THE SURVIVOR
Date: 10 September 1995
By Claudia Dreifus
Claudia Dreifus
For Dan Rather, 63, this past year has been a course in survival. He survived as co-anchor of the "CBS Evening News" with Connie Chung, a woman he appeared to be allergic to. He also survived the budgetary slashings of CBS's chairman, Laurence Tisch, and the ratings dive that the news program later suffered. Rather even survived a cloud of rumors in the spring that his anchoring days might be numbered: in May, it was Chung, not Rather, who was pulled from the anchor's chair. "I guess some of this comes from being born during the Depression," Rather was saying on a recent August morning as we drove through southeast Texas in a pickup truck. "Also, I realized pretty early on that while I had skills, there were an awful lot of other people with better skills. All that may have given me strong survival skills." These words were being spoken at a time when Rather's survival skills were likely to be tested once again: a couple of days after Tisch announced plans to merge CBS with the cash-poor Westinghouse Electric Corporation. This move convinced many CBS staff members that there might be still more cuts in their future. (Not to mention bigger uncertainties. As this article went to press, Ted Turner, who had been trying to find the money to buy the network out from under Westinghouse, was himself negotiating a potential buyout of Turner Broadcasting System by Time Warner.) We were talking on a blazingly gorgeous morning a full month before Rather would begin his 15th season as the "CBS Evening News" anchor and managing editor. Our goal was to visit the places of his childhood, to do an interview free of the formalities of his New York life. We dashed to Huntsville, the site of Rather's alma mater, Sam Houston State College. Then it was on to the oil town of Wharton, his birthplace. Finally, we drove to Austin for dinner with Mrs. Dan Rather, the artist Jean Rather, 59. Between stops, there were gawkings at cattle, an encounter with a highway patrolman, who pulled us over for driving without seat belts, and constant trips to pay phones as Rather sought updates on the pending CBS-Westinghouse merger. Q: David Letterman did a Top 10 list the other night about the CBS-Westinghouse merger. Among his predictions: The current CBS brass would be replaced by a "whole new batch of weasels," and your next co-anchor would be a coffeepot. Can you work with a coffeepot? A: The real question is, How will a coffeepot feel about working with me? [ Laughs ] Actually, I'd prefer a refrigerator. But I'm not sure I'll have a coffeepot or a refrigerator because I'm not yet convinced we'll have Westinghouse. And if we do, we may not have Westinghouse for long. . . . As we speak, the deal is a long way from finished. The thing to look for in whoever winds up with CBS is whether they have taken on so much debt that they have to squeeze CBS News down further to help service it. Q: That's what happened when Tisch took over the company eight years ago, isn't it? A: Uh-huh. And now we are in 1995. And this is a much bigger deal. Q:Andy Rooney recently said: "Larry Tisch did all the wrong things with CBS. . . . He turned the best broadcasting company in the business into one of the weakest and got even richer in the process." Agree? A: [ Slowly ] Mmmmm . . . I'm going to have to say, I'm not going to answer that question. What I will say is that there's real concern about what effect one merger after another, each one bigger than the last, will have on the news. Everywhere. Not just at CBS. When we were purchased last time, much of what Wall Street said needed to be done with CBS was wrong. Now, I understand that CBS needs to make a profit, but we also are, in some ways, a public trust. . . . When the new buyers talk about "increasing margins," it makes me nervous. A recent Wall Street Journal article quoted someone from the new potential ownership saying that more layoffs are inevitable. . . . At CBS News, we're down to the bone, past the bone, and we've been there a long time. Q: A lot of CBS News people are praying that Ted Turner will buy the network. Are you a member of the "Waiting for Ted" camp? A: Well, I like Ted Turner and respect many of the things he's done with CNN. Now, I do have concerns. Turner already has the infrastructure of a worldwide news-gathering operation. If he were to take CBS, the danger is, that might gut CBS News, perhaps leave around it some of the trappings of what it once was, but wipe out the depth of our talent. Q: This could happen anyway? A: Well, with any potential new management, you don't know. It's true, somebody else might get hold of CBS and gut us anyway. The last time the company changed ownership, what we first believed turned out to be several area codes away from what was true. The picture that was painted of the new ownership [ then ] was that it would bring in a new era of aggressive expansion and leadership in news. You can make a case that we had a critical moment in 1988 -- when the "CBS Evening News" on the flagship CBS station in New York was moved from 7 P.M., where it was strong, to 6:30, where it would be weak. What was put in at our place at 7 was a game show, "Win, Lose or Draw." When that happened, I knew the tide had turned against news. I, among others, fought as much as I could. "We can make more money by buying this syndicated program, and we decided we want the money," we were told by management. And we said: "If this is only about money, it's a short-term gain and long-term loss. If you move the 'CBS Evening News' from where it is doing well, the signal goes out to our affiliates that they can move the news to any time they damn well please. They'll move it to terrible time periods." Which they did. Affiliated stations began playing the "Evening News" at 6:30, 4:30, 5 -- it was Death Valley. The signal from the top was, "Go for the buck." Now, this move was not Larry Tisch's idea, [ but ] he approved it. I'm now thinking, whoever winds up owning us, if they want to make a bold move for all of CBS News, they should put the news back at 7 at every owned and operated station. Q: You made headlines earlier this summer when Connie Chung was removed as co-anchor. At the time, she said she refused a smaller role because it was "inappropriate for the only woman on the three major network news programs to have anything less than coequal status." A: This is not and was not a gender issue. Connie has often said, and rightly so, that she didn't come into the job because she's a woman. And she didn't lose it because she was a woman. It was a business decision to try it, and it was a business decision to stop it. . . . There was a time when some people thought having two anchors would make us more flexible, give me a chance to get out in the field more -- and it was thought that it might improve our ratings. After two years, basically, the same people who decided to do it realized that our ratings were poorer than when we started out. Q: When did you first hear that Connie Chung might be leaving the "Evening News"? A: By Friday [ May 19 ] , word was beginning to get around that Connie's agent was negotiating. . . . [ I figured ] she'd probably sign a new contract, would stay on with CBS and be a central star and probably would continue to be a dual anchor. I'd been told [ by the CBS brass ] fairly recently that the intention was to continue. I left New York for Austin [ after the Friday broadcast ] to give the commencement address at the University of Texas. . . . I thought, "They may very well say to me, 'We want you to work at CBS News, but we want you to go off in a different direction.' " Q: So you thought you, not Chung, might be pulled from the anchor's chair? A: The thought occurred to me. Television, after all, is a young person's game. You can count on one hand the people in television, in news and entertainment, who are front and center who are over 59. There's Angela Lansbury and Dan Rather. Also, there had been this business with the Oklahoma City bombing coverage. [ Immediately after the explosion, Chung was sent to the blast site; Rather was told not to go there. Eventually, he did join the coverage team. ] Afterward, I said [ to management ] : "We have to work out something so that we don't have this situation develop again. . . . If something like that breaks, I want to be on it. Not to the exclusion of anybody else. My feeling was, I love this job, but I can't, I won't, go through this again. [ Being kept from the story ] chewed me up inside. It was like trying to swallow barbed-wire-wrapped ball bearings. I got off the plane, my beeper was going off. I was told, "Somebody is calling around the newspapers saying that Connie is trying to get out of her contract." Of the things that I've read, the one that strikes me as having the strongest possibility of being true is that Connie and her agent made a decision that they wanted to put heat on CBS to get what they wanted by way of contract resolution. And in order to get what they wanted, this writer quotes someone as saying that they made a conscious decision to pursue a "scorched earth" strategy. With time, and seeing the whole context, that seems to be the most reasonable explanation. Q: On screen, the two of you always looked miserable together -- as if you'd been pushed into the video version of a shotgun marriage. A: People have said that to me. But I never felt that. I never had any personal problems with Connie, which surprised me in a high-pressured situation every day for nearly two years. Now, it has been suggested -- and I think there may be some merit -- that the [ on-air ] dynamic between us changed in about late February or March of this year. Q: Was that about the time of her "just between you and me" Kathleen Gingrich interview? A: Yes. That's a wee small answer, yes. I spoke up for Connie at the time. What I felt privately was something not to express publicly. So, looking back on it, I did begin to notice a change in our on-screen dynamic in late February or March. . . . Also in March, I learned of some meetings that had taken place before the November 1994 elections -- discussions about what the election coverage would look like. I didn't know the exact details of who said what to whom. But in March I was told -- and did confirm -- that there had been meetings at which [ Chung's agent ] Mr. Geller and the person for whom he was working sought, at the very minimum, to have a much larger role in election-night coverage. At my expense. When I say that there was a change, I would have been foolish not to take that seriously. Now, there are differing versions of what happened. What stuck in my mind was Mr. Geller saying to somebody, "You know, it's time for Dan to step aside." It's a rough trade and I understand that, but I didn't take kindly to that. Q: What would you have done if that argument had been successful? A: I would have said to my employers, "Well, do you have anything else besides anchoring for me to do?" If I am able to do something in journalism, I'd be O.K. . . . You know, I was supportive [ of Chung ] . I worked hard to make it work. I gave much more than I got. And happily so. I was protective and defensive. I gave it everything. I believed it would continue indefinitely, until I found out about election night and what had happened in secret. Until it was made very clear to me that there was a push-on not for me to share, but to give up. [ Asked to respond to Rather's comments, Alfred Geller said: "His statements are baldfaced lies, following many that have been made by Dan Rather over an extended period of time concerning Connie Chung and me. He has abdicated the crown jewel that every journalist holds dearest -- disseminating the truth. One would think that within the bounds of good taste, human decency and gentlemanly behavior that he would stop attacking Connie Chung. It's time for him to enjoy his 'victory,' however tainted, and leave Ms. Chung alone." ] Q: Most of the reportage on l'affaire Connie Chung painted you as the heavy. Of the three network anchors, you seem to be a lightning rod for personal attacks. Do you have any insight on why that is? A: I have no idea where that comes from. The best I can come up with is that I've been around a long time. Sometimes, there's been envy, jealousy, wonderment: "How did a guy as dumb as Rather get where he is?" My answer is, I got in early, stayed late, worked hard, cared a lot and God smiled on me. And by the way, I might not be quite as dumb as you think I am. Another thing, I think it sometimes peeves some people when someone from the bottom breaks through. My background is Texas and poor. There was a review of a book about education in The Wall Street Journal, and the headline was, "Dan Rather and Other Enemies of Civilization." The review said, more or less, that television news was incredibly literate before I was on the air and concluded that we should shut down all teachers' colleges. I had attended Sam Houston State teachers' college. It hurt. The truth is, I got a wonderful education at Sam Houston State teachers' college and afterward at CBS, where I was trained by masters -- Charles Collingwood, Eric Sevareid and, by extension, Edward R. Murrow himself. I met Murrow. But he left CBS just about the time I got there. Now, I know I'm not Ed Murrow. [ Smiles ] Every morning, when I shave, I say: "Boy, what a wreck you are. And I'll tell you one damned thing, you're not Ed Murrow, and Ed Murrow you're never going to be." But that doesn't mean I can't practice the lessons that these guys taught me. Q: Tell us what the late Charles Collingwood taught you about men's haberdashery? A: When I first came to CBS, Charles said, "If you want to make it here young man, 'dress British and think Yiddish.' " And he certainly taught me the British part. "You should buy at least one tailored suit," he said, and then he took me to his tailor on Savile Row. He showed me what traveled well. I should have remembered his advice many years later when I was at "60 Minutes" doing a story on drug dealers. We had an informant in Wyoming who said he'd only talk if I came into town in complete disguise. So I dressed up in biker clothes -- jeans, a T-shirt, with sleeves rolled up to my shoulder, a pack of cigarettes stuck in the sleeve and a phony tattoo. I thought I was completely unrecognizable. But on the plane, I sat down next to an African-American businessman, who looked me up and down and declared: "Dan Rather, is that you? You look bizarre!" Moral of the story? 'Tis better to dress British than Biker. Q: Or sing off-key. TV Guide recently accused you of "conduct unbecoming a network news anchor" because you sang "What's the Frequency, Kenneth" on the David Letterman show with the rock group R.E.M. A: Oh, that was so ridiculous. Everyone knows I can't sing in a bucket with a lid on it. I laughed when I read that. What does "conduct unbecoming an anchor" mean, anyway? Q: It means you're not being grave enough for a guy telling the country about Bosnia. A: Verrrrry interesting. Conduct unbecoming an anchor is "selling out." You know, most of the time I'm accused of being too grave. All this comes under the heading of "Either way you go, you're going to catch it." If you read the news in a deep baritone, they are going to say, "God, he's stuffy." If you let any part of your other self show, it's "conduct unbecoming an anchor." Q: Can you envision Ed Murrow singing with R.E.M.? A: Yes, I could. Ed Murrow, you know, was roundly criticized for sitting down and just talking to Marilyn Monroe! That was his equivalent of singing with R.E.M. Q: The R.E.M. song is actually about your 1986 assault, when one of the people who attacked you said, most oddly, "Kenneth, what's the frequency?" What I recall about the coverage at the time was that there wasn't a lot of sympathy for you. It was played as, "Well, weird things always happen to Dan Rather." A: And as with so many other things, I shrugged my shoulders and thought, "This is what comes with the territory." Who knows what it was about? A lot of people get very badly hurt in assaults. I came away lucky. When Michael Stipe [ lead singer of R.E.M. ] was in New York last, I did talk with him about why he wrote this song, which I like a lot. He said that one of the themes he thinks about is the surreal and unexplainable things that happen. He remembered this as a kind of crazy surreal experience of the kind a lot of people go through. Q: Speaking of the surreal, do you have any insight on why a journalist with Diane Sawyer's reputation would participate in something like her "interview" with Michael Jackson? According to newspaper reports, the singer was able to alter his appearance on the videotape and choose the format. A: With this kind of program, the problem is a servility to ratings. Listen, Michael Jackson can produce a 42 share. Dyn-o-mite! There isn't an executive in television who doesn't lust for a 42 share! And once we get ourselves into that obsession, we are all very close to making that mistake. Even the best among us. Q: How do you rate your competitors -- do you ever envy them? A: They are all very decent, classy people -- Peter, Tom and Bernie Shaw. Peter has a sense of elegance about him, which I greatly admire. Tom has a steadiness and unflappability that I especially admire. Bernie has a terrific tenaciousness, but with it, an ability to make it no big deal most of the time. It doesn't even show. Each, in his own way, tends to get less criticism than I do. And I do envy their ability to avoid it. It does make me ask questions within myself. Both Tom and Peter seem to be at ease in every social situation. I'm not. I'm not a big Hamptons party guy. I'm not even good at big New York parties. Q: Do you ever watch "Murphy Brown"? A: I do. I know people like that. Q: Which one is you? A: Some of each. Mostly Murphy. First of all, she loves the news. Secondly, she's vulnerable. Thirdly, when she's on a story, she is focused and unstoppable. In most of the characters, I see some part of myself. Jim Dial -- he also loves the news and is so very serious about it. There are times when he doesn't talk, he announces. It's the common fate of anchormen. "Heeeeeeey, I'm hoooooooome, everybody!" When I do that, my family cracks up. Now the best movie about television, I think, was "Network." I saw that in the 1970's and thought, "Paddy Chayefsky's got it." He understood then the real danger of everyone worshiping at the temple of the ratings. I think he was trying to say, "Realize where this is going to lead -- unless something dramatic and profound happens." Q: To return to your colleague David Letterman. Does it trouble you that the atmosphere at CBS is so demoralized that even he is making jokes about it? A: No, I'm pleased and relieved that we have David around to keep alive whatever humor he can. I know that sometimes it's gallows humor. But at least it's humor.