Personal Perspective: Dan Rather Steps Down from the “CBS Evening News”

By Gordon Joseloff

Editor/Publisher
WestportNow.com

Today is an historic day at CBS News. Dan Rather steps down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” after 24 years. And he does so amid much controversy.

I worked with Dan for a number of years at CBS News and, while I have never written about him publicly before, this is as good time as any to add a personal perspective to the event.
Flashback: Gordon Joseloff and Dan Rather in Berlin in 1986. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Contributed photo

I got to know Dan in the mid-70s, first as a radio writer at CBS News in New York, and then as a television writer there. Later, I worked with him—and for him—as a correspondent, producer and bureau chief in Moscow and Tokyo.

I was one of his regular writers when he was White House correspondent and traveled to New York on Saturdays to do the weekend “Evening News.”

I also wrote for him on several election nights when he was a correspondent assigned to cover a region of the country, usually the Mid-West. (Walter Cronkite, whom I also wrote for during those years, anchored the election night coverage.)

Not only did I research and write some of Dan’s election copy, but, at his request, I also contributed a few “Ratherisms” as they became known—his unique Texas way of describing events.

On occasion, I’d even write speeches or the outline of speeches—for him when he was too busy to do them himself. (He paid me personally when I did that.)

Working with Dan was always a thrill and pleasure. He was at all times most appreciative of the work I and others did for him. I found him attentive, inquisitive and oh so ever courteous.

Some have said that his southern gentleman demeanor—the “thank you’s” and “pleases”—seemed affected. It wasn’t. It was genuine. That was his upbringing. That was him.

Whether he was dealing with the lowliest desk assistant, the makeup lady, the cameramen, or the president of the company, it didn’t matter. He was warm and genuine, effusive in his praise, and gentle when he found the need to be critical.

I recall many Saturday afternoons when he would offer to go down to the CBS cafeteria for coffee. He would duly take orders from everyone and then come back, tray in hand, a short time later and distribute the cups with a smile and chitchat.

He never took payment and seemed genuinely insulted by an offer to pay.

Even in those years, because he was so busy with so many things, Dan relied heavily on the advice, counsel, and expertise of those who worked for him and whom he trusted and respected.

(If he didn’t trust and respect you and your judgment, you didn’t stay around for long.)

I have no insider knowledge of what some are calling “Memogate” and have not been in touch with anyone who does. But I believe and know fully well how Dan would have trusted and relied on those around him to make the hard journalistic decisions involved.

I was always sympathetic to some of the controversies Dan got involved in. Controversy seemed to follow him like a newborn calf follows its mother.

I recall in 1988, for example, one day Dan was shooting a standup (a reporter doing a piece on camera) in Moscow’s Red Square. An American tourist came over to us and began to harass Dan and the crew. I was on the perimeter of the CBS crew and tried to quiet him down.

The American may have had too much vodka or whatever, but he became not only loud but boisterous. He began pushing and shoving, trying to get to Dan. I restrained him, taking a few body blows in the process.

Some Soviet policemen and KGB agents watching us quickly intervened and hustled the man away.

Later, Dan told me repeatedly how appreciative he was of my efforts, knowing full well the last thing he needed was a news story saying he had gotten into a fistfight in Moscow’s Red Square.

It was genuine and typical and one of many occasions on which Dan displayed his appreciation to me and others over the years.

So as America says farewell to Dan Rather as an anchor tonight, I’ll do so, too—with admiration and gratitude. But, in all honesty, not without some regret.

No matter how good a journalist Dan was—as well as a good friend in the end, it is unfortunate that he should leave with his reputation tarnished, not only by the events that precipitated his fall, but also for whatever role he played in the decline of what indisputably was the greatest broadcast news organization this country has ever seen.