Letters to the Editor
-
Is it a coincidence that all of the Editor's Choices favor Mr. Rather's position
Is this one-sided assembly of Editor's Choice selections a coincidence, or might it reflect a predisposition possibly based on an underlying aversion to the President, to favor conspiracy theories, and to support conclusions that are contradicted by the available evidence.
My speculation is that there was some hanky-panky by Mr. Bush in relation to his service in the Air National Guard. But that is not supported by the spurious documentation presented by Mr. Rather. Was he duped? Possibly. But he seems to have been such an avid advocate of opposition to Mr. Bush and motivated by such a desire to secure his electoral defeat, that it would seem that he was complicit in the deception by suppression of his own critical faculties. He seems to have been using the business protocol of "management by objectives" having applied the same process to journalism.
The Rather gambit failed. He may have been spurred on in his decision because his conjecture was so plausible. But as a superannuated man, he certainly had a reservoir of experience on which to draw, which should have resulted in a more cautious approach.
I suspect that the litigation, rather than reestablishing Mr. Rather's credentials and credibility, will with the process and the outcome result in a diminution of his stature.