By now it is pretty well agreed that the documents Dan Rather disclosed on “60 Minutes” to “prove” that George W. Bush received preferential treatment in the Texas National Guard 30 years ago are forgeries. But “pretty well agreed” isn’t quite the same as “certain,” so we will do well to bear in mind that the case for forgery isn’t exactly open and shut – at least, not yet.
On the other hand, so many people, from Rather to CBS’ own executives and even members of the family of the purported author (who died 20 years ago) have expressed serious doubts about the documents’ validity that, in discussing the case, it is wisest to assume that we are in the presence of a truly monumental fraud. That is the assumption on which the following observations are based.
Let me begin, then, by absolving Rather of consciously perpetrating this hoax. If there has indeed been fraud, Rather is certainly its first and biggest victim. His reputation as an intrepid news reporter has suffered a staggering blow; and it is at least possible that the entire world of TV news, as relayed by the three major networks, has sustained a black eye from which it may never recover.
In discussing this affair, the world of journalism has focused on Rather’s and CBS’ carelessness in letting themselves be hoodwinked. This is based on the conception of journalism as a priesthood committed to the pursuit of the truth at all costs. Personally, I have never taken that conception seriously. According to my own observations of them, journalists (or at least the ones who cover national politics) are just as biased as the rest of us, and spend their careers doing their best to tilt the political debate in favor of their pet parties, issues and candidates. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll of reporters at larger print outlets, liberals outnumber conservatives about five to one.
Rather has long been a spectacular and noisily opinionated specimen of this breed, doing battle for all the usual liberal causes. He stoutly denies any bias, however, which raises the question whether he realizes what he is doing. There is a type of liberal stuffed shirt in the field of journalism who is so full of himself that he genuinely confuses his liberal bias with objectivity, but I cannot bring myself to believe Rather is one of these. Forced to choose, I would rather accuse him of hypocrisy than insult his intelligence.
So, I believe that when the documents in question rolled out of Rather’s fax machine, he and his fellow liberals at “60 Minutes” leaped on them with glad cries of “Gotcha!” They were so sure that George W. Bush was a protected child of privilege, cutting corners on his National Guard service with daddy’s help, that doubts about the authenticity of the documents proving it never crossed their minds. John Kerry’s supporters, punch-drunk from their losing battle over Kerry’s slanders against his fellow Vietnam veterans, desperately needed some issue on which to counterattack the president. “60 Minutes” would hand it to them, and save the day!
Rather’s subsequent attempts to defend the validity of the documents were dismayingly feeble, and his efforts to salvage the story even if the memos are forgeries takes the cake. To say that the charge remains valid even if the documents are frauds is like arguing that, although the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” are a forgery, their implicit accusation (that the Jews have a conspiracy to rule the world) is true. There is no evidence for the charge if the documents that alone substantiate it are false.
Rather recently admitted that CBS’ source was a passionate Democrat, and Kerry supporter, who misled the network on how the documents came into his possession. Still, Rather stops short of calling them fraudulent, and confines his apology to his failure to authenticate them. He can go on being a liberal if he wants to, but he would do well to remember, hereafter, that not every discreditable rumor about somebody he dislikes is necessarily true.
