Dan Rather Sues CBS, Viacom over RatherGate
[Guest post by DRJ]
What follows RatherGate like the moon follows the sun? DanDamages:
“Former CBS news anchor Dan Rather filed a $70 million lawsuit Wednesday against the network, former corporate parent Viacom Inc., and three of his former bosses.
Rather’s complaint stems from “CBS’ intentional mishandling” of the aftermath of a discredited story about President George W. Bush’s time in the Texas Air National Guard.
The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, also names CBS President and CEO Leslie Moonves, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone, and Andrew Heyward, former president of CBS News. Rather is seeking $20 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages.“
Let me get this straight: Dan Rather wants to offer evidence that his story on President Bush’s military record was “intentionally mishandled” by his employers and supervisors? I say: Bring on the testimony about intent and tell us, “What was everyone thinking?” This should be fun.
More details and links about the lawsuit at Rathergate.com.
— DRJ
Okay… disregard my comment on the Tennie Pierce post. I didn’t see this thread.
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 9/19/2007 @ 12:58 pmWe cross-posted Levi. You know what they say: Great minds think alike.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:00 pmI just thought it was funny.
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:03 pmWhere they come up with these numbers is beyond me…
I credit the Lotto. Seriously. Since the lotto started, we’ve become desensitized to big numbers and it takes increasingly bigger numbers to get our attention.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:06 pmHmm.
I blame rich people with big, expensive houses.
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:21 pmCould it be that CBS/Viacom will settle instead of letting their own involvement (if any)be aired in court. And maybe Dan and his crew know/think this. You legal types can answer this.
Tregg Wright (e14253) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:25 pmHe can’t regain his credibility in a courtroom. Nor with a settlement offer for an undisclosed sum, which is where this seems headed.
steve (eb120d) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:30 pmBush or Rather, steve?
alphie (99bc18) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:32 pmLike clockwork, alphie drops by to moon everyone.
I would almost pay to see Rather and Mapes’ depositions.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:40 pmIt can’t help the pro-war crowd to have people reminded of Bush’s Vietnam-era behavior, JD.
Nor can it help to attack CBS when that perky Katie Couric is saying such nice things about our perpetual war.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:56 pmDoes this mean we might find out who the elusive Lucy Ramirez is?
Gabriel (6d7447) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:57 pmThis does not necessarily show Rather to be an idiot, but is instead possibly rational and further evidence of the dysfunctionality of the American legal system.
It’s a lottery, the ticket price is a few hundred grand in legal fees, often less, sometimes zero if you can find a contingency lawyer. There’s a decent chance that some lunatic judge – jury combination will give him the money.
Why wouldn’t Rather play?
I’m a Canadian businesman. There is no chance I will ever do business in the US or with Americans in any fashion that might give an American court jurisdiction. America is a great country full of great people but your civil law system….
BlacquesJacquesShellacques (93278f) — 9/19/2007 @ 2:06 pmBSJ:
The American legal system is a joke but thats the way lawyers designed it to be. The only thing more ridiculous is the way the MSM operates and its spokesmen like Rather demonstrate both its intelligence and integrity.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 9/19/2007 @ 2:16 pmSo, the nature of his suit is that SeeBS did not appropriately handle the fallout when it was discovered that Rather and Mapes were pushing a forgery on the public, and when called on it, continued to lie and defend their “reporting”?
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 3:04 pmDon’t mind Alphie, he is auditioning for the OJ jury.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 9/19/2007 @ 3:06 pmBlacquesJacquesShellacques,
This does not necessarily show Rather to be an idiot, but is instead possibly rational and further evidence of the dysfunctionality of the American legal system.
I half-disagree: the two are not mutually exclusive and both seem not only possible, but likely.
Agreed about doing biz in the US. Note how, already, so many junior resource co’s are incorporating and listing in Canada even when they are working primarily in the US, and even when they are started and run primarily by Americans themselves. And other industries and people think the same. I too am happy to deal with Americans, but not with their legal system if I can help it.
All,
I can’t wait for the trial, when CBS defends itelf by showing a pattern to Rather’s behavior over the years, and he theirs, each of them privy to every secret they ever had together. Please don’t settle, please don’t settle, please don’t settle….
ras (adf382) — 9/19/2007 @ 3:09 pmThe only thing I can glean from this is that Dan Rather is as dumb as Alphie. No other explanation for why he thinks he can sue CBS for the result of his own incompetence.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/19/2007 @ 3:30 pmRobin,
I would guess he’s
a) planting an idea in the public’s mind that nothing was ever Dan Rather’s fault (i.e. ego)
and
b) he is an old man, retiring, but CBS has a future, so he will try to extort a few extra bucks on his way out the door (i.e. greed)
And he probably is as dumb as alphie, but hey, talk about moving the goalposts!
ras (adf382) — 9/19/2007 @ 3:55 pmDRJ, you have a mean streak of sarcasm in you.
If this goes to trial, will we have the opportunity to find out who caused the dead-air interview? It had to be nefarious critters out to stab Dan in the back, right?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 9/19/2007 @ 5:01 pmI would literally pay to sit in on the depositions of Rather and Mapes.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 5:27 pmI could see a lawsuit over breech of contract if they dealt with him contrary to his contract, but to get into the specifics over how the situation was “intentionally mishandled”?!?!
In one way I don’t mind if people who are full of themselves play the fool when at their prime, but this has shades of declining mentation and advisers who may not be serving his best interests.
I’m wondering if trial testimony might resemble this:
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/19/2007 @ 5:43 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9KlQPX1qiE&mode=related&search=
This may be the dumbest lawsuit ever filed.
So far as I can tell, CBS had the right to remove Rather as anchor anytime it wanted. It says so right in the factual allegations.
wls (bafbcb) — 9/19/2007 @ 6:54 pmWe can add this one as yet another example of where some type of Loser Pays type of holding should be found.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 7:13 pmThis is going to be great. Imagine CBS grilling Rather about his stupidity. Fonts that never existed in the ’70’s. Anyone who used a typewriter knows this. Ooops. Rather didn’t write his own material.
Alta Bob (2cf0f7) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:01 pmI think this has to do with Rather’s 60 Minutes gig, wls, not the “rathergate” thingy.
Looks like another “joke” post from DRJ.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:07 pmAlphie,
I haven’t read the pleadings but the reports indicate this is about Rathergate. Do you have a link that indicates otherwise?
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:09 pmAnother joke comment from Alphie since he didn’t bother to read the linked stories reporting on the Rather suit. There he would have learned that the NYT story reports that the suit does involve allegations regarding CBS’ handling of Rather’s forged memo story.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:48 pmI’ve now read the complaint, and elsewhere have gone on record with my considered opinion that it’s a “a nicely buffed and polished piece of garbage.” (I’m not as inclined as CBS management to equivocate, which is what got them into this particular problem.)
Beldar (2a3e92) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:54 pmDan Rather continues to claim the obviously forged memos have not been proven to be fake. That man gets crazier every day. What’s funny is I bet he can still be tricked into spouting his “typewriters similar to MS Word existed in 1973!” lunacy.
The 75-year-old Rather, whose final months were clouded by controversy over the report, says the complaint stems from “CBS’ intentional mishandling” of the aftermath of the story.
Wesson (fd354d) — 9/19/2007 @ 9:22 pmBut I did read the complaint, Robin.
I thought the best part was the charge that Gen. Richard Myers personally begged Dan Rather to cover up the Abu Ghraib fiasco.
This suit looks like a nightmare for the perpetual war crowd.
I guess I agree with DRJ, this should be fun.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/19/2007 @ 9:32 pmThis is a smart move by Rather.
CBS will be so embarrassed by the whole affair that it won’t want this case to go to trial (what with discovery and all). Ergo, they will take it on all all-expenses-paid trip to out-of-court Settlement City (what happens in Settlement City, stays in Settlement City).
Plus, CBS and Dan Rather both want to “admit” that the forged documents are real.
The murkiness surrounding a confidential settlement will give more cover to the F.U.D. (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) crowd who want to make Rathergate as confusing as possible (because the simple, straightforward explanation makes them look like douche bags).
I’ll bet Rather walks away with a couple cool million, in exchange for a promise (as part of the settlement, natch) to STFU about the whole thing and not harm CBS’s rep any further.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 9/19/2007 @ 11:08 pmApparently the only cure for Bush Derangement Syndrome is for the patients to rip each other’s throats out.
Cool.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 9/19/2007 @ 11:35 pmThat’s assuming “MSM” outlets like CBS and the New York Times weren’t two of the biggest cheerleaders for the perpetual war crowd, Glen.
I think the last election and the next will show it’s the purity porn addicts who assembled the circular firing squad.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/19/2007 @ 11:55 pmI’m wondering if the Blather documents are proven to be fakes in court, and if Blather is proven to have malice towards the President as a forethought to his “story”, if the President would have sufficient grounds to sue Blather for Defamation?
PCD (b47ba5) — 9/20/2007 @ 3:53 amIt seems this was missfiled under “law”. It should be under buffoons.
Hazy (d671ab) — 9/20/2007 @ 4:25 amMy Sweet Lord, that complaint is funny. Thanks for the link in #28, Beldar.
He still maintains “the documents” are real. What a maroon!
I wonder what Mary Mapes thinks of all this.
Ranten N. Raven (e5e6e1) — 9/20/2007 @ 8:41 amBeldar does explain several reasons why this complaint is a bad joke unlikely to survive very long into litigation.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/20/2007 @ 8:52 amWhat does Rather stand to lose contending the docs are real? Nothing. Nothing can be proved either way, so at worst he’s guilty of careless disregard, not fronting a known fraud.
His saying, “They made me do it, they just put the words in front of me” is neither plausible nor redeeming. But if the network applied a different standard to this misdemeanor to cover their own laxity, they may have some liability.
steve (d8c189) — 9/20/2007 @ 9:05 amArrrgh. you need to superscript the “th” in Rathergate.
Arthur (693229) — 9/20/2007 @ 9:35 amSteve,
If it goes to trial, isn’t it part of the jury’s duty to find on “facts” such as whether the memos were real or forged? I think this whole thing is aimed at extorting a few mil from CBS. As others have said, the last thing that either Rather or CBS want is a jury weighting in on those memos.
There’s a small chance the jury might say they’re real, but I would think any sensible person would decide the balance on that risk/reward equation came down strongly on the side against reward.
If it goes to a jury it’s lose-lose. If it doesn’t it might be a win for Rather. I’m strongly praying for that lose-lose.
Dan S (c77713) — 9/20/2007 @ 9:38 amDan S – Actually the last thing that they want is some SeeBC Executive, Rather, and Mapes sitting for a deposition.
JD (f6a000) — 9/20/2007 @ 9:49 amDan S,
You’re right, “extorting a few mill from CBS” is the perception. The impulse to blame someone else for one’s own failures deserves no reward. But Rather can be a schmuck and still win at trial since the docs can’t be proven as forgeries or authenticated and CBS failed to take steps to make sure this kind of story was correct before putting it on the air with his face on it.
Rather’s on Larry King tonight. I think CBS will cave.
steve (d8c189) — 9/20/2007 @ 10:04 amConclusive evidence of forgery has been supplied already, but more could come. The people who gave these documents to CBS can be subpoenaed and dragged out into the spotlight.
I think CBS made a serious mistake when they did not make criminal fraud complaints against the forger(s). They wanted to make everything go away fast, but “foul deeds will rise, though all the earth o’erwhelm them …”
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 9/20/2007 @ 11:07 amI guess that Mr Rather simply needs the money. After all, he just trashed his own reputation — again — by admitting that he’s a liar.
In his filing, he argued that he did not believe in the apology, but was forced to deliver it. That means he either lied in his filing (he did take the apology seriously) or he lied when he delivered the apology.
Mr Rather is worth many millions of dollars. If he didn’t think it was proper for him to apologize, he could have told CBS that no, he wasn’t going to do it; if they fired him for it, well, he’s wealthy and could stand it, and he’d have been a hero to the loony left. Instead, he proved that he’s not only a liar, but he said in his filing that he has no balls.
He must really need the money!
Dana (3e4784) — 9/20/2007 @ 11:15 amDan Rather took CBS from first place to third — and figured that he won the bronze medal.
Dana (3e4784) — 9/20/2007 @ 11:16 amRather’s conceit and fragile personality is legendary. I have no doubt that he believes that he Himself was “the brand” that CBS had a duty to protect and not the other way around.
nk (474afa) — 9/20/2007 @ 11:52 amSteve, in a civil suit the standard is “preponderance of evidence” not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The experts who shredded the story right after it came out can establish preponderance of evidence multiple times over, on multiple grounds.
Yes, the documents can be proven, to the satisfaction of a jury, to be forgeries. CBS doesn’t even have to hire experts for this, they can subpoena them as witnesses.
LarryD (feb78b) — 9/20/2007 @ 11:59 amSteve, in a civil suit the standard is “preponderance of evidence” not “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
CBS seems unlikely to assert the docs were forgeries:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/11/politics/main642787.shtml
I’ve never heard of a talent contract that says the boss can’t bench someone with pay, by the way.
steve (6830b3) — 9/20/2007 @ 1:36 pm“It can’t help the pro-war crowd to have people reminded of Bush’s Vietnam-era behavior, JD.
Nor can it help to attack CBS when that perky Katie Couric is saying such nice things about our perpetual war.”
Yeah good point. Reminding everyone that CBS tried to fix a Presidential election with forged documents should be just devastating.
Christ. You were a dumbshit two years ago, and you just get worse.
buzz (e09efa) — 9/20/2007 @ 8:29 pm