Goldberg on Rather: Schadenfreude-on-Steroids

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

On Yom Kippur, which ended just last evening, Jews quite literally beat their breasts while asking forgiveness for all the sins committed during the previous year. The confessional prayer enumerates literally dozens of different transgressions. But while the syllabus of sin is seemingly comprehensive, there would appear to be one lacuna. Nowhere in the menu of misdeeds does "schadenfreude" appear.

We might just have to petition to have it added in time for next year. Because Jonah Goldberg's I’m Rather Grateful is such a delightful dose of schadenfreude-on-steroids as to be as irresistible. Go ahead, read it and enjoy. There'll be plenty of time to repent.

Excerpts [emphasis added]:

• In 2004, at the height of the Dan Rather Memogate story, I wrote in National Review: “Across the media universe the questions pour out: Why is Dan Rather doing this to himself? Why does he drag this out? Why won’t he just come clean? Why would he let this happen in the first place? Why is CBS standing by him? Why ... why ... why? There is only one plausible answer: Ours is a just and decent God."
• Well, God has not forsaken us. Dan Rather seems divinely inspired to crash more times than a Kennedy driving home from an office party.
• Rather used to compare his job to “a very high trapeze act, frequently with no net.” Three years ago, he went splat in the bull’s-eye of the center ring. Now, with the circus long since out of town, he all of a sudden wants a net rolled out.
• Frankly, we need this. And by “we,” I mean a grand coalition of people who delight in watching one of the 20th century’s most pompous gasbags fall from the top of the laughingstock tree and hit every branch on the way down.
• [Rather] took a few more face-saving laps around CBS before he was quietly escorted out the door like the muttering office old-timer who’s gone off his feed.
• [N]ow he’s back like a crazy man who shows up unannounced at the Christmas party smelling like cabbage and old newspapers, wearing a trench coat but no pants.
• The beauty of this lawsuit, which has most legal observers laughing so hard that their neck veins look like one-pound sausage casings with five pounds of ground chuck in them, is that if it goes to trial (shortly after unicorns file my taxes), CBS will be put in the position of having to prove that the story was bogus.

H/t D.G.

[RichInOC]

As I said, quite possibly the single most ill-advised lawsuit since Oscar Wilde filed libel charges against the Marquess of Queensberry.

[KJacob]

I remember back in 2004 there were published take-downs of the whole incident. From the fonts to the content. I seem to recall Jim Geraghty from National Review doing a pretty good job. I cannot seem to locate.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Schadenfreude-on-steroids ping to Today show list.

[WrightOnTarget]

For a laugh, from Scrappleface:

Bloggers question authenticity of Rather lawsuit

[TexasCajun]

Goldberg-isms, too funny.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Perfect! Wish I would have thought of that. Thanks for posting.

[econjack]

I pray this goes to trial. I also pray that Rather gets his brains beat out during the process. In my mind, this is the only scenario where the MSM might actually be held accountable for the BS they seem to disk out every day. If this does go to trial, perhaps others might think twice before they do something similar.

I don’t know about others, but I miss the days of Who, What, Why, and When news. I really don’t want to hear the “news” the provider wants to sell. The “According-to-an-ABC-(or-other-network)-poll” type of self-generated news is nothing more than editorial passing for news. Anyone can design a questionnaire to get the desired results, but the networks pass this crap off as news.

Keep suing, Dan, and perhaps you’ll get the justice you and the others deserve.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Gotta love this one, No matter what happens we win.

[johnny7]

CBS will be put in the position of having to prove that the story was bogus.

Finkelstein should know better... a settlement with RATher will be made before this gets dug up again.

[MrEdd]

They made me their..hic..Mapesgoat

Consequences are supposed to be for the little people!

[Enterprise]

Couple of gems here. Hitting all the branches on the way down in the laughingstock tree, and CBS having to prove that the story was bogus. A happy article!

[nkycincinnatikid]

But on the other hand, instead of sending him off to Reading Gaol, CBS may decide to just pay the money they owe their whore for taking the fall, under cover of a settlement to spare their shareholders unpredictable legal expense. Will watch this with some interest.

[roaddog727]

“The beauty of this lawsuit, which has most legal observers laughing so hard that their neck veins look like one-pound sausage casings with five pounds of ground chuck in them, is that if it goes to trial (shortly after unicorns file my taxes), CBS will be put in the position of having to prove that the story was bogus.”

This would be a double plus good bonus as it would also put 2 fish into the side of HMS Mary Mapes.

ROTFLMAO!

[I see my hands]

To: Joe Nuh

"CBS will be put in the position of having to prove that the story was bogus"

Get with it. The facts don't matter, the template does, CBS will take another opportunity to bash Bush.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

"CBS will be put in the position of having to prove that the story was bogus."

Finkelstein should know better... a settlement with RATher will be made before this gets dug up again."

The line you quote is Goldberg's, not Finkelstein's. Goldberg himself suggests that the case is very unlikely to go to trial, but if it ever did it would put CBS in the position described. By the way, Finkelstein = me, governs.

[MindBender26]

Beyond the “Story/truth/docs issue, there is a separate claim that Net did not put him on the air as the contract stipulated.

Rather will try to argue that CBS didn’t put him on air when they had a contractual duty to do so and regardless of the truth of the Bush/TANG story, Rather should have been on 60 Minutes as specified in the contract.

CBS may well decide that the way to defend against Rather’s contractual claim that he was due certain slots will simply be to destroy him.

They may well say that there was ample evidence of way too much instability to put him on the air in an uncontrolled situation. There would be a number of people at CBS and other nets that would testify to his actions, words, etc.

CBS could claim: “Who cares what the contract said. We had a duty to protect the company and more importantly, the public from Mr. Rather’s actions. We wanted to do it gently. We would never have mentioned this publicly, but Mr Rather, through this trial, forced our hand.

We paid him his full salary, out of respect. For his own good, and the company and America’s good, we put him out to pasture. He brought all this current negative notoriety on himself.

We were simply trying to protect CBS, our stockholders. America.... and in-fact Dan himself and his legacy.... from an unstable, out of control Dan Rather.”

A jury could eat that up.

[skinkinthegrass]

Thanks, for the post.

This absolutely delicious....LMSMs' credibility (or lack thereof), by trial....by discovery....and the American public gets to watch....but will ABCNNBCee_BS show this circus.

NO!.....the show must go on!

[skinkinthegrass]

HEHE...LOL! :D

[MrEdd]

Good post, and way cheaper to do than $70 million. or even $5 million.