Notes from the Dan Rather Keynote Conversation

[these are raw notes and not direct quotes]

An inspiring session with Dan Rather, interviewed by Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake. Rather came out to a standing ovation and to the chorus of “What’s the Frequency, Kenneth?” He settled in, thanked the audience for a warm Texas welcome, turned to his interviewer, and said, “Let’s go to work, Jane”.

Q: Talk about what happened when President Nixon dismissed you, but you refused to be dismissed.

A: It does seem a long time ago. Here in the spirit that we have so many problems in the world … in the forefront of my mind, the problems are the problems. The way the call attention to it is important, but secondary.”

About Nixon: May seem like this happened back in the time of Caesar. I was really proud to be at the White House. My role is to be an honest broker of information and a surrogate for people who were out working that day and couldn’t keep up with the news. Didn’t see myself as challenging Nixon. What I tried to do was pose questions that would say, “You’re saying one thing, the evidence is saying it’s not true. In the face of that, what say you?”

He’d try to throw you off balance, or duck or dodge the question. But the facts were that the President of the United States was one of the leaders of a widespread criminal conspiracy. It still catches a bit in my throat to say that.

Q: In the climate of modern journalism, can someone do that now?

A: American journalism has lost its guts. I include myself. There are notable exceptions. Journalists have adopted the go along to get along approach. The whole business of access journalism. Trade “go along to get along” for access. The danger is real and present of being accused of being unpatriotic or not supporting the troops. All of these are factors in the humiliation of journalism.

Patriotic journalists will be on their feet asking the questions and following up on the questions, thinking that their role is to stand up to power, speak truth to power. It’s getting to be a rarity.

Q: Because you’re dealing with a relatively small coterie of people, the small group of Washington correspondents.

A: In many important ways, what we need in journalism is a spine transplant. The nexus between powerful journalists and people in power has become far too close. It was transparent in some aspects of the Libby trial. You get a little too cozy to your sources. You take care of me, I”ll take care of you. You can get so close to the source, that you become part of the problem. Sources may use journalists, but journalists use the sources, too.

Q: Right now, do you think there’s a crisis in investigative journalism, as a check on power?

A: Journalists need to go down a long list of questions: Do we still believe? Do we still believe what we’re independent? Do we still believe that it’s important to ask the tough question? Do we still believe it’s important that if the president, mayor, or governor doesn’t answer the first question, that we set aside our question and follow up? Do we still believe that documents belong to the people and not to the people in power? The president is not the descendant of the Sun God, this person is elected. And they are supposed to report to us.

Or have we not taken the position that we are conveyor belts? That we take down what someone says and turn it out.

I’ve never liked the term investigative reporter, because to me that’s a redundancy. That said, investigative reporting today has become an endangered species.

The corporations that own the networks have gotten larger, and more distant from the newsroom. They have business they need in Washington and legislation they need in DC and in state capitals.

There is now less competition, not more.

Attack dogs go for the throat. Lap dogs like to relax and be petted. But a good watchdog barks at everything that’s suspicious. That’s the American ideal for journalism.

Q: With less competition, savvy PR folks can game the system. Blogs are from the outside looking in. How has the democratization of news affected journalism?

A: The Internet is a tremendous tool for news, information, education, illumination. I think the Internet now is at the Beatles stage. Elvis was the early stages, and the Beatles moved it forward. We’re now at the Beatles stage.

Many people I meet think of the Internet only as blogs. I have no idea where it’s going. But if you think it’ll be at a certain stage in 15 years, it’ll probably be more like 3-5 years.

The blogosphere is so large, there’s a tendency to over-generalize about it.

I do think there’s a problem with anonymity. You could undercut a business competitor for example, and there’s no accountability. But these are problems to overcome. Over time, the marketplace will balance this.

Q: How can new media step into the vacuum and challenge this administration, like you challenged Nixon?

A: One way is to stay ornery and hold people accountable. Holding a press corps accountable for questions that are not being asked, or truths that are not being told. So many raindrops will eventually make a dent in a rock.

The form so often is “The governor says this.” You say to yourself, “What a blob of steaming horse hockey” Instead your say this is what the governor says, this is what his critics say. Next item.

When was the last time a major media person said: The governor says “thus and such”, but that’s a lie. That’s preferable to the sideways dance I described earlier.

There used to be a clear understanding of the terms “off the record”, “background” and “deep background”. Everyone agreed to these rules of the road in their interactions with the press. It was incumbent on the source to determine “on what basis are we talking?”

It’s not for the journalist to ask. They always start from the stance that everything is on the record and printable and attributable.

After “on the record”, the next phase is “background”, which means you can use this information, but you can’t attribute it to me. “Deep background” means you can use this information, but you can’t attribute it to “a city official” or to any way that I can be identified, any more than someone in LA or Seattle.

And “off the record” means it didn’t happen. This conversation never happened and you can cut out my tongue and send me to jail.

So what are the new rules of the road? Do we still believe that the most important thing in our democracy is an informed citizenry?

Q: How has the Fairness Doctrine affected today’s journalists?

A: A lot of the problems we have today have been exacerbated or created by that. We have to determine what is the right role of a journalist in this society? The American Way is: “Give me the facts and let me make up my mind.”

Closing thoughts: Sometimes we feel that something that happens 3000 miles away doesn’t affect us. TV has the tendency to make things seem smaller.

We need to stop thinking of ourselves as the center of everything. We are world leaders, and we can lead, but we are not the center of the universe. What happens on the streets of Baghdad or Kabul or Darfur has an effect on Main Street.