Media Bias, Dan Rather, and CBS: A Microcosm of the Media Elite

George C. Landrith

The press and media are pulling for John Kerry and John Edwards. This is so obviously true it is almost mundane – like calling a press conference to proclaim the sun rises in the East. But the press and media vociferously deny any bias and become indignant at the mere suggestion of partiality.

Don’t take my word for it. The Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, Evan Thomas, recently said, “Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards … as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them … that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”

The recent scandal involving Dan Rather, CBS News, and forged documents is powerful evidence of the mainstream media’s intense bias. The forged documents so completely reinforced their own views and prejudices that they overlooked the obvious fact that the documents were sloppy forgeries.

The documents upon which Dan Rather built his sensational story questioning the National Guard service of President George W. Bush turned out to be slipshod forgeries produced using a current version of Microsoft Word running on a personal computer, not a 1970s typewriter. To make matters worse, the forgeries refer to an officer in the present tense who had retired 18 months before the date on the memo. Countless experts state that the documents are almost certainly forgeries – including former FBI examiners with more than 30 years’ experience. Even CBS’s experts are now saying they can’t authenticate the documents.

Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence, Dan Rather and CBS News “stand by” their story -- stubbornly maintaining that the forgeries are authentic and the story about Bush is not biased. They even refuse to further investigate the documents or divulge how they got them.

Why won’t CBS investigate the authenticity of the documents? The answer is actually quite simple -- it would eventually require them to admit wrongdoing. An admission of wrongdoing would end the debate about their bias and destroy forever their credibility. By ridiculously maintaining that the documents are authentic, they can pretend there is a serious debate on this question and avoid admitting their bias and wrongdoing.

Refusing to acknowledge what is obvious and established is exactly what Alger Hiss did. Hiss was a high ranking official in the State Department of the Franklin Roosevelt Administration. He was also a communist spy. The evidence was overwhelming and interestingly enough also involved a typewriter. Yet, Hiss denied to his death that he was a spy. Because of his denials, even decades later, loopy apologists continue defending Hiss -- despite KGB papers that list the information he stole, his contacts, and what he was paid by the communists. Had Hiss admitted the obvious, no one would defend him. Rather is following the Hiss strategy of denying what is plainly obvious so as to leave the debate at least partly open.

The more interesting question is why Rather and CBS won’t divulge who provided the forgeries. What is the point of protecting a “source” that has lied and committed fraud and made you look like a fool? The answer lies in who provided the forgeries to CBS. The best evidence is that Kerry campaign operatives provided CBS with the forged documents.

If someone with no Kerry ties had provided the forged documents, CBS would gladly identify the fraudulent source. However, given the media’s support for Kerry, Rather cannot now identify the Kerry campaign as the perpetrator of this shoddy fraud. To do so would destroy Kerry’s election chances.

Thus, Rather and CBS steadfastly maintain that the documents are authentic and refuse to identify the Kerry operative who provided the forgeries. They simply hope the issue will go away as soon as possible. Perhaps the issue will fade, but the stench around CBS, Rather and the Kerry campaign will not dissipate any time soon.

###

Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.

george@ff.org