Kerry Spot    [ jim geraghty reporting ]
[ kerry spot home | archives | email ]

I am just a mere reporter here at the Kerry Spot. I have no great influence, no experience in asymmetrical warfare. I am not the type of person who gives advice on how a loosely organized group of angry CBS critics can successfully topple the Sauronic Big Eye of a major network and force accountability.

But if I were that kind of person, I would suggest something like this.

SHORT VERSION

Critics of the report must focus on three alternative targets that are more vulnerable to public pressure: the local CBS affiliates, other CBS employees, and other media. Members of those groups right now are in a state similar to Rather and Heyward's — mildly criticizing Rather and Heyward, looking the other way, or shrugging their shoulders. That course of action is less painful than forcing CBS to make the hard choice about Rather and the fake memos. But a steady and intense campaign of criticism — one targeting them for not taking steps to demand a CBS admission that the network deliberately portrayed fake memos — could alter that balance. Inaction could become more painful than action.

Once the affiliates are demanding that Rather go, and the other employees at CBS are demanding that Rather go, and other media (like the editors of the Washington Post) are demanding that Rather go, Les Moonves, president of CBS, will conclude that the cost of keeping Rather outweighs the benefits of keeping him — and the ax will fall, probably for Heyward, Rather, and CBS producer Mary Mapes as well. The other CBS employees will retract the story and confirm the source.

LONG VERSION

See Nixon, 1974; Bob Livingston, 1998; Bob Torricelli, 2002.

In recent years, however, we have seen particularly shameless public figures change the deal. They get confronted with the evidence, there is public outcry...and then they simply "wait out the storm." The public's outrage eventually fades, and they continue their careers.

See Clinton, 1998; Gary Condit, 2001. (Yes, Condit lost his bid for reelection, but he never publicly admitted to an affair with the late Chandra Levy or to hiding that fact from the police.)

Right now, Rather and Andrew Heyward are at that same crossroads stage. The memos have been proven forgeries to any rational mind. Their source is very likely a man of dubious credibility claiming an extraordinarily farfetched story. Rather and Heyward ignored their own experts' warnings that the memos were fakes. They have been caught red-handed acting maliciously and abusing the public airwaves to share their own unfounded conspiracy theories about the president, and to attack their critics.

They have also clearly decided to choose the Clinton-Condit path. They remain in their bunker, insist that the documents are or "could be" real, ignore the criticisms, refuse to answer questions specifically, and simply wait for public outrage to burn out.

And it will burn out. Rather and Heyward will continue to claim, ridiculous as their new "experts" and theories may be, that the documents are "disputed." (That weasel word should be banished from discussion; the proper word for the documents is now "disproved.") Within a year or two, this will be remembered as a bizarre "Internet-driven media feeding frenzy," as the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Chandra Levy murder are today. The elites will wonder, "What was all that shouting about typewriters and superscripts about, anyway?" Rather and Heyward will quickly be welcomed back into the good graces of high society, invited to the black-tie dinners, collecting the journalism awards, the same glowing magazine profiles. In those magazine profiles, the memo will warrant a paragraph in the final third, and the hagiographers will report, "No definitive answer was ever reached on the memos' accuracy."

There is another possibility, however. The bunch of them — Heyward, Rather, and producer Mary Mapes — could get fired and their reputations could be adorned with the Jayson Blair/Stephen Glass/Janet Cooke notoriety they deserve.

But for that to happen, the critics of CBS need to change their tactics quickly.

Stop attacking where they're strong; attack where they're weak.
Heyward and Rather have behaved without shame. If they had any, they would have retracted the story and apologized. Mapes would be the scapegoat, an internal investigation would be launched, and Rather would either retire early or take unpaid leave for a period of time.

They are also immune to criticism, be it from the blogs, NRO, ABC News, or the Washington Post. They have dismissed their criticism as a partisan pushback, a right-wing effort to distract from the "serious questions" raised by their "very solid report." Their viewpoint is that rival networks and newspapers like the Post and Dallas Morning News can be dismissed as agents of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

At this point, further criticism of Rather from the usual suspects will be like hitting our foreheads against the wall. More scathing reports from ABC, NBC, or major newspapers will also, likely, have no effect.

The headline of the Washington Post could be, "Yup, CBS Lied" in 72-point font, and Heyward and Rather would not see it as worthy of being mentioned on the Evening News.

Instead of further criticism of the top men at CBS news, the focus of the critics' firepower has to shift to three new, weaker targets.

Target One: The CBS affiliates.
The local stations that carry CBS News are already passing on complaints to the network, and this is a good first step. But it will not be enough. The network is used to dealing with complaints, particularly from cranky viewers and particularly from conservatives.

No, the affiliates must feel like they themselves are on the line here as well. Local media and bloggers should contact the station managers and programming directors and ask them whether they stand by CBS's story. A claim that they are only responsible for local programming should not suffice. The 60 Minutes II story went out over their airwaves. Would their local news teams have approved running the CBS story? Would they have been satisfied by the memos? Would they have ignored their own experts?

Some local stations have said, off the record, that Dan Rather and Mapes did not live up to the local affiliates' standards. These comments must be said publicly, and often, and loudly. CBS affiliates should be asked just what they have done themselves to communicate their disapproval and outrage to the national network. If they are allowed to throw up their hands and pass the buck, this effort will likely fail.

Within a few days, these well-meaning local station managers and programming directors must feel like they are a target of the maelstrom of angry viewers as well, and they must, collectively, sense that they can either get on the train or get run over by it.

Within a few weeks, CBS network officials must be convinced that they have an open revolt among their affiliates, that stations are considering not broadcasting 60 Minutes II or Dan Rather in the future, and that the business and financial consequences of sticking with Rather could be enormous.

Target Two: Other CBS employees.
Where, during all this, has 60 Minutes creator Don Hewitt been? It's his baby's reputation that Rather just trashed.

What does Mike Wallace think of all this?

Ed Bradley? Morley Safer? Steve Kroft? Lesley Stahl?

Bob Schieffer made some mildly critical comments in a South Dakota paper — almost certainly out of concern that he could lose his debate-moderating honors. (Note: The Bush campaign must agree to three debates to ensure that Schieffer has a debate to lose. This is the leverage on this guy; Bush agrees to two debates, no more leverage.)

Right now, the folks may be fighting from the inside (particularly those who may want the anchor chair in the future), but whatever they're doing, it wasn't very persuasive to Heyward. It is likely that no matter how much Rather's shoddy, dishonest methods bothered them, they probably exerted very measured efforts in pushing for a retraction. And while they may blow off steam, off-the-record once or twice, there's no reason to expect them to declare war on good old Dan Rather, the guy with the office down the hall.

That's because right now, whatever damage Rather is doing to the network's reputation, they figure they can take it. They're not tainted, the other CBS News stars conclude.

But would they feel this way if they were consistently subjected to comparisons to Rather? If the blogs and CBS critics targeted Hewitt, Wallace, and Schieffer as complicit co-conspirators, accomplices to Rather and his blatantly dishonest methods by their silence, would the legendarily cranky Hewitt and Wallace be so quiet? How much grief and irritation would the big men and women of CBS News take on Rather's behalf? My guess is Rather doesn't want to see just how far his colleagues will go out on a limb for him.

My sources say that the mood at CBS is actually pretty grim right now — a lot of folks are upset with Rather, feel like the Big Eye's reputation has been trashed, feel literally sick to their stomachs by what the face of the network has done in the past few days. The tempers within that place are as flammable as kerosene. We need one of these guys — well, somebody who gets taken seriously, i.e., not Andy Rooney — to light the match.

Seriously, if Hewitt or Wallace calls for Rather to resign, he's toast. The rest of CBS's employees will turn on the deceitful threesome as soon as someone else takes the lead and demonstrates that speaking one's conscience isn't a firing offense.

Target Three: Other powerful voices in the mainstream media.
It has now been more than a week since 60 Minutes made its report. Certain institutions, like the ABC News and the Washington Post, have done exemplary reporting in this, and haven't been afraid to portray the facts in a way that slams CBS hard (Howard Kurtz for the Pulitzer). The reporting has been great.

So where's the opining?

The L.A. Times finally weighed in, and it defensively concluded that CBS "had been had." No, non, nein, nyet: Rather and Mapes knew what they were doing. This was a deliberate lie.

The New York Post has been great, but did we ever doubt that? Unfortunately, the Post isn't going to convince anyone not already convinced.

There hasn't been one house editorial in the Washington Post yet. None in the New York Times (though maybe that's a blessing.) Where is USA Today? How about the New York Daily News?

Speaking of voices still unheard, how about...Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings? Would they have approved running the CBS story? Did they turn it down? Do they think Dan stepped in it, big-time?

There are a lot of "big" voices who are hiding right now. They are wusses — not the word I wanted to use — and it's time for the concentrated power of the blogs and center, conservative, and anti-CBS voices in the media to start calling them cowards for their silence on a journalistic scandal so big it makes Jayson Blair look like a misplaced semicolon.

Attention, Tim Russert. Chris Matthews. David Broder. Bob Woodward. Carl Bernstein. Ben Bradley. Wolf Blitzer. Show your cards. You know what Rather just did. He's dismissing his critics as partisans. This includes your networks and newspapers. Are you going to let Gunga Dan make those kinds of outrageous charges?

It has to be made clear for people at CBS that the moment they step out of the bunker on West 57th, they're a laughingstock. Admitting you work at CBS has to become, temporarily, at least as disgraceful as working at the National Enquirer. (Or, I suppose, in some circles, National Review.) Morning, noon, and night, bashing CBS must become as widespread and popular as quickly and inexplicably as Lindsay Lohan. It must crop up in every Leno, Letterman, and Dennis Miller monologue. Those who don't join in the chorus of brickbats must feel like they're missing out on whacking the big piñata.

Throughout this, there is one toxic phrase that must be avoided at all costs:

"CBS wasn't fair to the president."

This probably means little to the people who need to be persuaded the most. These folks probably hate President Bush only marginally less than Dan Rather. And "fairness" has been at the heart of the conservative critique that they have found silly and unworthy of attention for years. No, this is the wrong message at the wrong time.

In fact, this whole story may be benefiting the president — in many polls, his numbers have been skyrocketing. But the point here isn't to help Bush. He and Karl Rove can take care of themselves. The point is to take down Dan Rather. Presidents come and go, but a network anchor chair is just short of forever.

Instead, the powerful voices of the mainstream media may be spurred by these arguments.

What Rather did is bad for journalism.

It's forgivable to run with a forgery, particularly to hurt Bush. But running with a bad forgery? Dan Rather just discredited every hard-hitting investigative hit piece on Bush between now and Election Day.

The Gang of 500, as ABC's "The Note" calls the nation's most influential journalists, must be convinced that Heyward, Rather, and Mapes just botched the "storyline" for the most important election of our times. The current indicators are that Bush is doing well in his race for reelection, frustrating his Manhattan, Hollywood, and Washington foes to no end. Those frustrated and angry elites are going to be looking for a pre-emptive scapegoat. Heyward, Rather, and Mapes will do nicely.

Attacked properly, these three targets will "flip" into the anti-Rather camp, one at a time, but in fairly quick sequence. Moonves will step in, the three will get canned...

...and we can end the year with the head of Dan Rather metaphorically stuffed and mounted on our collective walls.

That's the plan that I would recommend if I were a person trying to organize a cohesive yet varied asymmetrical effort focused on forcing accountability on CBS.

But then again, I'm just not that kind of person.