Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section
Page 3 of 5   <       >

Rather Strikes Back

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Said Howard, the former executive producer, who is now a CNBC executive: "You can't have it both ways. He wasn't forced to read the script. He pressured us to put the story on the air."

Twelve days after the story aired, according to the suit, Heyward, then the news division chief, "instructed" Rather to read an apology on the "Evening News," despite Rather's "own personal feelings that no apology from him was warranted." In those on-air remarks, Rather called the story a "mistake" and added: "I want to say personally and directly, I'm sorry."

Those words, the suit says, caused the media and public to blame him for the bungled story. Heyward declined to comment yesterday.

The outside probe was "designed to give the appearance of fairness," but "its conclusions were preordained," the suit charges, noting Thornburgh's role in the George H.W. Bush administration and as a Republican Senate candidate.

To buttress Rather's charge that CBS wanted to mend fences with the White House, the suit points to a Time interview in the fall of 2004 in which Redstone said Bush's reelection would help Viacom.

"They sacrificed independent journalism for corporate financial interests," Gold said.

Asked why Rather would sue more than a year after leaving CBS, Gold said the former anchor was "a bit appalled" at new information he said had emerged involving a private investigator, Erik Rigler, who was hired by the network during the 2004 controversy. Rigler, a former FBI agent, "was trying to dig up dirt on Dan and Mary Mapes," Gold said, declining to elaborate.

When CBS came under fire over the story, Gold said, Rather told Heyward he wanted to hire an investigator at his own expense, but Heyward responded that CBS would retain such a person. Gold said, again without providing evidence, that Rigler concluded that the Guard memos were authentic and the story accurate. He was interviewed by the Thornburgh-Boccardi panel, which accused Rather and CBS of a "myopic zeal" to rush the story to air five days after obtaining the disputed papers.

Reached by phone, Rigler declined to comment last night.

Lynne Bernabei, a Washington lawyer who specializes in employment disputes, called Rather's suit "a hard case to prove" but said he might mount a credible argument that CBS had breached the contract by minimizing his airtime. Still, she said, "the fact that he made an on-air admission that he made mistakes makes it hard for him to prove some of the other claims that they misled him."

When Rather was transferred to "60 Minutes II" and, after its cancellation, the original Sunday "60 Minutes," CBS paid him $6 million a year under his contract but "allowed him to function in a very limited capacity," the suit says. Rather did about 10 pieces over a year for "60 Minutes," including stories from North Korea and China.

As further evidence of CBS's abandonment, the suit said, the network did not respond to criticism of Rather by "60 Minutes" veterans Mike Wallace and Andy Rooney, among others.


<          3           >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive