• William Buckley
• Robert Novak
• Kate O'Beirne
• Nicholas Von Hoffman
• Tucker Carlson
• Pat Buchanan
• George Will
• Lou Dobbs
• Matt Drudge
• Robert Barkley
• Robert Kagan
• Fred Barnes
• William Kristol
• John Podhoretz
• David Brooks
• William Safire
• Bernard Goldberg
• Ann Coulter
• Andrew Sullivan
• Christopher Hitchens
• PJ O'Rourke
• Christopher Caldwell
• Elliot Abrams
• Charles Krauthammer
• William Bennett
• Rush Limbaugh
• Roger Ailes
If you said, "CBS considered them to sit in judgment of Dan Rather's story on Bush's special treatment by Texas Air National Guard", then you get a cookie! In the end, CBS went with former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, who owed that title--the highest job he ever held--to George W. Bush's dad. So, CBS went with cronyism over wignut hackery. It was probably a good call, since as it turned out, many people actually believed that its "independent review" of Rather's report was legit. If they'd let Ann Coulter run it, probably not so much.
But eventually, Rather had had enough, after it became clear that CBS had shafted him. And so, in September 2007, Rather decided to sue. Last November, there was a rather interersting development, as the NY Observer reported:
In the past, Mr. Rather has criticized CBS's choice of panel members, alleging that Mr. Thornburgh's association with the Bush family (President George H. W. Bush appointed Mr. Thornburgh to his position as U.S. attorney general) undermined the panel's objectivity.
"Discovery to date reveals far more," Mr. Rather's legal team wrote this week. "Only conservative lawyers were considered for the Panel; their names were vetted by Viacom's Washington lobbyists (as well as with unnamed 'GOP folks')."
In a response to the judge dated Nov. 3, here's how CBS lawyers countered:
[A]s is clear from the deposition testimony, because of the perception that CBS News and Dan Rather had a liberal bias, CBS purposefully chose a Republican lawyer, not for any nefarious purpose, but to open itself up to its harshest conservative critics and to ensure that the Panel's findings would be found credible.
Apparently, CBS executives took their job of finding the harshest conservative critics very seriously.
In Exhitit J of the current filing, Mr. Rather's legal team include a list (turned up in discovery) which CBS executives apparently compiled in the fall of 2004, prior to settling on Mr. Thornburgh and Mr. Boccardi.
And that's where the list of rightwing hacks came from. Exhibit J.
In a logical turn of events, Barack Obama's recent appearance on Fox News, which while a good interview, was not an attempt to "take Fox on" as promised by an Obama surrogate on Greg Sargent's blog, has birthed much criticism. Many, including Chris and Kos, had hoped that Obama would in fact attack the network when asked inevitably irrelevant questions about the "scandals" around his campaign. Instead, it amounted to ironically Clintonian Triangulation, on issues such as abortion, taxes, regulation, and John Roberts. While he didn't "throw Kos under the bus" as claimed by many, he did use him as a point of distancing himself from "the Left." In a strange, though honestly predictable turn of events, many Obama supporters are refusing to criticize the move, and many are even defending it as a means by which to court more voters, with claims such as
regardless of whether WE think the questions were vacuous or stupid, as Wallace pointed out, there ARE a lot of voters to whom these things do matter, and this allows Obama to address them more directly than just hoping they will get a snippet of his stump speeches.
This comment is actually from a diary on Kos, with the intent of criticizing Kos for his criticism of Obama.
What I think is important to note, throughout this entire fiasco, is that this was not just a mistake in its treatment of us, the activists, but also a missed opportunity to attack the current structure of the media. Now, I've said on previous occasions that I'm not sure that it would have helped him in the short term to attack Fox on the network, as it would have simply solidified his already attained base, and pissed off conservative viewers of the network (I personally think he should not have gone on in the first place), but in my research of past events, it has become clear to me that going on and "taking Fox on" could actually have helped the breaking of the current creation of false media narratives, especially by the uberpower, Fox News. This is especially evident by viewing the Dan Rather interview of George H.W. Bush in January 1988, fairly early in the campaign for President. Bush's reaction, and the firestorm after the fact, lead to one of the most important turning points in American Media History in recent times. Follow me below the fold for the details.
We are clear-eyed about Fox''s role in the dissemination and amplification of Republican talking points this election. They have been the tip of the spear when it comes to repeatedly broadcasting some of the most specious of rumors about Obama. He is going on their Sunday show to take Fox on, not because we have any illusion about their motives or politics in this election.
If Obama intends to "take Fox on," this should be interesting. After all, there are ways to successfully do just that, as Bill Clinton demonstrated in September of 2006:
That was a great interview, as Bill Clinton directly took on both Fox and the "Pathway to 9/11" miniseries, both of which are no more than conservative propaganda. It was also an important turning point in the 2006 midterm elections, as it put Fox and ABC on the defensive right at a moment when Republicans had been gaining ground. One of the things that I am surprised no one ever pieced together is how the much maligned blogger meeting with Bill Clinton took place immediately after the Pathway to 9/11 fight, and just before the above interview with Fox. The connection should have been a lot more obvious to people than it was.
There is another important historical analogue to consider when thinking about the upcoming Obama appearance on Fox. Back during the 1988 presidential campaign, Bush Sr. famously "took on" Dan Rather during an interview on CBS. Rather was long a media figure that conservatives despised, not unlike the way progressives despise Fox News. Further, Obama, like the 1988 version of Bush Sr., faces an image problem where both were viewed as not being "tough" enough to be President. By taking Rather on, Bush Sr. put CBS on the defensive, and improved his own image (especially among the conservative activist base). If Obama does in fact "take Fox on," instead of legitimizing Fox, he can not only put the media on the defensive for repeating smears against him, but he can also present himself as a tougher customer and help himself with the progressive activist base.
If Obama handles this correctly, it is possible he could damage Fox, and improve his own image. It is a tricky path to follow, but given the above statement from the Obama campaign, I'm willing to withhold judgment until the interview takes place.
STATE BLOGS
