatively obscure: Rather’s fawning coverage of the Afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s. A series of articles in 1989 in the New York Post alleged that Rather’s gung-ho reporting from the front lines of the anti-Soviet mujahadeen was supplemented by phony re-enactments of rebel assaults. Some scenes were reportedly filmed in Pakistan, and facts were distorted on one broadcast (8\/11\/87), for example, Rather claimed to report the \u00a0\u00bbthe biggest one-day defeat for Soviet forces since World War II,\u00a0\u00bb when in reality the battle was relatively small and didn’t involve Soviet forces.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRather and CBS relied on two partisan freelancers to assist its coverage of Afghanistan: Kurt Lohbeck, who set up news conferences for mujahadeen leaders and testified before Congress to request additional aid for the Afghan rebels, and Mike Hoover, a cameraman sympathetic to the rebels who had been suspected of faking scenes in some of his earlier work allegations that CBS officials were aware of while they were working with him.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThere are more recent examples of Rather’s erroneous reporting. On September 11, 2001, Rather went to great lengths to report on the terrorist attacks on United States soil including some that never happened. \u00a0\u00bbLet me pause and say that a car bomb has exploded outside the State Department in Washington,\u00a0\u00bb Rather told CBS viewers. He repeated: \u00a0\u00bbNow a car bomb has exploded outside the State Department in Washington. No further details available on that.\u00a0\u00bb He reported this \u00a0\u00bbcar bomb explosion\u00a0\u00bb as fact at least three more times before finally adding a qualifier.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThis gaffe did not prevent Rather from reporting another \u00a0\u00bbscoop\u00a0\u00bb later that evening: Citing reports from the local CBS affiliate, Rather claimed that \u00a0\u00bbtwo people have been arrested with explosives under the George Washington Bridge. As this report now, whether it was connected with the events of the day, we do not know. But an interesting report.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLater, he prefaced the story with \u00a0\u00bbIt may not be over yet,\u00a0\u00bb and added that \u00a0\u00bbAuthorities say there were enough explosives in the truck to bring down the bridge.\u00a0\u00bb As with the State Department car-bombing, Rather had to backtrack on this story as well: \u00a0\u00bbFurther checking on that story [reveals] that other law enforcement officials in New York said they knew nothing about it…. We’ll have to put that in a long line of things that’s under the, ‘Well, we’re skeptical now.’ Maybe it’s true and maybe it isn’t.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRather accompanied the backtracking with another self-justification: \u00a0\u00bbI repeat for emphasis, we’d rather be last than be wrong, but in reporting of this kind, we’re bound to make some mistakes.\u00a0\u00bb Surely reporters should have a better defense for airing uncorroborated allegations than that.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRight-wing media critics and pundits have been effective in tagging Rather with the \u00a0\u00bbliberal\u00a0\u00bb label. But the context of Rather’s entire career points to a different conclusion. More often than not, Rather’s reporting followed the pattern that Rather himself criticized in an early-’90s interview (Boston Herald, 9\/18\/91):<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbWe’re gutless. We’re spineless. There’s no joy in saying this, but beginning sometime in the 1980s, the American press by and large somehow began to operate on the theory that the first order of business was to be popular with the person, or organization, or institution that you cover.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRather’s retirement would be more of an occasion for regret if he had tried harder to fight that tendency in himself and in the news business in general.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Le d\u00e9part du lib\u00e9ral Dan Rather 9 mars 2005 Aujourd’hui, une l\u00e9gende de l’information t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9e am\u00e9ricaine, Dan Rather, quitte CBS et prend une retraite qu’on jugera, selon le mot classique, bien m\u00e9rit\u00e9e. Il a donn\u00e9 sa d\u00e9mission \u00e0 la suite d’attaques men\u00e9es contre lui par la droite dure soutenant GW Bush, apr\u00e8s sa prise en… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66253","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66253"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66253\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}