Rather Files $70 Million Lawsuit Against CBS

New York Times ^ | September 19, 2007 | JACQUES STEINBERG

[abb]

Dan Rather, whose career at CBS News ground to an inglorious end 15 months ago over his role in an unsubstantiated report questioning President Bush’s Vietnam-era National Guard service, filed a $70 million lawsuit this afternoon against the network, its corporate parent and three of his former superiors.

Mr. Rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on “60 Minutes” after forcing him to step down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005. He also contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” and incomplete investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, “seriously damaged his reputation.” As plaintiffs, the suit names CBS and its chief executive, Leslie Moonves; Viacom and its chief executive, Sumner Redstone; and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News.

In the suit, filed this afternoon in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Mr. Rather charges that CBS and its executives made him “a scapegoat” in an attempt “to pacify the White House,” though the formal complaint presents virtually no direct evidence to that effect. To buttress this claim, Mr. Rather quotes the executive who oversaw his regular segment on CBS Radio, telling Mr. Rather in November 2004 that he was losing that slot, effective immediately, because of “pressure from ‘the right wing.’ ”

He also continues to take vehement issue with the appointment by CBS of Richard Thornburgh, an attorney general in the administration of the elder President Bush, as one of the two outside panelists given the job of reviewing how the disputed broadcast had been prepared.

[seanrobins]

I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it!

This will be a bloodbath, and everything dishonest that this little journalistic pissant has ever done, is going to be dredged up, and shoved in places polite people like us cannot mention!

sr

p.s.: I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it! I love it!

[dmw]

He probably figured if Imus could win a twenty million dollar settlement against CBS, what does he have to lose by suing them for seventy million.

[Phantom Lord]

Would discovery require the disclosure of sources that provided the fake documents and thus expose for any and all to see exactly how Dan tried to dupe the nation with fake docs?

[reagandemocrat]

HHmmm..I smell subpenas for Buckhead and FR.

Hope I’m wrong.

RD

[Recovering_Democrat]

Gee, is there any way to hope BOTH parties lose?!?

[jackieaxe]

Great! Get the popcorn. It will be great to see the details in open court of where the “fake but accurate” documents came from, and also what passes as standard operating procedures at cBS. Also, maybe Dan will get questioned about his continued insistence the story was true well after every retard in the country knew it was a false hit piece welled up from within the DNC. Dan is lucky he didn’t get sued by President Bush for slander.

[RinaseaofDs]

Not out of the realm of possibiliity.

I can’t think this is going to help Dan. He’s going to have to answer to the fact that he tried to use fabricated evidence to impugn a sitting President.

[Miss Didi]

How dare he try and steal the spotlight from Mrs. Clinton and her glorious new health plan!

[seanrobins]

I thought that Dan had already exited the scene on a particularly pathetic note.

In fact, I didn’t think that he could have left journalism in a more pathetic manner.

I stand corrected.

[Sloth]

As plaintiffs, the suit names CBS and its chief executive, Leslie Moonves; Viacom and its chief executive, Sumner Redstone; and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News.

Uh, I'm pretty sure it named them as defendants, not plaintiffs. The NYT "journalists" are about as smart as Ra^ther himself.

[gunservative]

Has Dan Rather suddenly found Lucy Ramirez?

[bert]

Poor ol Dan. While drunker than a West Texas skunk he happened on a Philadelphia Lawyer who suckered him into a lawsuit.

When he sobered up he discovered he had paid the man a $2 million retainer. Now he has no choice but to see it through and hope he can drag all those New York suits through some cactus and tumble weeds.

[mort56]

Only one word describes my feelings...SHADENFREUDE!

[magellan]

If Rather was “ ... little more than a narrator of the disputed broadcast”, shouldn’t he sue Mary Mapes for making a fool of him?

[elizabetty]

Does this open the door for Rather to be questioned on his methods of “research” and “confirmation” and “sources” in the TANG story?

[teddyballgame]

“Dan will get questioned about his continued insistence the story was true well after every retard in the country knew it was a false hit piece welled up from within the DNC.”

Bingo. Dan’s about to find out he doesn’t have any friends. Hey Dan, if I had a tail I’d be waggin’ in it.

[Jay777]

BLOGOSPHERE REACTION ROUNDUP...DEVELOPING...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

This should be fun to see how and if CBS decides to defend itself.

[Crawdad]

little more than a narrator

Those five words speak volumes.

[speedy]

Another bizarro one from Captain Dan:

“I think you would likelier see a hippopotamus run through this room than see George Bush appoint Ralph Nader to the Cabinet.”