How CBS Proved Dan Rather (Partly) Right

I admit, I took a dim view of Dan Rather's $70 million lawsuit against CBS when he first filed it. But it's starting to look like the former anchor will get at least some of the vindication he's seeking, if not the full measure.

Rather has claimed, essentially, that CBS offered him up as a sacrifice to appease the Republican establishment, which was angry after his flawed 60 Minutes II report on George Bush's National Guard service embarrassed the White House. He's still a long way from proving there was any conspiracy between his corporate bosses and government officials, and it could be argued that by putting his conspiracy allegations front and center, he has somewhat obscured his very real breach-of-contract claim.

But thanks to Rather's doggedness, at this point in the discovery process, there's no doubt that CBS acted in a manner that was shamefully un-journalistic. At The New York Times notes today (following up on excellent reporting by the Observer), the network went out of its way to ensure that the "independent" investigation of Rather's report would be pleasing to conservatives. It considered hyper-partisan demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as possible panel members. It vetted other prospective panel members with Republican sources for acceptability, rejecting at least one, a former Republican senator, because it was decided he wouldn't "mollify the right."

Andrew Heyward, CBS News's then-president, seemed to think considerations were necessary in light of the perception by some that CBS in general and Rather in particular suffered from a liberal bias; only by inviting its harshest critics to weigh in, he argued, could CBS clear its name.

That's terrible reasoning. For one thing, it encourages the worst sorts of mau-mauing and ref-working. If screaming "bias!" gets you a seat at the table, why not scream it twice as loud, whether you see it or not? It also misunderstands the basic relationship of journalists to the public. A news organization is accountable to its audience, and it's accountable to the truth. It's not accountable to the political party in power, however much it may fear loss of access or loss of legislative/regulatory favors.

For a bracing counter-example, note how New York Times executive editor Bill Keller responded when asked how he reacted to complaints from the McCain campaign about his paper's coverage: "My first tendency when they do that is to find the toughest McCain story we've got and put it on the front page."

Keller took some flak for saying that, but it's the right spirit. Heyward's actions, on the other hand, were craven and self-defeating.