For a new generation, Ted Koppel is the old guy on a huge screen behind Jon Stewart who occasionally reminds the fake-news anchor what real journalists do. Yesterday, he had some tougher things to say to future news people.
At a Fordham University forum sponsored by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, the 67-year-old Koppel weighed in on the fate of 75-year-old Dan Rather, who is suing CBS for mistreating him in the furor over George Bush’s National Guard Service and failure to serve in Vietnam.
It was a “travesty,” Koppel said, that Rather was “squeezed out” for a story that was “much more correct than incorrect.”
Expanding on the woes of journalists at TV networks owned by self-protecting conglomerates, he pointed out that, as part of the Walt Disney Company, “ABC News is a pimple on the elephant’s behind.”
Last night Koppel got a Lifetime Achievement Award from the TV Academy. Looking back, he told a TelevisionWeek reporter why could never get an interview with Bush in the White House.
When the Decider was first running in 2000, Koppel asked what qualified him and Bush cited his experience as a governor, running a baseball team, and the fact that he was a loving husband and father.
Koppel observed that those were good qualifications for a president of the Kiwanis Club, but not the United States. He could never get to see Bush again, but Koppel may have doing the Kiwanis an injustice.
Showing posts with label CBS News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBS News. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
MoveOn, Standby and Rathering
The brouhaha over the “General Betray Us” ad evokes mixed feelings in a veteran of advertising acceptance and pricing wars.
Today the Public Editor of the New York Times chides the paper for both the content of and charges for the MoveOn ad that has replaced troop withdrawal from Iraq as the main subject of political contention for almost two weeks.
First, should the Times have accepted the ad? Not without a change of headline. The executive in charge says he was influenced by the question mark, but that won’t wash. He discloses rejection of a previous MoveOn ad until a doctored photo of Dick Cheney was removed. Tacky, insulting, libelous word play on anybody’s name is just as unacceptable.
Standby pricing is tricky. Ostensibly used to fill unsold advertising space at the last minute, because press forms are no more flexible than airline seats, it is often used by overeager sales people to inflate ad lineage figures.
In this case, if MoveOn had not been guaranteed the ad would run that Monday, the price would be defensible. If the Times had retained the option to run it at its own convenience, that would have qualified as standby. But apparently that was not what happened.
Ordinarily, all this would be marginally interesting to media people, if the Republican attack machine had not jumped on it to divert attention from the real Iraq debate, exactly as they did in 2004 with Dan Rather’s reporting on George Bush’s evasion of combat service in Vietnam.
Rather is now suing CBS to correct that distortion, but somebody should be defending the Times from being Rathered over the Iraq war now. It’s too bad political parties don’t have the equivalent of a Public Editor to hold them accountable for their mistakes, few of which are as innocuous as those of newspapers.
Today the Public Editor of the New York Times chides the paper for both the content of and charges for the MoveOn ad that has replaced troop withdrawal from Iraq as the main subject of political contention for almost two weeks.
First, should the Times have accepted the ad? Not without a change of headline. The executive in charge says he was influenced by the question mark, but that won’t wash. He discloses rejection of a previous MoveOn ad until a doctored photo of Dick Cheney was removed. Tacky, insulting, libelous word play on anybody’s name is just as unacceptable.
Standby pricing is tricky. Ostensibly used to fill unsold advertising space at the last minute, because press forms are no more flexible than airline seats, it is often used by overeager sales people to inflate ad lineage figures.
In this case, if MoveOn had not been guaranteed the ad would run that Monday, the price would be defensible. If the Times had retained the option to run it at its own convenience, that would have qualified as standby. But apparently that was not what happened.
Ordinarily, all this would be marginally interesting to media people, if the Republican attack machine had not jumped on it to divert attention from the real Iraq debate, exactly as they did in 2004 with Dan Rather’s reporting on George Bush’s evasion of combat service in Vietnam.
Rather is now suing CBS to correct that distortion, but somebody should be defending the Times from being Rathered over the Iraq war now. It’s too bad political parties don’t have the equivalent of a Public Editor to hold them accountable for their mistakes, few of which are as innocuous as those of newspapers.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Dan Rather's Rage
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Dylan Thomas’ fierce poem must have influenced Dan Rather in adolescence, as it did me, and now he has taken it to heart by suing CBS and its executives for the dying of his TV light sooner than deserved.
His $70 million lawsuit claims the network violated his contract by not giving him enough airtime on “60 Minutes” after he was forced to step down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005 and that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” investigation of the broadcast about George W. Bush’s National Guard service and thereby “seriously damaged his reputation.”
If it goes to trial, the suit should shed light on more than Rather’s treatment by CBS. The piece of journalism in question played a part, potentially crucial, in Bush’s 2004 reelection and diverted attention from the truth about the President’s service during Vietnam to the shaky reporting about it by CBS.
By calling into question the authenticity of one letter, it allowed the Rove Smear Machine to drum up sympathy for Bush’s “mistreatment” by the media rather than continuing the inquiry into his evasion of combat service during the war.
Skeptics will note that Rather’s action comes only after Don Imus extracted a settlement from the network of his contract and that his hurt feelings have been consoled all along by continuing to collect his $6 million annual salary. But CBS’ casual willingness to sacrifice his lifetime of good work as a respected reporter to placate Bush yahoos is a subject that deserves an airing.
It certainly won’t get it on “60 Minutes.”
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Dylan Thomas’ fierce poem must have influenced Dan Rather in adolescence, as it did me, and now he has taken it to heart by suing CBS and its executives for the dying of his TV light sooner than deserved.
His $70 million lawsuit claims the network violated his contract by not giving him enough airtime on “60 Minutes” after he was forced to step down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005 and that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” investigation of the broadcast about George W. Bush’s National Guard service and thereby “seriously damaged his reputation.”
If it goes to trial, the suit should shed light on more than Rather’s treatment by CBS. The piece of journalism in question played a part, potentially crucial, in Bush’s 2004 reelection and diverted attention from the truth about the President’s service during Vietnam to the shaky reporting about it by CBS.
By calling into question the authenticity of one letter, it allowed the Rove Smear Machine to drum up sympathy for Bush’s “mistreatment” by the media rather than continuing the inquiry into his evasion of combat service during the war.
Skeptics will note that Rather’s action comes only after Don Imus extracted a settlement from the network of his contract and that his hurt feelings have been consoled all along by continuing to collect his $6 million annual salary. But CBS’ casual willingness to sacrifice his lifetime of good work as a respected reporter to placate Bush yahoos is a subject that deserves an airing.
It certainly won’t get it on “60 Minutes.”
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Rather's Remedial Journalism for Couric
Rapidly depleting the good-will balance in his Journalism Hall of Fame account, Dan Rather had a few words yesterday for Katie Couric, who succeeded him as anchor of the CBS Evening News.
Discussing broadcast news with Joe Scarborough, the pole-dancing expert, on Imus’ old show, Rather observed Couric was “dumbing it down” and “tarting it up,” stopping just short of describing her as nappy-headed.
Rather’s decline into an intemperate scold is saddening for those who remember and admire him as a feisty reporter who stood up to Nixon, helped expose Watergate and succeeded Walter Cronkite as a fabled network anchor.
His condemnation of CBS News’ current approach could be debated, but its form and manner come with ill grace from a man whose illustrious career imploded during the George Bush era.
On Bill Moyers’ recent “Buying the War,” Rather, clearly racked by guilt, confessed there was no excuse for “my performance and the performance of the press in general in the rollup to the war,” citing only the trauma of 9/11 in mitigation.
Even worse, by inexcusable sloppiness that ended his CBS career, Rather helped reelect Bush in 2004. In failing to verify documents, he allowed the Bush smear machine to make his reporting the issue rather the subject of it, Bush’s avoidance of serving in Vietnam.
Armchair psychology might suggest that Rather’s new role as a scourge may stem, in some part, from guilt and anger over his own failings. But that does not give him license to, in effect, call Katie Couric the journalistic equivalent of a nappy-headed ho.
Discussing broadcast news with Joe Scarborough, the pole-dancing expert, on Imus’ old show, Rather observed Couric was “dumbing it down” and “tarting it up,” stopping just short of describing her as nappy-headed.
Rather’s decline into an intemperate scold is saddening for those who remember and admire him as a feisty reporter who stood up to Nixon, helped expose Watergate and succeeded Walter Cronkite as a fabled network anchor.
His condemnation of CBS News’ current approach could be debated, but its form and manner come with ill grace from a man whose illustrious career imploded during the George Bush era.
On Bill Moyers’ recent “Buying the War,” Rather, clearly racked by guilt, confessed there was no excuse for “my performance and the performance of the press in general in the rollup to the war,” citing only the trauma of 9/11 in mitigation.
Even worse, by inexcusable sloppiness that ended his CBS career, Rather helped reelect Bush in 2004. In failing to verify documents, he allowed the Bush smear machine to make his reporting the issue rather the subject of it, Bush’s avoidance of serving in Vietnam.
Armchair psychology might suggest that Rather’s new role as a scourge may stem, in some part, from guilt and anger over his own failings. But that does not give him license to, in effect, call Katie Couric the journalistic equivalent of a nappy-headed ho.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)