Rather vs. Jarvis

The resonant chuckles of gloating satisfaction settled over New York, scattering on the digital winds in the perverse pornography of pleasure at someone else's misfortune. Dan Rather got his. The right was right. The Bushes were vindicated. And bloggers were ascendant. What garbage. I'm especially disappointed in the self-appointed head executioner, uber-blogger Jeff Jarvis, whose anti-big media rant at the head of the fictional army of blogging sans coulottes reeks of wanna-be royalty leading his betters to the guillotine.

I like Jeff. His Weblog is generally a must-read - quite possibly the best of this genre - and lately, his campaign against the follies of this corrupt FCC administration has been heroic. But enough of the us-versus-them media class warfare. Jeff my man - you're not fighting them, you are them. Every other Jarvis post these days starts out with a variety of "I'm about to go on [fill in the old media/big media programming note here]" or "Posting this quickly from the green room..." You're a big media guy: former TV critic for TV Guide and People, creator of Entertainment Weekly, Sunday Editor of the New York Daily News, columnist on the San Francisco Examiner, and president and creative director of Advance.net, which "oversees the Internet vision and strategy for Advance Publications, Inc., includes CondéNet and Advance Internet." That's a heck of an upper bourgeois resume for a prolie revolutionary capitan on the barricades.

Which brings me to Rather. Jeff's post yesterday had that whiff of satisfaction: "Dan Rather is stepping down from his pedestal in March. Yes, bloggers deserve some credit...." For what? For getting Rather to retire from the anchor desk? Credit? Sure, bloggers had a role in working with Republican operatives to nail CBS for its pathetically shoddy reporting on the National Guard "documents" - a story that quickly overtook the actual truth, that with or without those documents, the basic story of George Bush's Vietnam-era service hasn't changed much since the last time it came up four years ago. The disgraceful CBS document-based story was merely additive, not revelatory in the slightest; it never advanced the ball. Not only were some of the documents used in the story fakes, but the news judgment of the news division in running the piece was disastrous.

CBS made a horrible mistake - just as other TV news outlets have made before, and will make again. It apologized, but the masses demand a reality-show level of "sincerity" - as if a multinational media company like Viacom is capable of emoting. It's all a pathetic little melodrama. And now for bloggers to treat Rather's retirement as the moral equivalent of the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad is ludicrous. The monster has fallen.

Rather is no monster. He's a tough journalist who turned into an overpaid talking head who still wanted to keep his (very talented) reporter's hand in the game. Jarvis said last night:

Michael Wolff just said on MSNBC that Dan Rather will be remembered as a "seminal figure" in the history of network news and not for this story that he blew. He's alone in that. Everywhere I've turned on the dial tonight, the accepted view is that Rather is going because he blew it.

No Jeff, he's not alone in that. Wolff is entirely correct. Sure, Rather made enemies - but you know something, that's a good thing for a journalist, all in all. Hacks don't have enemies. They get along. Rather is no hack. He covered the largest stories of his generation personally, and single-handedly invented the widely-accepted conceipt of the big-time anchor on the scene for wars and disasters and funerals. I agree with JD's post:

Dan Rather is stepping down. This will bring glee in certain quarters of the blogosphere, but Rather was a newsman's newsman, and his fearlessness will be missed.

Rather's work will still be imitated for decades. The bloggers? Some, perhaps. But take no satisfaction: in my judgment, the house you seek to burn down is your own.

Comments

[Richard Aubrey]

I see a bit of a slip'n slide in your piece on Rather, bloggers, and Jarvis.
You say that CBS pulled a real howler. This is, technically, true.
But the point is that it was Rather who did it. That he is employed by CBS means you can say that CBS actually did the thing, thus shielding Rather in the minds of those not being careful.
But it wasn't CBS in toto. It was Rather all by his lonesome. The story was too good to check. The story was so good that outside experts with bad news (the docs were probably bogus) got their contracts cancelled. The story was so good that the producer was after it for five years and Rather didn't have a problem with that. The story was so good--which is clearly to say that it showed such promise to beat Bush--that the usual journalistic practices (that we are told about endlessly but which rarely seem to be extant in the real world) were avoided.
Rather's clear intent to get Bush was the guiding principle in this story, and nobody is missing it, despite your saying "CBS" made a mistake.

[Tom W.]

Richard - I saw the piece and frankly, the story just wasn't that great, even if the docs had been genuine. There was just not much to add to GWB's national guard storyline. And I can't agree that it was Rather's alone - it takes a freaking village (just kidding witht that metaphor) to put on a TV magazine piece. He may have had go/no-go status, but certainly the producers, writers involved all had input and ultimately, the buck stops with CBS news itself. I have no intention of letting Rather off the hook for it, but he wasn't on his lonesome either.

[David Crisp]

Glad to see somebody in the blogosphere is making sense of this story. Thanks.

[Observer]

Thank goodness someone with enough power/money can call Jarvis on what he really is. I too agree that his blogs are essential reading. But Jarvis has appointed himself kingmaker and media executioner. He's Mr. Blog but he's Mr. Print--the guy works for SI Newhouse for crissakes. Increasingly, he's cranky and incapable of hiding his arrogance. Did you happen to see his attack on Randall Rothenberg a week or two ago? The guy viciously and personally attacked Rothenberg--fmr eic of Esquire, now of Bain's Strategy + Business--for his views on media. Jarvis simply has no shame. Beware Jeff: the harder they come, the mighty they fall.

[Marc Orchant]

Tom: Great response to Jarvis. Like you, I read him all the time and find much of what he says (and does) to be exemplary. But he is off-base on this story for all the reasons you cite. I'm a dedicated blogger with a small (by comparison) audience and I don't feel any sort of us-against-them kinship with Jarvis who, as you correctly point out, is a long-time big media guy.

[Jeff Jarvis]

Tom:

First, this was my response to someone who agreed with you in a comment under my link to your post:

Pardon me, but you sound a bit like the cultural revolution in Mao's time, making the proletariat into the new exclusive class. I'm people, too. I don't declare myself "a-list." You said that. In the blogosophere, in fact, talking about an a-list is old media think, back to the days when only the one or two biggest could afford the printing press or the broadcast tower. That is mass-market-think. And that is over. Now we are all equal, we're all just people. That's the point. Dan Rather is no beter than you or me. He may think he is. By this rationale, you may think he is. But I don't. And I don't think I'm any better -- any more of an a-lister -- than anyone else. So don't put me apart in a room you built for me.

Second, I had not appeared on TV or been quoted in media in years. Oh, yes, I used to be -- when I had a media perch at TVGuide and People. But that went away. It came back only because I am blogging. I've been on those shows with the likes of the man behind PowerLineBlog and much of the Rather fact-checking, who's not, to the best of my knowledge, a media mogul (he's not even from New York!). Sure, big media is going to be more comfortable at first putting on other media guys but that is expanding and that is a great thing.

Third, on Rather himself: I was highly critical of Rather long before I became a blogger. I called him the dumbest anchor alive. I regularly complained about his pomposity. So this is not a blogger-come-lately attitude; it is my opinion of Rather and has been for years. I think that Rather has been bad for journalism and bad for TV journalism and he was particularly poisonous when he refused to admit for 12 days that he could have made a mistake. I am glad to see him dethroned for more than the latest Rathergate. I wrote a much longer set of posts today trying to explain that here.

Fourth, that is not out of some right-wing conspiracy. I'm a Democrat. Voted for Kerry. Can't stand Rather. That's not incompatible. And it's not the stuff of conspiracy theories.

Thanks for the nice things you said at the same time. I appreciate that. I like you and your blog, too. And I love having discussions like this. These are not the discussions of bourgeois vs. proletariat it's just a discussion.

Dan Rather's biggest mistake was dismissing those who would have gotten him closer to the truth just because they weren't elite and weren't fellow professionals. That kept him removed from the facts and removed from his public; it was just plain snobbish. Please don't do the same thing in reverse to me just because I've been lucky to have some good jobs. I'm still just another person in a conversation with you and that is the real future of media.

[Jeff Jarvis]

And, by the way, Tom, your resume looks an awful lot like mine. So what we have here is a media pro complaining about a media pro complaining about a media pro. Do I hear an echo in here? Do I hear an echo in here? Let's get past judging people by what they are or were and instead judge what they say and how they say it. Isn't that what this medium is all about? I am proud of my resume as you should be proud of yours. But I'd rather you argue with my arguments than with my CV.

[Tom W.]

Jeff - good points all - my basic point is that we're all in media, especially the bloggers. The best bloggers are generally either media veterans or very media-savvy types who know what they're doing, can gather an audience, make an argument, do some reporting, and write well. I don't buy the citizens movement thing.

So I probably have a hard time with a spokesperson for citizens media who is a veteran insider (as yes, I am as well, admittedly). Just doesn't ring true, to me anyway.

That said, I've always agreed it's about the conversation - it's the main reason I do my own blog, and participate in yours and others. I also agree that media is changing - heck, I've been making the argument that the "big boys don't get it" since back in '95, when Chervokas and I launched @NY on tnat very theory.

Couple of quick things: no, don't think you're part of a right-wing conspiracy - but remain suspicious as to the source of the docs. Methinks CBS fell into a trap. Could be wrong, but predict that will be the biggest revelation of the long-awaited report; and it's the way to salvation for CBS - to do some reporting on how the disaster happened.

Finally, I guess I disagree on Rather himself. Sure, he's flawed and arrogance pretty much defines "TV anchor" even if you have the aw-shucks-to-goodness of Brokaw. To be honest, I never really watched Rather much as an anchor - I gave up on network news' half-hour a long time ago. But I do honor some of his fearless reporting through the ages - any journalist would. The guy had serious game.

Plus, you're - to a degree - scoring him for a quality that you say you hold high in the very same post: a point of view. Rather clearly had one, and was relatively up front about it with Nixon, Bush, and others. Sure, he was on my side of political thinking - part of the charm and I'm here to admit it.

[Steve-O]

Not enough play is being given to the enormous entertainment factor that Rather brings to the news each evening. If there was ever a network anchor who was capable of pulling a genuine Howard Beale-esque breakdown on the air, it was Rather. Velveeta-ish Brokaw, Jennings (and the folks slated/rumored to be their successors) don't have the imagination for it. No wonder why people are turning to Fox, et al. News analysis? Give me a freaking break. Pure chewing satisfaction. THAT's what it's all about. Rather will be missed.

[Jeff Jarvis]

Tom: Thanks for the response. As I said to Marc in a response to a comment of his over at my blog, I'm enjoying this conversation.
My big concern in this thread is that we not fall into reverse snobbery, or snobbery of any sort. I hate it when big media sniff at bloggers. But I also hate it when bloggers dismiss journalists. We're all in this together.
As for Rather, I find it amusing that you find him flawed and arrogant but still obviously like him. But as the Times implied and as Steve O says in the comment after yours, part of Rather's appeal was obviously entertainment value.
As for viewpoint: I would have no problem with his viewpoint if he were upfront about it; he wasn't. But what I'm complaing about above isn't his perspective but his attitude, which I always found to be haughty (even as he acted folksy; ironic in this discussion) and above it all. So in both respects, I did not find him to be transparent (a cousin of honest) and I think he had a bad impact on journalism.

[JennyD]

I find it interesting that this a debate by bloggers, who happen to live in the NY Metro area and brush against people they are blogging about. But there's this sense that they're actually out here with regular people in red states, or something. That rings a little hollow.

Having said that, I also think it's great that Jeff and others are in a position to crack open the one-way conversation that is big media. It makes me think of a time when this democracy was in its infancy, and pamphleteering and soap box speeches were the mechanisms for distributing information and opinion. In some respects, bloggers are today's pamphleteers, and the web is the town square.

The relationship of media to its consumers is changing as many consumers become equally powerful. So perhaps the media might consider taking on some new roles. How about more give and take on political stories? (Jeff's slice, add, link, etc.) How about more public journalism, designed not just to end up catching a politician, but maybe to improve civic institutions like education, or public health? Honestly, at the moment, most media stories on these two topics read just like political horserace stories, with a few exceptions.

Oh, I need to get off the soapbox now.

[Chuck Welch]

Thanks, JennyD. However, I believe any consumer who becomes that powerful is no longer a consumer, but a new member of the media.

The vast majority of bloggers are no more reporters than anyone else around a watercooler. The few who have developed a large following -- yes, Virginia, there is an a-list -- are the media; a new branch of the media with roots back to the editors of the Old West.

Tom and Jeff, much of this conversation is like overhearing two media wonks at the next lunch table. You're both "in the know" and "moving in the right circles." Never can you be part of the citizen's media. I believe that's good. The citizen's media is just gossip bubbling from cubicle to cubicle to blog to blog.

That said: you're both have made strong points about Rather, media, and blogging as activism. Interested bloggers will decide one of you is "right." Your posts will be linked. They'll pass your arguments to their friend-bloggers and to their co-workers. Over the week some bloggers will point to the power of the Internet in killing a career and some bloggers will point out that a flawed man simply decided to retire.

The vast majority of the public? They won't have a clue that 99.99% of us printed our pamphlets or stood upon a soapbox until we were hoarse.

[Tom W.]

Chuck - that's well-said, frankly. I agree that consumers won't become all-powerful in control of media - because then, media (the cool stuff, including journalism, that we all like to consume) will cease to exist. Still, the slightly wider conversation we enjoy now does have its charm...

[Jack]

Wrong. But what should one expect? An unbiased view from a blog that lists the author's 'progressive' creds and a blogroll limited to Daily ("I'm not completely nuts, I'm no crazier than Rather!") Kos. Ho hum...linked here from Jarvis and not likely to come back to your echo chamber. Boring. Predictable. Idiotarian. PS. Post the deaths in Afghanistan...if it doesn't shoot too many holes in your 'I hate America' meme. Democracy ho, Kabul! Took all of 3 years total, after 5000 years of various invasions and totalitarian regimes. How many dead was worth that? You have a formula, a ratio?

[Tom W.]

I love America Jack - quite clearly more than you do. Hasta la vista, baby.

[Jack]

Fantastic response, Tom. Funny, I don't see anything 'clear' about your superior love of America. It's the old college try of one-upmanship, or the 'so's you're old man' response. Sgt. Jack, 4th Battalion 56th Artillery. Afghanistan, 2002-2004

[Tom W.]

So Jack - I'm humbled by your service (quite seriously - I never served myself). But amazed by your closed mind, dismissing an entire half of the country, from the center to the left and back. I'm not dismissing your opinions, man, so why mine? Tain't American.

[Tom K]

Tom:

I'm probably just slightly on the Jackish side of the Tom-Jack continuum, and suspect that anybody citing military service in an internet argument is 50/50 to be making it up. That said:

You're NOT dismissing his opinions, buy you're "amazed by his closed mind"? That's classic. I wonder if you see any inconsistency there at all? His opinions are what they are -- how is you characterization of them different than "dismissing" them? Because you didn't officially muster them out?

[Tom W.]

Well Tom - a piece of inelegant writing on my part. Of the opinions he's expressed here: dismissive in the extreme. My 'anti-America meme' indeed. Fuck that. But of his side of the political coin (and yours), I'm always willing to talk - probably too much, in fact. So yeah, you caught me in a quick response. BTW, was also attacked over at Jeff's blog and gave a more fulsome response - http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_11_24.html#008552

[Hector]

"Rather's work will still be imitated for decades."

You must be joking. While I agree Rather's resignation was a fait accompli pre-memogate, his resignation along with Brokaw's marks what history will remember as a turning point in American media, when two liberal icons who run two of the most powerful broadcast news oligopolies for decades were run out of town for bad ratings/declining viewership, and coincidentally for Rather, on the heels of one of the all-time great media corruption scandals where Rather deliberately tried to throw a presidential election. Rather will FOREVER be remembered for memogate and his failure to unseat Bush. The debate about whether CBS has a "liberal bias" is over and Dan is the guy we'll forever associate with "getting caught red-handed".

That you are again deluded with notions that somehow Rather will be imitated for decades to come is laughable. Broadcast news as we know it is dead, and Dan was the T-Rex of the journalistic Jurassic Period.

[Tom W.]

Hector baby, Rather is no liberal icon - he's just a liberal talking head. He's only a liberal icon to you guys. And by his legacy, I don't mean the anchor chair - you might want to read the posts you comment on - I mean the on-the-scene reporting on big news events on television. Of that, Rather was undoubtedly a key pioneer and a seminarl figure. He will also be recalled as one of the great Texans.

[Jimmy]

Hey, his journalistic techniques have already been imitated: by Jason Blair. Remember Gunga Dan? The faked invasion and battle in
'Afghanistan?' Turns out to have been shot in Pakistan by CBS stringer and staged by Abdul Haq in order to get some free, friendly coverage from American networks. Faked everything but where's the outrage? Books have been written about it, with evidence from the Afghan refugees and mujahideen who participated, Kurt Lobeck, the Peshawar stringer for CBS has been outed numerous times...but still, Dan survives. Network hegemony and a monopoly (actually, Mr Business Media law man, a monopsony) on all information ensures that no journalists dare criticize an anchor, nor will his peers. This closed system also guarantees that the top folk change less frequently than the Politboro in the USSR! Rather, what 24 years? Mike Wallace, what, 49 years at CBS, Don Hewitt? 64 years at CBS! All at the top, mind you, not as pages but as top anchors, reporters and producers! Jeesh. No wonder Walter Cronkite didn't think it was a conflict of interest to host a big Clinton fundraiser at Martha's Vineyard, Hewitt did the same thing. The media yawned. Nothing to see here. More along folks.

[Anil]

"But there's this sense that they're actually out here with regular people in red states, or something."

I love it when the red staters reveal that they don't think the rest of us are regular folks. That must be part of why they ignore the opinions of the blue staters who were attacked when forming their opinions on terrorism.

[Tom W.]

Couple quick things in response:

1. Rather IS a red state guy, along with Brokaw. They don't play them on TV - they grew up there and reflect those values, in my opinion (yes, it's fair to say by way of Manhattan).

2. Regular folks - yeah Anil, you're entirely correct. Only 12 million elitists here in the NYC metro area. So damned elite and above it all, not in touch with American values. Hee-hee.

3. Politburo/USSR reference - knew that one was coming. We're all commies, you're right, Jimbo.

[Jay Rosen]

First, let me say that I am not a "Joe Citizen" type. I live in Manhattan. I have lunch with Jeff Jarvis from time to time. I get calls from the bookers at CNN and the Newshour (though when I tell them what I think, I can hear their enthusiasm drain away.)

I am basically with Jeff about Rather; but I admit to some ambivalence about it. Where I think Tom has hold of something important is that Rather never fit the TV mold. He was "hot" where the prevailing style was cool. He took chances where the prevailing ethic was risk adverse. He was willing to be weird; is Brian Williams willing to be weird?

Part of the reason he generated such intense dislike is this refusal to become the "smooth" TV type we so expect these days. Not only is there value in that; there's something courageous about it. The pressure to be predictable is huge in network television; in the anchor's chair even more so. Rather remained an edgy figure, a creature of emotion, an individual.

Some of his other achievements I question. I don't see it as some journalistic advance that he was the first to take his broadcast to big events and anchor the newscast on location. It was an enlargement of the anchorman's celebrity, a stunt that had nothing to do with reportage and everything to do with ego, Bigfoot-ism and the ideology of hype. He wanted to do both: anchor the broadcast and be the star reporter on location. If the show remained in New York he would have to choose.

In his recent interview with the New York Observer Rather made much of his interview with Saddam Hussein. "The Saddam interviews—I know not everybody thought they were good or worth doing or what have you," he said, "but by any objective standards, any journalist worthy of the name would’ve killed to have those interviews."

I think this quote gets to the heart of my problem with Rather. He had no idea why he was interviewing Saddam, or what he hoped to accomplish. His reference point for it was not Saddam within history, but Dan Rather within journalism.

Click my name for my take on Rather's announcement.