Stardate 20020517.1832

(On Screen): Our government is based on the principles of checks and balances. There are three coequal branches, whose powers intersect and complement each other. No single branch is paramount; none is capable of ignoring any of the others. Each branch has substantial limits placed on its power. And with a three-way balance, any single branch which tries to dominate will find itself opposed by both of the others.

Further, each is subject to the ultimate check of accountability to the voters. The President and members of the House and Senate must periodically submit themselves to election, where the voters can remove them for any reason or none at all. Federal judges serve for life, but if they become incompetent or corrupt or brutal they can be removed by the Congress through impeachment. And so it is that we avoid tyranny, power to rule without accountability.

The Press fancies itself a part of the governmental system of our nation, the fourth estate. They envision themselves as the eyes and ears of the voters, with the job of watching our government to look for abuse of power; and when it is found, they report to the people so that the voters can use their ultimate veto (in the ballot box) to remove the abusers. It is a valuable and necessary service, but without checks it, too, can become tyrannical. At its best the press can keep the government in check, but at its worst it can paralyze the government through manufactured, crises and entirely prevent the government from functioning at all.

If our elected representatives spend all their time dealing with false accusations or scandalous molehills of mountainous size, then it prevents them from doing what they are supposed to do, and it could even imperil our nation.

The Press served our nation well in the Watergate crisis. The President of the United States was totally out of control, and the only thing which could rein him in was negative publicity. Unfortunately, Watergate also made the journalists involved into celebrities, with wealth and prestige and power, and imbued an entire generation of reporters with the urge to make names for themselves the same way. Instead of trying to make sure the government operated well, they came to believe that it was their duty to impede it at all costs. If there was no scandal, then they would find one. If it wasn't big, then they would pretend it was big. And if no scandal could be found, they would pretend that this indicated a problem – obviously someone must be covering up. The lack of news was itself news. Everyone in government has become guilty at all times. The press has become a shrill voice.

Scandals have been found. None were of Watergate proportions, but some were medium-sized (Iran-Contra). However, some have been ridiculous, petty in the extreme. The press has a tendency to pile on, because nobody wins a Pulitzer Prize for writing an article that begins, "Nothing bad happened today in Washington; everything is going smoothly."

If the press truly had no checks on it, then it could also be a source of tyranny. Fortunately, just as does the Congress and the President, the press must respond to the people of the nation. The press needs money, and it can only come from viewers and readers. The people can vote with their television remote controls and their decisions about what magazines and newspapers to buy and read. A publication or television network which is viewed by enough of the public as being excessively vicious and petty will eventually suffer backlash in the form of reduced ratings and falling revenues.

Dan Rather knows this, and he doesn't like it. He thinks that there should be no checks on the press at all. Certainly there should be none imposed on the press by the government, for that would then give the government the ability to suppress press coverage of legitimate stories which the voters truly do need to know. But the press cannot escape the ultimate censure of low ratings, and thus the press is ultimately forced to serve the people.

Rather feels this and hates it. He thinks it is pathology:

"It is an obscene comparison - you know I am not sure I like it - but you know there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck," he said. "Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions."

Rather did not exempt himself from the criticism, and said the problem was self-censorship. "It starts with a feeling of patriotism within oneself. It carries through with a certain knowledge that the country as a whole - and for all the right reasons - felt and continues to feel this surge of patriotism within themselves. And one finds oneself saying: 'I know the right question, but you know what? This is not exactly the right time to ask it.'"

It is not merely an obscene comparison; it is unwarranted hyperbole. The worst that could happen to such a reporter asking such a question at the wrong time would be to be publicly denounced by other reporters and the public, and perhaps even to lose his job. That's a far cry from being doused in gasoline and burned to death.

The White House was to blame for its failure to provide adequate information about the war, Rather said. "There has never been an American war, small or large, in which access has been so limited as this one.

"Limiting access, limiting information to cover the backsides of those who are in charge of the war, is extremely dangerous and cannot and should not be accepted. And I am sorry to say that, up to and including the moment of this interview, that overwhelmingly it has been accepted by the American people. And the current administration revels in that, they relish that, and they take refuge in that."

He said his view of the patriotism differed from that of the administration. "It's unpatriotic not to stand up, look them in the eye, and ask the questions they don't want to hear - they being those who have the responsibility, the ultimate responsibility - of sending our sons and daughters, our husbands, wives, our blood, to face death."

Rather's knowledge of the history of press coverage of war appears to be rather myopic. For example, reporters covering WWII from the front always required permission before traveling anywhere in the combat zone, and all their reports had to be submitted to government censors before being transmitted home. There have been wars where no important press coverage was permitted at all.

Yes, it is wrong for the government to cover up its incompetence and mistakes. The problem is that when we're in a war, imperfect leaders are better than no leadership at all. Every man makes mistakes, and sufficient investigation can discredit anyone. If Rather himself were subjected to the kind of scrutiny he wishes to apply at all times to our leaders, he'd have been out on his ear long since. I have no idea what skeleton he has in his closet, but everyone has at least one which can be made to look bad if someone is trying to destroy you.

So it is important for the press to decide, when it finds a scandalous story, whether the nation would be better served by publicizing it or suppressing it. Scandals come in many sizes, and some truly don't matter. And that, in fact, is exactly what Rather found himself doing: asking whether the question was really appropriate, whether it was really an answer anyone needed to know at that time.

That is not pathology. It is responsibility. It is a recognition that the power of the press, wielded injudiciously, can be just as destructive as a President gone bad, or a Senator who has sold his soul to contributors. When the Press concerns itself only with coming up with headlines, and pays no attention to the damage they do, and sanctimoniously rationalize it all as "the public's right to know" then they do us a grave disservice.

But the people of this nation won't be fooled, and a reporter like that will eventually suffer the fate of all demagogues in a rational society: to be ignored.

Censure is not censorship. It is, rather, the necessary check on the press which keeps our system balanced.