+
Sign up for
The Upworthiest
Our top stories of the day delivered straight to your inbox.
upworthy

journalism

Pop Culture

Dan Rather returns to CBS, 18 Years after losing anchor job in political scandal

“I gave CBS News everything I had. They had smarter, better, more talented people, but they didn’t have anybody who worked any harder than I did."

via Moody College of Communication/Wikimedia Commons

Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather.

Before 24-7 networks like CNN and Fox News became the go-to places for TV news junkies, the newscasters of the "big three" networks attracted 50 million people every night. Throughout most of the ‘80s, ‘90s and early ‘00s, viewers chose between three network news titans: Tom Brokaw on NBC, Peter Jennings on ABC and Dan Rather on CBS.

Tom Brokaw left “NBC Nightly News” in 2004, Jennings left “ABC World News Tonight” in 2005 and Rather was forced to leave “CBS Evening News” the same year after being involved in a controversial segment about then-President George W. Bush.

In 2004, Rather filed a report on “60 Minutes II” critical of Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. The documents central to the story were questioned as fakes and the blowback from the story led to Rather's ouster.

Twenty years later, Rather still stands by the story. “You can argue that we never got to the original documents,” Rather said in an interview. “But nobody has ever proven that they were anything other than what they were purported to be.”

Rather worked for CBS News for 44 years in many roles, including bureau chief, war correspondent, foreign correspondent and White House correspondent. He was the network’s national evening news anchor from 1981 to 2005.

Now, 18 years after his controversial departure from CBS, Rather, 92, returned to the network in a segment aired on April 28 on “CBS Sunday Morning.” In it, he spoke with Lee Cowan, his former protegee, who remembered that Rather taught him that it's not the question but the "follow-up" that matters.

Rather was on the show, in part, to promote his new Netflix documentary, “Rather,” which debuts on May 1.

In the interview, Rather told Cowan that the ultimate job of a journalist is to speak truth to power. “In the heart of every reporter worthy of their name, Lee, there’s a message that news, real news, is what somebody, somewhere, particularly somebody in power, doesn’t want you to know,” he said. “That’s news.”

He also admitted that being forced to leave CBS was the “lowest point” in his esteemed career.

“I gave CBS News everything I had. They had smarter, better, more talented people, but they didn’t have anybody who worked any harder than I did,” Rather said.

When asked why he wanted to be a reporter, Rather admitted that it is just a part of his being.

"I've never quite known the answer to that question,” Rather said. “All I know is it's the only thing I ever wanted to be was a reporter and I get up every morning as soon as my feet hit the ground, I say, 'Where's the story?'"

Even though Rather was devastated after leaving CBS, he remained in the public eye. He has hosted an interview show for HDNet, written books and newspaper columns and hosted a radio show on Sirius XM. He has over 2.6 million followers on Twitter, where he’s introduced himself to a younger audience.

“You either get engaged and you get engaged in the new terms ... or you’re out of the game,” he admits.

News reporters face an uncertain future given the decline of newspapers and social media’s dominance with younger audiences. But Rather is still impressed with the reporting he sees in today’s news.

“The people who are practicing journalism today are so much better than those of us who came up here another time,” he said. “They’re better educated. They’re more knowledgeable about the world,” Rather continued. “They want to do the right thing. They’re doing the best they can.”

Even though he’s dedicated his life to journalism, Rather believes his true legacy are those he loves. “In the end, whatever remains of one’s life — family, friends — those are going to be the things for which you’re remembered,” he said.

From Your Site Articles
journalism
Democracy

Iraq War veteran shares how military service to his country prompted him to give up on Fox News

Let me preface this post by saying that I am not a regular Fox News watcher. The handful of times I've tried to watch it, I haven't been able to stomach it for long. I don't watch televised news much anyway, but the blatant biases and sensationalist tone of Fox News is a huge turnoff for me.

It's not for a sizable percentage of Americans, though. There are more than a few people who believe Fox News when it says it's "fair and balanced." There are folks who believe Fox News when they tell them that "mainstream media" is hopelessly biased toward "the liberal left" and therefore can't be trusted like they can.

I wrote a whole article once about venturing over to Fox News's Facebook page to expose myself to different perspectives and coming away endlessly frustrated by the amount of verifiable falsehoods Fox News followers were perpetuating—a sad reality that only confirmed my belief that Fox News erodes people's ability to discern what is actually true.

But don't take my word for it. Take one of their analysts who quit the network and called it a "propaganda machine." Or take this veteran on Reddit who shared how they used to be an avid Fox News watcher until their tour in Iraq gave them a wake-up call.

In a Reddit thread about a Fox News segment discussing Fox News' coverage of Michelle Obama's DNC convention speech, user BabyMFBear wrote:

"My personal thoughts on Fox News:

Following 9/11, I found myself glued to Fox News. It was, after all, 'America's news network,' and included a 'no-spin zone' to ensure we were getting the real story. The reporting was 'fair and balanced,' and it was up to the viewer to come to conclusions based on 'we report; you decide.'

The hosts proudly wore their American flags on their lapels, and they taunted the French for not supporting our call to arms, and I cheered as we established the 'Coalition of the Willing' as we trounced Iraq, and started kicking Taliban ass in Afghanistan.

Then I got to Iraq, and my attitude changed. The Iraqis I worked with were normal, every day people. They were friendly and inviting. Aside from the language and cultural differences, they were no different than myself.

And then I met Colin Powell when he addressed everyone in the compound and, in not so many words, told us he appreciated our service but this mission was in error.

His exact words were 'You may hear a lot of things about the mission here in Iraq, but just know I am grateful for all of you who answered the call on behalf of your nation.'

That was quite a profound moment, not only for my time in service, but for my entire outlook on information, politics, and life in general.

Were Iraqi's better off without Saddam? Most likely. Looking back, that wasn't our problem to solve.

We have more weapons of mass destruction than nearly every other country combined, with the most advanced delivery systems available.

Could you imagine another country bombing us because our President isn't a good person with nuke release authority? Could you imagine being blown back into the Stone Age over it?

We are just living our lives, in total disagreement, in an intense atmosphere, but could you sit by peacefully while getting obliterated by a foreign country over it?

I'd be making homemade bombs to protect my family. I would want those invaders out of my country, even if it was because they and I both agree in our views of the U.S. President. That goes out the window when foreign troops are at my door.

Fox News helped sell a lie. Fox News put on theatrics, and pumped me up for war.

Two years later, I was covering a high-level NATO Security Conference. A 4-star Dutch general made the opening remarks about 'a war of necessity (Afghanistan)' and a 'war of choice (Iraq).'

I served in an unnecessary war. I am proud of my service to the Iraqi government. I was there to help. I am happy my next two deployments were in support of combat operations in Afghanistan.

Fox News sells theatrics. They sell hyperbole. That network's agenda is to serve the defense industry and military industrial complex.

Fox News has convinced people that someone like me hates America.

Fox News has convinced people that someone like me doesn't belong here.

Fox News has convinced people my views are unAmerican.

I'd be the first person to lead a charge against a foreign invasion.

Fox News has people convinced I'm the enemy.

Turn off Fox News. I'm pleading with you."

Comments have poured in, thanking the poster not only for their service, but for sharing their experience of breaking up with Fox News. Many of us have friends and relatives who are hopelessly glued to that station, constantly being fed the propaganda they're peddling, distrustful of award-winning journalism yet somehow trusting of Tucker Carlson.

Others shared similar stories of having once been Fox News fans but then recognizing it for what it was:

"I remember being a young man, watching Fox News after 9/11. It was shiny, entertaining, engrossing.

But I knew something was off about it. I didn't really know what Jingoism was, but I was sensing that this was most definitely some kind of propaganda.

I really do see the appeal and why it captures so many." – Antnee83


"Brother, U.S. Army Signal Corp. Vet here, and I have to say a big Thanks, to you for being able to share your experience. I have also tried to share my experience from the perspective of a Signal Solder that is saturated with intel. as part of the job, and to witness the active misinformation campaigns that are used by the FOX propaganda outlets and how they were coordinated from the inside out, not to mention outside interference from hostile nations using 3rd wave warfare tactics against the U.S." – UrzasPunchline


"Iraq Vet here as well and the same for my wife (2004-2005) coming home I was a different person than when I went and not just for the obvious "going to war" reasons, but for the reasons you laid out above. If someone bombed my county to the Stone Age I'd be out there fighting them too, they're just supposed to lay down and let us run over them?!

I think there are a lot of Vets just like us but there are plenty of trump supporters too. I just hope this year is a wake up and the crazy things he's doing now will wake ppl up. I do know many trump supporters that say they can't vote for Biden and won't... but they also can't vote for trump so they'll stay home. That's good enough for me." – Lathus01


I'd be making homemade bombs to protect my family

"Yep. Formerly in intelligence, and spent 2 years in Baghdad doing it. Lots of other intelligence people would refer to insurgents as "terrorists", and it always felt so wrong. They aren't terrorists, they are doing exactly what I would be doing if someone invaded my country and my city, and if you wouldn't you can't call yourself a patriot. Those people were basically fighting an army from the future and they STILL fought. Now THAT is bravery and patriotism." – TalentKeyh0le


"Great post brother. I too was in the same boat as you. Born and raised in conservative catholic household and watched much of the same hyperbolic "America is great at kicking ass" propaganda generated by Fox News.

I too served in Iraq and in a very much "enemy" facing role where I spoke to these men we were holding indefinitely as enemy combatants and there were some long conversations I had with them where things sometimes didn't sit right, honestly.

I've had many years to realize what I was a part of, not necessarily regret, but certainly had to come to terms with things I did against men who were probably acting exactly as I would have in opposite roles.

I love this country and I love its people and still appreciate the time getting to serve it, but Jesus if I don't worry every day about what may be needed to save it's soul and that of all its citizens." – TheRealAJ58


The original poster thanked people for the responses, saying "I hope what I've said here empowers other vets to speak out, and know they are not alone."

They also wrote of veteran suicides and the role false information plays:

"The number of veteran suicides is not hyperbole. Reconciliation is sometimes not possible without self-destructive behaviors. Some just cannot bring themselves to face their actions, and I cannot place blame on them. I place the blame on those who manipulate our youth into believing false realities."

I'm not saying we don't need a military. I fully believe in having national defense as a priority- right now more than at any other time since WWII.

We just need a military that is willing to defend our citizens, and not an away-team "bringing the fight to an enemy" under false pretenses.

Again, thank you. I'm now drained and emotional - in a good way.

I wish nothing but the best for all of us."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Culture

Will the media still care about Black people after this historic moment has passed?

Photo credit: Roger Fountain

Dear media,

As a Black writer, I'm torn.

At this moment, I know you need me, and although I want to capitalize on that need, I need you to reflect, focus and institute significant and sustainable changes in your outlets. George Floyd is the news cycle now, but black bodies have been a casualty to white supremacy for hundreds of years. Too many Black people have died at the hands of police officers. Is this finally the moment of change? Think for a minute, why now?

You need my voice, insight and ability to help you navigate and understand our exploding racial powder keg. But most of all, you need my stories, my insight and my perception to speak to the moment. My question is, where will you be when I need you after this moment has passed?


Today, you fill your pages and websites with our bylines and content, hoping to infuse perspective and color into predominantly white content. You mine our pain with op-eds explaining systemic racism and the unyielding murders of our fathers, brothers, lovers, sons and daughters.

Will you still love us when the news cycle shifts? Or will we hear what we've heard so many times before? Crickets.

Will you be there to offer us the coveted jobs, with full-time benefits and paychecks that pay the bills? Or are your mastheads so full of white faces that you can't see us staring at you?

I've worked on staff in several television and radio newsrooms and gotten plum assignments as a freelance writer. I've even been fortunate enough to have stories published in prominent outlets and have been a journalist for eleven years. But I've seen firsthand the extreme racial disparities in the media. I've been the only person of color on a web team or in a newsroom. I've seen how few people of color are employed full-time at many organizations. I've rarely seen people who look like me inhabit the coveted seats of power.

You may ask: Why should we care?

These positions give writers like me the freedom to continue our craft, establish stable careers and support younger writers. It also provides us with the fantasy to explore our communities and the world at large—not just when one of us is struck down in cold blood.

Ebonye Gussine Wilkins' work focuses on media inclusion and better representation. She helps corporations, nonprofits and individuals assess their content and revise or create better work to reflect the communities they serve. Wilkins explains it like this: "Part of preventing this kind of scramble at the last minute would be to hire writers of color much earlier," she says. "Hire them more regularly, pay them proper rates, not the bottom of the barrel rates, and give them an opportunity to write about things other than just 'black issues.'"

In other words, editors, you're the gatekeepers. It's not enough for your outlets to hire the "one." The token African American, Asian, Native American, or person of Latin origins to sit in your newsroom and write, edit and assign all the stories about people in underrepresented communities. One is not enough.

Solomon Jones recently wrote an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer about being the only Black male news columnist. He described the issue as a problem that exists at most major outlets. "It is whiteness — the structures and social phenomena that produce white privilege — that causes outlets like The Inquirer to publish racially offensive material," Jones wrote. Adding, "I truly believe it is not always intentional. However, when your editors are overwhelmingly white when you are self-congratulatory in your white liberalism, and when you routinely ignore the input of black people, you end up with headlines like "Buildings Matter, Too."

This month, Hearst Magazines named its first Black editor-in-chief. Samira Nasr to helm Harper's BAZAAR. She is the first black editor-in-chief in the history of the 153-year-old Hearst-owned publication. Let that sink in for a moment.

Condé Nast beat Hearst eight years ago when Keija Minor was appointed as the first African American editor-in-chief of a Conde Nast publication in 2012.

But let's not get too excited about Condé Nast. Amid ongoing allegations of racism and unequal treatment at Bon Appétit, editor-in-chief Adam Rapoport resigned. Days later, Anna Wintour, editor-in-chief of Vogue since 1988, artistic director for Condé Nast, and Vogue's publisher, since 2013, released a letter of apology for the lack of diversity at Vogue.

"We have made mistakes too, publishing images or stories that have been hurtful or intolerant. I take full responsibility for those mistakes," Wintour wrote. "It can't be easy to be a Black employee at Vogue, and there are too few of you. I know that it is not enough to say we will do better, but we will — and please know that I value your voices and responses as we move forward."

Jonita Davis is an Indiana-based writer who covers social and cultural topics. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, The Guardian, Vox, Sisters from AARP, and others. She explained that outlets that had previously ghosted her are now clamoring for her stories. She says that as much as she has "FOMO" aka "fear of missing out," she's too pissed to take the assignments.

"If you can't go to your staff now to cover protests and all the issues happening now, then maybe that's a problem," Davis says. "If you have to go running and looking for Black writers, then you don't have a diverse staff. Instead of publications looking to this moment as a call to action to change things, they're patting themselves on the back for hiring Black freelancers."

Just in case you don't know the rates for freelance writers at major outlets – they range from the rare outlet that pays $1 or $2 a word to $100 for thousands of words – which is not enough to survive on.

So, here we are, and here are the facts. Real and lasting change comes from hiring people of color for full-time writing, editing and management positions that pay good salaries with benefits. The truth is, it's great that Black voices are being heard now, but it should have happened long ago.

The question is simple. But, the answer is far more complicated. You need us now. But will you still want us tomorrow?


Rebekah Sager is an award-winning journalist with over a decade of experience covering news, lifestyle, entertainment, and human-interest stories. She's contributed to Playboy, Cosmopolitan, Vice, The Hollywood Reporter, GOOD, and more. She's profiled Billy Porter, Ru Paul, Kathy Griffin, Amber Rose, Danny Trejo and the founder of Kind Bars, and the co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, Patrisse Cullors to name a few. Sager is currently working on a book about her years working in media called "Clickable & Sharable," a Black girl version of "Bridget Jones Diary," meets "A Devil Wears Prada."

black lives matter
More

When reporters team up, better journalism ensues. This refreshing clip shows why.

Something strange happened at the White House on July 18.

OK, I guess I'll need to be a bit more specific, as there's a lot of strange stuff happening over at 1600 Pennsylvania these days: Something strange happened during the daily White House press briefing between two journalists from competing news outlets.

NBC's Hallie Jackson was asking Press Secretary Sarah Sanders about President Donald Trump's inconsistent answers on the topic of Russian election interference.

During his July 16 summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump said that he didn't "see why [Russia] would have" interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. The following day, though, he walked that back, claiming that he meant to say"wouldn't." But on July 18, a reporter asked whether he believed Russia is trying to hack the 2018 election, to which he responded "no," contradicting his intelligence advisors. Later, the White House tried to walk backthat "no."

It was all veryconfusing, so it was reasonable that reporters might have a few questions about it.

"Why should this president have any credibility to Americans in what he says if, in fact, 24 hours later — or in this case, three hours later — the White House comes out and says, 'Just kidding'?" asked Jackson.

[rebelmouse-image 19397475 dam="1" original_size="750x537" caption="Jackson trying to ask Sanders her question. Photo from White House/YouTube." expand=1]Jackson trying to ask Sanders her question. Photo from White House/YouTube.

As press secretaries (in this administration, as well as previous ones) have a tendency to do when backed into a corner on a question they might not have the answer to, Sanders offered a quick response to Jackson and called on another reporter before she got any follow-up questions.

This time, though, it didn't work. A journalist from a competing outlet threw the question back to Jackson. It was remarkable.

"I'm going to keep moving. Jordan, go ahead," Sanders said, calling on Jordan Fabian, a reporter at The Hill.

[rebelmouse-image 19470465 dam="1" original_size="500x281" caption="All GIFs from White House/YouTube." expand=1]All GIFs from White House/YouTube.

Jackson persisted, but once again, Sanders cut her off and threw the question over to Fabian.

And once Fabian got it? He gave it right back to Jackson.

Journalism is an extremely competitive industry — but every once in a while, reporters join together in solidarity to advance the underlying goal of obtaining information.

Earlier in July, people wondered whether the tradition of setting aside professional competition for the sake of ensuring an equal and free press — this is exactly why the White House Correspondents Association came into existence — had fallen by the wayside. During a July 13 joint press conference with British Prime Minister Theresa May, Trump waved off CNN's Jim Acosta, saying, "I don't take questions from CNN. CNN is fake news. John Roberts of Fox. Let's go to a real network. John, let's go." Roberts did, frustrating his colleagues.

A number of media personalities chimed in to note that when the Obama administration expressed irritation with the way Fox covered them, they were there to come to Fox's defense.

In response to that criticism, the Trump administration cancelled a planned appearance by National Security Advisor John Bolton on CNN's "State of the Union," citing the network's "disrespect" for the president. This tactic of withholding access to encourage more favorable coverage can only work if other media outlets let it. On July 15, ABC's Jon Karl pressed Bolton on that exact issue, a big win for journalistic solidarity — something that clearly carried over to the July 18 press briefing.

The professional courtesy exhibited between Jackson and Fabian should be the norm.

All politicians and all administrations lie. The Trump administration, however, is in a league of its own. Trump has told more than 2,000 individual public lies since becoming president, according to a Toronto Star report. Trump then acts as though he's being disrespected when a journalist does their job and calls him on it.

For the sake of the truth, here's hoping that journalists continue to stick up for one another.

Watch the full exchange below (starting at about 16:33).

Wear your values with products from PSA Supply Co., an independent site owned by our parent company, GOOD Worldwide Inc. GOOD makes money when you buy these products, and 10% of profits go to The Center for Community Change Action. Use discount code UPWORTHY to get 15% off your first order!
From Your Site Articles
Trending Stories