Posted on 03/08/2005 6:03:24 PM PST by wagglebee
National Enquirer columnist Mike Walker has written a devastating expose of the real Dan Rather, showing conclusively that the self-proclaimed emperor of TV news is really stark naked.
In an exclusive interview Walker told NewsMax.com why he took the time to probe Dan Rather and the story behind Rathergate in his best-selling new book, "Rather Dumb: A Top Tabloid Reporter Tells CBS How to Do News."
NewsMax: Mike, what made you, a celebrity columnist, write "Rather Dumb"?
Walker: I never even thought about Dan Rather – he's just this wacko, weirdo guy who looked stupid when he went to Afghanistan in his funny Gunga Din hat in that ridiculous travelogue he did. But it just started to stick in my craw the way this guy stonewalled and the way that CBS was letting him get away with it. And I could see exactly what was going to happen.
I also knew I had to write the book and get it to the presses before the CBS-appointed panel's report that they took forever getting out, because I could see exactly what was going to happen.
Here's Rather saying his documents are wrong, his source is a liar, but the story is true. I realized that the reason CBS was stonewalling was that Rather was making them do it.
The way news organizations work is you put a story out there and suddenly someone comes back at you and says you guys are wrong. Well, the first thing they do is circle the wagons and say that they stand by the story. In the meantime they send a reporter out there to see what the real story is. So you do that for a couple of days and if it turns out you goofed, you admit it.
But when this thing stretched out for 10 days, I knew what was going on. And when I read the panel's report, all 211 pages of it, I discovered that a couple of days into the thing people like Josh Howard, who was the producer of "60 Minutes Wednesday," told CBS to come clean and let it all hang out. But it didn't. Other CBS executives said the same.
NewsMax: Why do you think they stonewalled for so long when it was obvious they were being hurt by refusing to admit the story was bogus?
Walker: Because that's what Rather wanted.
In situations like this the network brass take the little guys and toss them out and offer them up as scapegoats. Dan Rather, in my considered opinion and that of others I have talked to, is the reason that they failed to come clean in a few days.
NewsMax: Why?
Walker: Because they are afraid of him. In my perusal of Dan's career I came up with all kinds of things that I'd never heard about, and I assembled a picture of this guy that was appalling. Here is this guy who, as Bernard Goldberg said, if CBS were a prison, every vice president there would be one of Dan's bitches.
Everything you read about Dan – and there have been many [things] about that rat's nest called CBS, and I read them all, as well as all of Dan Rather's books – the picture that emerges is that of a crazy, weirdo, wound-tight, pugnacious, nasty, defensive, back-stabbing, self-promoting monster.
It really angered me that in the early days he started talking about the ‘pajama-clad bloggers.' Then he starts talking about political partisan right-wing ideologues, and I'm sitting there thinking, "That's you, idiot, that's the press."
I'm also getting angry because this is a guy that I know would sneer at me, would sneer at the National Enquirer. He one time actually accused Tom Brokaw of doing news that was "too light," explaining why Brokaw was beating him in the ratings.
Brokaw got really upset and he said something like according to Dan, the only thing that's news is what's happened in mahogany-paneled conference rooms, government offices, which sums up what Dan Rather has done all his life. One of the easiest things you could do is to be a political reporter and particularly one from television, where everything is done for you. You've got a staff of people handing it to you on a silver platter.
And Dan Rather can't write. He's written seven books and every one of them, including a childhood reminiscence, was written with a co-writer.
This is a guy who couldn't carry the bags of most of the reporters that I know and you know.
NewsMax: Why did CBS's top executives mishandle Rathergate?
Walker: CBS president Les Moonves is a Hollywood guy, whose interest is in the entertainment aspects. He expected Andrew Heyward to take care of it – to do what had to be done. Well, they are all terrified of Rather, and he has sacrificed a whole bunch of careers on the altar of his own maniacal ego.
NewsMax: So, why didn't Heyward do something? He's the president of CBS News.
Walker: Well, guess how Andrew Heyward got to be president of CBS News. He's just like all the former presidents of CBS News who kissed Dan's behind, but there's more to it than that. Andrew Heyward used to be Dan Rather's producer. Remember the famous Dan Rather walk-off, leaving screens blank for six minutes – the most awful crime you can commit in the world of broadcasting. Walter Cronkite said he would have fired him.
Well, Andrew Heyward was Dan's producer. He was the guy who had his finger on the switch when Dan said he was walking off and was going to call Howard Stringer, then CBS president, and complain about the network delaying his news broadcast for a 'mere' athletic event. And I asked myself why didn't they throw up a commercial or a public service announcement or one of the things they have lying around in case something like that happens. But nothing happened. In one of the books written by a CBS insider they made the point that if Heyward had said this is wrong and thrown on a commercial or another fill-in, Dan's big gesture would not have had the dramatic effect he wanted – it wouldn't have made all the headlines.
People on the inside have written that if Heyward had filled in that empty six minutes, he wouldn't ever have been president of CBS News, because Dan would have fired his behind because Dan wanted CBS to go dark to make his petulant point.
NewsMax: What other complaints do you have about Rather as a journalist?
Walker: Dan Rather looks down his nose at everything. He wouldn't allow coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial because he felt it was just a tabloid story. He is against anything that smacks of fun or excitement or anything like that, and I know why: because what I do and many other reporters do is hard.
Try doing some fake news about Tom Cruise, for example. You will be hip deep in Hollywood lawyers before you know it. You can attack President Bush because you know that Bush isn't going to sue you. Politicians do not sue. But try saying something about Tom Cruise or some other Hollywood star and you'll have armies of lawyers coming at you. These people have deep pockets and they sue, and you'd better know what you are talking about.
If Dan had reported phony news about Tom Cruise, he would be up to his $10 million behind in Hollywood lawyers before the red light on his camera blinked off. Trust me, you'd rather get eaten by wild hogs than face a PCP-popping pack of Tinseltown hyena-lawyers.
I run that risk every day because deep-pockets stars are often too damn dumb to realize that lawyers push them to threaten lawsuits that could never fly in a courtroom, just to milk their sucker-behinds for fat fees. Nevertheless, for me the threat is always there. So I work damn hard to get it right.
Yet this $10-million-a-year SOB looks down his nose at the likes of me – or, for that matter, even Tom Brokaw.
NewsMax: In the book you compare Rather's kind of journalism with the Enquirer's brand of leave-no-prisoners reporting. Could you expand on that point?
Walker: Sure. I was on "The Charlie Rose Show" with Carl Bernstein, of Woodward and Bernstein Watergate fame. It was during the O.J. Simpson trial, and Charlie mentioned that the New York Times was calling the National Enquirer the bible of the O.J. Simpson trial. He told Bernstein that he came from the mainstream media and how did he react to that.
Bernstein answered that he thought that a lot of what we do is garbage, but then went on to say that the reason the tabloids are so successful is because they work harder than mainstream journalists. They never stop. He said that he's been in the field and has seen them operate. They are tireless.
The average newspaper reporter comes in, has a cup of coffee, makes a few phone calls, maybe writes a story, maybe he doesn't, he talks to his editor and he goes home or to the bar. He added these tabloid guys never stop working – they are tireless. That's why they are so hugely successful.
NewsMax: Can you compare what you would have to do to justify a story with what Rather did to justify his bogus Bush Air National Guard story?
Walker: Well, look at it this way. Here comes a guy with the record of Burkett, who gave CBS the documents, or actually copies of what he claimed were authentic documents. Now, if you or I called this guy to get his story, we would have quickly understood what we were dealing with. In the old days we would have hired a private detective or called research to check him and his story out.
Today you could just check with Google – it would take you five minutes to discover that this guy is kind of a loon with a track record of hating Bush, that he was a malcontent against the National Guard – so that's two strikes right there.
He had self-admitted mental problems and couldn't tell the truth about where he got the documents. In the book I reported that Dan said he knew the name of the man he said gave Burkett the documents and he thought that was enough. And he didn't bother calling the guy because, after all, he was in Europe.
In my column there are 17 or 18 items every week, and every week I have to submit a source list and explain not only who told me about an item, but also how they would know this.
I talked to the Enquirer's lawyers and I asked them how they would have reacted if I handled the situation as Rather did. If I said "I've got a document," they'd ask where I got it. I'd say it was stolen. They'd ask me what was the chain of possession. If I answered that I didn't know, but before we get to that, you should know that it's not a document, it's a copy of a document, they'd hang up on me. They know that you cannot authenticate a copy.
But if they asked what was the chain of possession and I told them that a guy in Europe gave it to my source, they would ask what did the guy in Europe tell you. "Well, I don't know, I didn't talk to him."
Our lawyers were astounded. That's worse than mere sloppy journalism.
As I wrote on my Web site, ratherdumb.com:
"You lied, Dan. You screwed your viewers – and your colleagues. Not because you got the story wrong. All good journalists get it wrong sometimes. You screwed everybody with your scorched-earth stubbornness, refusing to listen to colleagues who urged you to admit your mistake as you stonewalled for 10 days – and insulting the press and CBS viewers/bloggers who questioned your pathetic ‘official documents.' You had an eye-opening story, Dan. Too bad it turned out to be a phony – and based on a pack of lies that wouldn't get past your average high school journalist. Dumb.'"
Perfect!
Hell, it's as bad as having Larry Flynt call you obscene.
bttt
Is this the guy that is on Howard Stern doing the 'Which is the fake news' bit? If so, I'm now very impressed with Mike Walker. I might even go buy a copy of the Enquirer instead of just leafing through it in the checkout line. 8)
This guy is kickin *ss and taking names!!
I heard him on Lee Rodgers' show on KSFO this morning ...he was terrific. After the mention of the pajama-clad bloggers, Lee mentioned that it tuned out to be "a high-powered lawyer from Atlanta." hee hee. Thank you, Buckhead!
I loved his fake-Ratherisms. The best was when he told his publisher, "Don't strangle the rooster - it might be trying to tell you something." He meant us! The publisher said, "Oh, I think I heard him say that." Walker said, "No, *I* said that!"
http://ratherdumb.com/TheContest.html
Rather Dumb publisher Nelson Current will pay $100 each for the 10 best submissions to my “Cornpone Catchphrase” competition. Just come up with your own, original home-fried saying-something Grandma might stitch on a pillow-and we’ll pay $100 to the 10 “Cornpone Catch-phrase” entrants who compose the most creative thigh-slappers-as judged by author Mike Walker. His decision will be final.
Usually, I don't read the National Enquirer because its stories tend to be more sensational than newsworthy. I have read articles, though. The thing of it is is the NE treats editorial requirements with respect. They do a far better job of being an objective news organization than does the Minneapolis Star and Tribune and, as we have seen, CBS News.
The National Enquirer did a hell of a lot more due diligence on Rush Limbaugh's drug problem than Dan Rather did on the Bush TANG hit piece.
IMHO, the Enquirer has done a good job on every story I have ever read in it. I think its reporters are professional and try to be fair. I think if they don't have their ducks in a row, their editors send the stories back for more work.
That being said, give them a topic thats worthy, they can ditch the bias and get you the facts and cut out alot of the fluff.
If these guys worked for the MSM and did real work without a bias hanging over there heads and just let them fish and get stories and news, they could do a hell of a job, in theory, they should be the perfect breeding ground for the MSM, but snobbery and fear of being laughed at for hiring them, prevents that.
The attitude is, "far better to hire a political operative, or an activist or some kind straight out of school who interned somewhere then hire somone with experience doing research, digging stories and finding things and writing about it with the fear of legal reprecussions from a dirt rag".
LOL!
Looks like Dan will be going out, not with a "bang", but a "whimper".
And why did Dan continue to stonewall and stonewall........ only one answer seems possible. The love of a father for a daughter. Maybe he was protecting his daughter, Robin, who may have been involved in all the Texas intrigue with respect to the "source" of the documents. That seems to me the only reason Dan would be take such a ridiculous stance.
LOL. Remember this?
***
"It was amazing Thursday to watch the documents story go from FreeRepublic.com, a bastion of right-wing lunacy, to Drudge to the mainstream media in less than 12 hours," said Jim Jordan, a strategist for independent Democratic groups opposed to Bush, and Kerry's former campaign manager.
"That's not to say the documents didn't deserve examination."But apparently the entire thing was cooked up by a couple of amateurs on Free Republic. The speed with which it moved was breathtaking."
From Amazon.com
****
After the box-office success of Phenomenon, John Travolta continued to charm audiences with this 1996 comedy-fantasy in which he plays a grubby angel who's got one last good deed to do before heading back to heaven. Living peacefully in the rural Iowa home of an old, friendly motel owner (Jean Stapleton), the winged Michael (Travolta) is hardly the image of a perfect angel. He's scruffy, unshaven, eats sweetened cereal by the box-full and chain-smokes all day long.
But when tabloid reporters (William Hurt, Robert Pastorelli) learn of Michael's alleged existence and head to Iowa to check him out, Michael soon realizes that it's his task to see that Hurt falls in love with an "angel expert" (Andie MacDowell) and breaks free from his habitually cynical attitude. There's more to the story, of course ....... but Michael is more about the effect that this enchanting angel has on the earthbound humans around him. Whether he's chipping away at Hurt's skepticism or attracting a crowd of women on a truck-stop dance floor, Michael is an enchanting figure, and Travolta plays him with just the right tone of humor, reverence, and effervescent charm. Sure, it's lightweight fluff, but director Nora Ephron specializes in lightweight fluff, and Michael is the kind of feel-good movie that never wears out its welcome. --Jeff Shannon
Interesting article. I have to admit, I didn't realize what a dumba$$ Dan Rather was until his interview with Saddam Hussein a few years ago. Was anyone impressed by that interview? I was so pointless and sensationalistic. It was shameful to see a prominent American newsman kissing the dictator's butt on national tv, while we were on the verge of going to war.
Just saw him on O'Reilly. I may just have to read this book.
It is completely beyond me how anyone can bear to watch/listen to O'Reilly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.