Old Brer Dan, He Don't Know Nuthn'?

The Wall Street Journal's Market section ($), page B 1, carries a story on the CBS fiasco that contains this excerpt from the Report (page 14) that I missed:

The report offers particular insight into the process of broadcast news. For example, although Mr. Rather was the on-air personality presenting the fateful memos, investigators found he did "not appear to have participated in any of the vetting sessions or to have even seen the segment before it was aired." The panel also said Mr. Rather was stretched particularly thin as he was then finishing reporting on the Republican convention and Hurricane Frances.

For years, critics of television news have charged that anchors are mere news readers, and that their journalistic expertise is far less important to their success than their looks. Underlings, it was always said, did the real work, while high-paid pretty boys raked in the cash.

The blow-dried set always retorted that they, not their staffs, did the heavy lifting, that they were trained professionals who possessed the skills and knowledge sufficient to oversee the gathering and presentation of the stories they read aloud off the teleprompter.

But now we're told that Dan Rather hadn't even seen the damning segment of "60 Minutes Wednesday" before it aired? Of course, we're also told that poor Dan was stretched thin by his coverage of the GOP convention and Hurricane Frances. Is that supposed to be an excuse?

Surely the Panel, CBS, Dan Rather, and the network news model in general are all trying to have it both ways here. When they're on track and on target, it's because they're brilliant, experienced, and embody the highest aspirations of journalists worldwide. That's why they're paid so much -- they're the face of the network, and we can trust them to serve the news like a good martini: straight up.

But once "mistakes are made," no one's at fault -- at least no one you've heard of prior to this sorry episode. We're supposed to believe that Dan Rather delivered a radioactive news story at a crucial point before the election, when John Kerry was being pummeled by the Swift Boat Vets and Bush was bouncing high from the convention, without even knowing what the story contained? And that he then made a fool of himself, and his network, by sticking to the story for days after the rest of the civilized world concluded that the documents were fakes and the story a shameful sham?

This is the stuff of deluded men and women, at CBS News, the Panel, and MSM at large, whose lives are so insular that they cannot bring themselves to draw obvious conclusions from the fruits of their own research. We're seeing the accelerated collapse of network news and, along with it, the further discrediting of MSM as it has traditionally operated.

It is significant and, from the perspective of only one or two years ago, remarkable, that John Hinderaker was the featured guest on both Fox News and CBS last night. Think of it: a lawyer in Minneapolis with no name recognition only a short time ago is sought out for his expertise -- and integrity -- on the unraveling of the means by which, until a few years ago, most Americans got their news. Remarkable, indeed, and long overdue.

Update: Roger Simon thinks this isn't just remarkable, but deadly. He quotes today's New York Times (via, who else, John Hinderaker):

[A] production staff member said the staff at CBS did not feel powerful enough to bring about change. "We have no juice," the staff member said. "We're a dying business, and this didn't help us. Some people feel like CBS News could be out of business in five years."

Then Simon writes: I agree. In fact, unlike Hindrocket, I think this is a highly likely outcome. CBS News is a vestige of the old days when the networks ruled the television airwaves. The major networks themselves are outdated constructs which mix entertainment and news. Who is interested in that anymore when both are becoming increasingly "on demand" commodities whether via TiVo, all-news networks or shortly and inevitably the Web? The traditional model of the network is on its way out. That, notwithstanding all the pea-brained bias of Ms. Mapes and the pompous buffoonery of Dan Rather, may ultimately be the real story here.