Breaking: Appellate court dismisses Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS; Rather vows to appeal [updated

[Festivito]

Source: LATimes,Bloomberg,NYPost

10:48 am
More than two years after Dan Rather filed a $70-million lawsuit against CBS for breach of contract and fraud, a New York Supreme Court appellate division has tossed out his claim.

The ruling, handed down today, dismissed Rather's claims that CBS News broke his contract and committed fraud by sidelining him in the wake of a controversial story he reported about President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era service
...
Updated at 11:11 a.m.: CBS was jubilant about the ruling. “We’re studying the decision right now, but it appears to be a total victory – and vindication for CBS’ position,” said CBS News spokesman Jeff Ballabon.
...
Updated at 11:22 a.m.: Rather's attorneys said they plan to appeal. “We are extremely disappointed with the Appellate Court's decision,” Martin R. Gold, Rather’s lead attorney, said in a statement. “ We believe the decision is incorrect on a number of grounds and, accordingly, we intend to ask the New York Court of Appeals to review it.”]

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/09/breaking-appellate-court-dismisses-dan-rathers-lawsuit-against-cbs.html

---

They claim it is speculative to decide this issue... :eyeroll:
...
appellate division found that Rather failed to support his claim that CBS damaged his future business opportunities, saying “it would be speculative to conclude that any action taken by CBS would have alone substantially affected his market value at that time.”

[onehandle]

1. Crud. nt

[defendandprotect]

2. This lawsuit would expose a great deal of the GOP swiftboating ...

which in this case was based on nothing but air --

And, Rather was part of the MSM/corporate-press --

How could anyone possibly say this didn't damage Rather?

Our courts have been thoroughly corrupted --

[rhett o rick]

3. Another victory for CorpAmerica. nt

[hootinholler]

4. What a cop out.

Hopefully this will not stand.

-Hoot

[Diane R]

5. Who appointed the appellate judges? Are they Bush appointees?

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. They most certainly are not Bush appointees

They are NY State Judges, not federal judges.

[druidity33]

18. well then

who did appoint them? Pataki?

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. They're elected

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. Yeah, Bush appoints people to state benches. Jesus.

Do some reading, please.

[loudsue]

41. They were asking a question! Get over yourself. People come here to learn,

as well as to teach, and they come here to become better informed. Don't diss people who are trying to inform themselves.

[dmr]

42. +1

:shrug:

Don't understand why some prefer to embarrass others in lieu of kindly leading them (and others who come to this board) toward solid information.

[Downtown Hound]

57. Too much coffee?

[Altoid_Cyclist]

6. How dare Dan Rather try to upset the corporate machine!

And hey; we got Katie instead. She's a REAL reporter.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[wpelb]

8. Ask Sarah Palin if she thinks Katie's a real reporter

LOL.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

11. I forgot about that debacle.

Of course to be fair, making Palin look like an imbecile is up there with shooting fish in a barrel. Come to think of it, Sarah would probably do that as long as she could shoot them from a plane.

[No Elephants]

49. Couric did a better job than did Gibson.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

55. That's true.

At least her interview finally showed the world just how vapid Palin really was/is. I guess that I'm just getting fed up with the nightly news being too much like Entertainment Tonight. I keep hoping that there are more Murrows or Cronkites out there, but they probably wouldn't be able to find an anchor job in this atmosphere.

[Wednesdays]

53. Nah, she'd say, "I'll get back with you on that one."

:)

[Vidar]

9. Damn it all.

[starroute]

10. Jeff Ballabon? The Channal One guy and pal of Jack Abramoff?

I'm prepared to say there's definigely something stinky going on here.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/New_CBS_News_VP_was_client_0225.html

When it was announced last week that CBS News had hired Jeff Ballabon as a senior vice president for communications, with responsibility for "all media relations and public affairs," there were scattered complaints about Ballabon's extreme conservatism and apparent bias against Democrats. One blogger at Huffington Post, Ira Forman, recalled that when he debated Ballabon a decade ago, "Ballabon claimed that, after his most recent job in Washington, he became convinced that Democrats are inherently bad people and Republicans are fundamentally good people."

However, what has not been widely noted is that Ballabon formerly had a close relationship with lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff, first as a client and then seemingly as a friend. . . .

Ralph Reed, who had been friends with Abramoff since their College Republican days in the early 80's, also participated in the Channel One lobbying effort. On February 3, 1999, just as the campaign was getting underway, he sent Abramoff an email with the subject heading,"Karl Rove."

"Did you and Karl chat?" Reed asked. "I am planning to get Ballabon down to meet with the Governor in the next month or two and I'd like to do the same with you."

[Soylent Brice]

13. don't give up, Dan! APPEAL!!

[newtothegame]

14. Why is this story still such a big deal on here? Bush hasn't been the *President for near 8 months.

Shit, he was practically a lame duck for the last 6 years before he left office. Why the constant obsession with Bush?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

17. "Shit, he was practically a lame duck for the last 6 years before he left office."

Wow. Just wow.......

[The Wielding Truth]

23. Isn't the point that CBS interfered with the freedom of the press?

When Rather was fired because the RW fussed. Doesn't that say to you that truth is expendable, and so is it's messenger, when profits or unhappy consumers are rattling their wallets?

When the Press is doing due diligence, they should not be stifled by the firing of those who were hired to deliver the news. The news must be validated with research. This case was squelched before the truth was revealed. It was wrong. Rather still has a case to attain justice.IMO

[Retired AF Dem]

34. BDS

never ends.

[No Elephants]

50. Close. He was always lame.

[Mr. Sparkle]

15. Amazing decision, i'm shocked that the court sided with a big corporation.

i'm not a lawyer, but their reasoning sounds very dubious to me.

[robcon]

16. I've expected this for some time.

The "damages" to Rather seemed slight. CBS, as far as I know, held up to the letter of their contract with Dan.

[Jeep789]

21. The ruination of one's reputation is hardly slight. nt

[robcon]

28. The ruination of reputation was not CBS's fault.

Rather and Mapes got in a shit-slingin' tussle with right wingers over the Texas Air National Guard story.

CBS didn't impugn Rather's motives, but accepted the findings of their investigative panel.

I think CBS acted honorably, and lived up to its contract with Rather.

[scipan]

60. CBS considered Drudge, Limbaugh, Ann Coulter for that "investigative panel"

Juicy Bits Surfacing in Rather Case: In 2004, CBS Considered Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter Independent Panel

By Felix Gillette
November 6, 2008 | 6:03 p.m

This week, Dan Rather's legal team submitted a memorandum to the judge overseeing Mr. Rather's $70 million civil lawsuit against his former employers, which for the first time made public some of the thousands of documents that CBS has already turned over in the ongoing discovery process.
<snip>
In Exhitit J of the current filing, Mr. Rather's legal team include a list (turned up in discovery) which CBS executives apparently compiled in the fall of 2004, prior to settling on Mr. Thornburgh and Mr. Boccardi.

The list includes Mr. Boccardi's name as well such seemingly reasonable potential candidates as David Gergen, Gene Roberts (former managing editor of The New York Times) and Dick Wald (former president of NBC News).

Then things get a little bit more conservative. Under the category "others" are the names of potential candidates such as … Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

Herein, CBS’s full list of "others":

* William Buckley
* Robert Novak
* Kate O’Beirne
* Nicholas Von Hoffman
* Tucker Carlson
* Pat Buchanan
* George Will
* Lou Dobbs
* Matt Drudge
* Robert Barkley
* Robert Kagan
* Fred Barnes
* William Kristol
* John Podhoretz
* David Brooks
* William Safire
* Bernard Goldberg
* Ann Coulter
* Andrew Sullivan
* Christopher Hitchens
* PJ O’Rourke
* Christopher Caldwell
* Elliot Abrams
* Charles Krauthammer
* William Bennett
* Rush Limbaugh

At the very bottom of the list, someone wrote in one more name. "Roger Ailes."
http://www.observer.com/2008/media/juicy-bits-surfacing-rather-case-2004-cbs-considered-matt-drudge-rush-limbaugh-ann-coulte

Do you really think CBS was trying to find out the truth?

[robcon]

63. Yes, CBS was interested in the truth, and I think their panel got it.

n/t

[santamargarita]

19. I bet it's a Goddamn Bush appointee

:puke:

[marshall]

25. Whichever judges it was, they voted 5-0 against Dan

I'm glad he landed on his feet and found another job after he was dumped by CBS.

[harkadog]

26. You lost your bet. It is a state court.

[Wednesdays]

54. State courts are packed with Shrub cronies, too

Think it's limited to the fed courts? Then I got a bridge to sell ya.

[harkadog]

62. Where is the bridge?

Do you really think Bush was appointing state court judges?

[april]

20. this just makes me sick!!

[midnight]

22. K&R. Hang in their Dan.

[MissDeeds]

24. Well damn

I'm really inclined to think the truth tellers in this country are doomed. Too often they are vilified and ridiculed. What a disgrace.

I stand with Dan Rather. :patriot:

[Odin2005]

27. Damn!

"Too speculative"? :eyes:

[orleans]

29. what a load of shit!

so if i am injured at work and am unable to work again it would only be SPECULATIVE that i would have continued working ... FUCK THEM!!!

[vanboggie]

30. FU, CBS

I refuse to watch CBS since then and never will again. I, too, stand with Dan Rather who is a true journalist and not an entertainer. Corporate America is melting this country down to nothing. Rather didn't deserve this for telling the truth about scum like corrupt, chickenhawk Bush.

[alp227]

61. I never really was a big CBS News fan

Rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> Couric. Seriously. The only CBS News show I ever bother to watch is 60 Minutes. Now CBS is off the hook and will continue to do crummy reporting until Dan Rather will successfully appeal or someone scares 'em straight. Walter Cronkite is screaming from under his grave now.

[Joe Bacon]

31. I'm not surprised!

I fully expected Rather to get smacked down.

[marshall]

36. "Do not go gently into that good night......"

I don't think the money meant a damn to Rather. He was trying to get his good name and reputation back.

[robcon]

32. I think the key parts of the ruling show Rather has no case...

From the appellate court ruling:

"...Rather claims that, in effect, CBS “warehoused” him, and that, when he was finally terminated and paid in June 2006, CBS did not compensate him for the 15 months “when he could have worked elsewhere.” This claim attempts to gloss over the fact that Rather continued to be compensated at his normal CBS salary of approximately $6 million a year until June 2006 when the compensation was accelerated upon termination, consistent with his contract.

Contractually, CBS was under no obligation to “use services or to broadcast any program” so long as it continued to pay him the applicable compensation. This “pay or play” provision of the original 1979 employment agreement was specifically reaffirmed in the 2002 Amendment to the employment agreement...

Rather claims that his “four-decade history” with CBS constituted a “special relationship that imposed fiduciary duties upon CBS toward .” The law in this Department, and indeed enunciated in every reported appellate-division-level case, is that employment relationships do not create fiduciary relationships. Simply put, “ did not owe plaintiff, as employee, a fiduciary duty..."

[paulsby]

37. excellent legal and factual analysis

as compared to most of the posts here which don't address the facts.

the facts is that dan's case was hella weak, and the 5-0 decision is just a confirmation of this.

CBS held up their end of the bargain.

dan (and mape's) reputations were damaged when legitimate questions as to the vetting process they used for the memo was revealed (woefully inadequate) and questions were raised as to its validity.

iow, he screwed his own pooch

[Alameda]

39. But the content was accurate.....to me that is more important....

[paulsby]

40. whether or not it is more important to YOU is not the legal issue

i actually see a nice parallel between rather and bush. bush had a hard-on for SHussein and gave little to no scrutiny to intel that said SH had WOMD.

rather and mapes had a hard-on for bush and gave little to no scrutiny to the memo, because it said what they wanted to see.

that's shoddy journalism to put it mildly.

recall that this document, allegedly from a typewriter decades ago happened to match PERFECTLY microsoft word's default settings

give me a fricken break. they didn't vet the document and they fucked themselves. unlike bush, rather did not fuck over thousands of iraqis and US soldiers by going to war based on a bad causus belli. rather largely screwed himself when the document that they proferred as the "smoking gun" turned out to be anything but.

you are using the "fake but accurate" defense, which is patently absurd. rather and mapes had a duty to vet the document, but their ideology and dislike of bush caused them to be sloppy, lazy, and very unprofessional. and they paid the price.

again, whether or not the underlying claim of the document (that bush was AWOL) is or isn't true, is NOT the point.

look at it this way.

the fake but accurate defense doesn't work in law enforcement or journalism. imagine a bunch of cops execute a search warrant based on "evidence" that they do not properly vet. but once in the house, they DO find the stuff they are looking for. does that make the warrant "good" in retrospect? of course not

PROCESS MATTERS.

bush very well may have been AWOL as described in the memo, but the use of the memo to make that point was negligent and rather/mapes paid the price.

and CBS upheld their part of their contract with rather

[eridani]

43. The memo was irrelevant, as there was a huge amount of substantiating documentation

--which didn't have problems. The memo was consistent with the other stuff, and since it was a copy it could not even in principle have been validated. Mapes said as much, and her case relied far more on the other material.

[paulsby]

44. the memo is entirely relevant

because mapes and rather offered it as PROOF, their SMOKING GUN that bush was AWOL.

they offered it as strong, if not conclusive evidence, and it turned out to be a barely vetted pos.

deal with it.

it's the bush syndrome backwards. they didn't like bush (understandable), they wanted to criticize him, so they didn't do due diligence in vetting the document.

it's THEIR fault (mapes and rather) that they are in the situation they are in.

again, you are just using the "fake but accurate" defense. it doesn't matter if it is consistent with other stuff. it's not appropriate to offer as proof to the american people without SCRUTINY.

they didn't scrutinize and they were made to look like fools by document experts all over the country with access to the file over the internet, and a little bit of basic research.

journalists need to have standards, and rather woefully fell short of those standards and he did it while criticizing the potus. bush was a pos potus, but that doesn't mean that a major journalist is going to get away with such a ridiculous, poorly vetted, offer of proof.

rather failed. CBS upheld their part of the contract

the 5-0 appeals court decision is entirely appropriate.

again, the issue is not was bush AWOL. let's assume arguendo he was AWOL. it doesn't mean rather didn't still fuck up major.

process matters. it matters for cops, and it matters for journalists

[eridani]

45. They did nothing of the sort. They had reams of investigative material

--not just the one memo.

[paulsby]

46. you are really amazing

it doesn't matter.

the thing that got rather and mapes fired WAS THE MEMO.

the MEMO was what they offered ON PRIME TIME TV to the world, as their PROOF.

they put it out there, it was a poorly vetted pos, and they paid the price.

you went from the "fake but accurate" dodge to the they had reams of investigative material dodge...

lol

go back and WATCH the presentation. they presented the memo as their proof to the american people, and they screwed up

and they paid the price.

rather's lawsuit was laughable

as the 5-0 decision so nicely emphasizes

[eridani]

47. An exhaustive list of the substantiating material is in Mapes' book

For her, the memo was just another piece of corroborating evidence.

[paulsby]

48. which again ignores the key fact

the key fact is that it was the offering of the memo that got her and rather in hot water (for good reason), and it was that that ultimately resulted in rather's firing.

it is the PRIMARY issue here. you are intent on talking about whether the substance of the claim (that bush was AWOL) was in fact true.

what you can't understand is that in regards to

1) rather's civil suit
2) rather's being fired

it is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT *if* what the memo purported to be true, was in fact true.

i have read the actual decision, and it of course does not even address whether or not bush was AWOL, because whether or not bush was AWOL is entirely IRrelevant to the case that rather filed.

[Nye Bevan]

51. Yes, the "memos" stunk

As soon as the original story broke out of curiosity I typed one of the memos into Microsoft Word, using the default settings for everything (font, margins, etc.). When I printed it out it matched the purported 1973 memo *precisely*. And nobody has ever been able to do the same thing with any 1970s typewriter. Dan earns millions and presumably has access to a pretty good research team so he could easily have determined that the documents were fake.

Of course the most likely explanation is that these docs came from the Bush camp, who knew they would be quickly exposed as fakes, in the hope that this would discredit the whole Bush AWOL story. And unfortunately this strategy pretty much worked. The argument ceased to be about the chickenhawk chimp and shifted to whether 1970s typewriters had proportional fonts.

[paulsby]

59. i like that theory

i don't know if it's TRUE, but given a forgery, you would THINK the forgers would have a LITTLE more finesse than to use the default word settings lol

i mean one could spend 20 minutes with word, and tweak the settings based on what you know of the available technologyin 1973 and come up with a much more credible forgery.

assume arguendo, that this was a rovian plot.

if so, the conclusion is still the same. rather screwed the pooch.

rather did a DISSERVICE to the cause of fighting bush, by not vetting

this is similar to how bush did a disservice to the anti-terrorist cause by not vetting the whole iraq/WOMD thang.

they both had agendas and PRECONCEIVED notions of the truth, and they both allowed those PREjudgments to diminish their skepticism.

[wordpix]

58. you can't feel too sorry for him making $6 MM per year; OTOH,

CBS probably DID warehouse him due to his age. :grr:

[kevsters]

33. Just more ammo for the righties.

Glenn Beck's recent in studio town hall covered everything from indoctrination to public option. Watch this great video.

This is what rational people from "Glenn-Beck-istan" sound like!!!

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=3027

[slay]

38. FUCK CBS

And Katie Couric too. They call that journalism? They need lessons from Rachel Maddow. FUCK THEM!

[Wednesdays]

52. Wait...don't tell me...

A Shrub appointee, right?

Edit: Ah, a state court. Of course, there are NO Shrub fans in any of the state courts, right? Yeah, right.

Either way, :puke:

[wordpix]

56. take it on up, Mr. Rather. Case may also have shades of prejudice against grays

Older employees, that is. Employees in their forties and fifties are being put out to pasture, and Rather was in his 70's. "His market value" is code for "he's too old to be in this job, anyway," I believe.