[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. As we've been talking about, these conventions, the Democratic convention this week, the Republican convention next week will be unlike any before since there won't be any delegates in attendance. Over the years, the conventions have gotten more and more focused on the spectacle and not the business of nominating, right? My next guest was in a position to observe those changes.

Dan Rather, the former news anchor for the CBS Evening News. Before that, White House correspondent for the network starting in 1964. He's now the president and CEO of the News and Guts media production company. Before the pandemic lockdown, he was in the middle of a run of a one-man show on stage here in New York. That's now an Audible Original recording. That Dan Rather, on stage one-man show, you can at least hear it even though you can't see it. It's called Dan Rather: Stories of a Lifetime. Dan, what an honor. Always welcome back to WNYC.

Dan Rather: Thank you very much, Brian. Great to be talking to you.

Brian: Am I right that your tenure with the network coincided with the advent of live television coverage of these nominating conventions? Oops.

Dan: - that the networks have been experimenting with convention coverage before I got there. I attended my first Democratic and Republican convention in 1960 and television was in the ascendancy at that time.

Brian: Here's a clip from the 1968 Democratic convention. Very famous. It's Walter Cronkite in the anchor booth, your predecessor as anchor of the CBS Evening News, trying to hear from you on the floor about a Georgia delegate who was being escorted out of the hall by a security team. This is a minute-and-18-second clip.

Dan: Take your hands off of me. Unless you intend to arrest me, don't push me, please. I know you won't, but don't push me. Take your hands off of me, unless you're planning to arrest me. Wait a minute. Walter, you can see.

Walter Cronkite: I don't know what's going on, but these are security people apparently around Dan, who's obviously getting roughed up.

Dan: We tried to talk to the man and we got bodily pushed out of the way. This is the kind of thing that's been going on outside the hall. This is the first time we've had it happen inside the hall. I'm sorry to be out of breath, but somebody belted me in the stomach doing that. What happened is a Georgia delegate, at least he had a Georgia delegate sign on, was being hauled out of the hall. We tried to talk to him to see why, who he was, and what the situation was. At that instant, the security people, well, you can see, put me on the deck. I didn't do very well.

Walter: I think we've got a bunch of thugs here, Dan, if I may be promoted to say so.

Dan: Well, mind you, Walter, I'm all right. It's all in a day's work.

Walter: Well, you saw the performance and it didn't look very good from here. I'll tell you that. Thank you, Dan, for staying in there pitching despite every handicap that they can possibly put in our way from free flow of information at this Democratic National Convention.

Brian: 1968, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite. Dan on the floor of the convention, Walter Cronkite in the anchor booth. "All in a day's work." Dan, that's what you said, "All in a day's work."

Dan: Well, it was all in a day's work, but what a time. 1968, of course. In some ways, the climax of the decade of the 1960s. The country was so badly split over race issues. Dr. Martin Luther King had been assassinated as well as Bobby Kennedy. Over the war, the country seemed just torn apart. What happened there, and that vignette became symbolic about what's happening at the Democratic convention in Chicago, there was an effort outside the hall to lower the level of protest.

Inside the hall, there was an effort to keep complete control of the convention. That particular Georgia delegates had been ordered by the rostrum to stay in their seats. This Georgia delegate got up to go to the men's room, he told me later. He was being escorted out by plain-clothes, so-called security people. That's what happened, but it became emblematic of the country torn asunder with the whole world watching.

Brian: What did it mean at the time for Walter Cronkite and his reputation comes down over the years as this even-tempered, wouldn't say a lot of opinionated things, old-school, in that respect, anchor to call the security folks "thugs" in that clip that we heard? He was calling security police, law enforcement, or at least private security. You can tell me if they were cops or private security, but either way, thugs. I don't--

Dan: They were mostly private security. They may have been mixed with some plain-clothes police, but this culminated, and you're right, that this was uncharacteristic of Walter. There had been so many things happening at the convention with the extraordinary effort to keep control. Mayor Daley, who was the mayor of Chicago at the time, and the Democratic establishment trying to keep control inside the hall together with the brutality that was happening against protesters outside the hall, just frankly, brought Walter Cronkite to a boil as it was bringing a lot of people over what was happening with the Democrats. Of course, what happened at that convention, the confusion, the effort to keep the lid on, so to speak, was a contributing factor to the Democrats losing the 1968 presidential campaign of losing to Richard Nixon.

Brian: Listeners, for those of you who heard our little telephone connection problems in the last segment, they are fixed. If you want to call in and talk to Dan Rather, you can do that. Anything you always wanted to ask Dan Rather but you never had him over to dinner, 646-435-7280, 646-435-7280. Dan, to what extent is the television coverage, not just episodes like that hyperdramatic one from 1968, but in general, responsible for the control that the parties have now extended over the proceedings?

One historian wrote for Politico that the 1968 convention and the news network's coverage of it was when the left-right divide and the so-called fake news charges started, and that those who didn't agree with the anti-war protesters thought that they were given free publicity in how CBS and other networks covered the unrest. What do you think and how much do you think that affected how much the conventions became these long infomercials?

Dan: Well, first of all, there is something to the theory that you outlined, but I think it would be a mistake to overemphasize it. It's so easy because it's easy so many people do it to blame everything that happens somewhere or another, on the press or on the television networks. The networks do have some responsibility for this, including the, if you will, CBS News, and that we put the reality of Chicago and the 1968 convention on the screen for everybody to see.

Frankly, I think it was our responsibility to do so, but I do recognize that the 1968 convention was perhaps the last convention where the most important things were decided at the convention, that is who the nominee is going to be. The parties had a lot of reasons to say, "Look, we need to do away with what the conventions have been and go to make the advertisements for each individual party." After 1968, that's pretty much what the conventions became. Increasingly, they became so-called infomercials for the party and nothing more.

Nothing of substance very much was accomplished at any convention, nor was it designed to do so. Now, Brian, we were in a whole uncharted, new territory because now, we have this virtual convention in which there's no hall full of people. This is something brand new and I'll be very interested to see how it turns out. We may have seen the last of any major party political convention as we knew them in the past with crowds of people, balloons, hullabaloo. We may have seen the last of them. I'm not predicting that. Depending on how this season of virtual conventions go, we could have seen the last of them.

Brian: Let's take a phone call. My guest, if you're just joining us, is Dan Rather, long, the anchor of the CBS Evening News. Now, president and CEO of the News and Guts media production. On the occasion of day one of the Democratic convention, he covered many conventions and also on the occasion of the release of the audiobook of his one-man show, which actually was on stage earlier this year and got shut down by the pandemic, called Dan Rather: Stories of a Lifetime. That's now Audible from that company, Audible Original recording. That is now out. Let's take a phone call from Cynthia in Manhattan who says she too is originally from Texas. Cynthia, you're on WNYC with Dan Rather. Hello.

Cynthia: Hi. Thank you, Brian. Mr. Rather, this is just a complimentary call. I grew up in San Antonio. I so appreciate listening to both you and Walter Cronkite and other Texans. I think maybe you will help keep Texas blue in those days because you were sane and rational. Maybe you could go back on air and help turn things around.

Dan: [chuckles] Well, thank you very much, Cynthia. I appreciate the thought and it's a pleasure to speak with you here on Brian's program. As for Texas turning blue, Texas is deep red. It has been for a long while now as you know. There are a lot of people who think that this might be the year that it goes back blue. Frankly, and this is my own assessment and opinion, I'll believe it when I see it. It's certainly possible. All things are possible, but it may be a while yet before Texas regularly returns to being a dependable blue state. The red in the state, which is to say the Republican dominance in the state, is real. It's deep and it's going to be very difficult to change it.

Brian: Ilana in Union Square, you're on WNYC with Dan Rather. Hello, Ilana.

Alona: Hi, it's Alona.

Brian: I'm sorry.

Alona: Hi, Brian. I love listening to your show. Dan, I'm such a huge fan and I'm so honored to be able to ask you this question. Dan, how objective can journalism truly be with corporate advertising? I'm in marketing and advertising myself. As a journalist, through the years, can you talk about the balance of reporting and if you ever felt you had to censor or bounce a certain way because of corporate advertising?

Dan: Well, things have changed considerably since I first started in journalism. What hasn't changed in 70 years, I've been a working journalist for more than 70 years, so a lot of things have changed. One of the things that's changed is that there's a considerable lack of competition for truly national distribution of news. We're at a situation now where no more than six, possibly as few as four multinational corporations control more than 80% of the national distribution of news.

In some ways, in some important ways, big business is, pardon the phrase, "in bed with big government in Washington." Never mind whether that government is headed by Republicans or Democrats for their mutual benefit, not to the benefit of listeners. Having said that, and answer the part of your question, in the 44 years I was at CBS News, there was never a time with one possible exception when anybody on the corporate side, William S. Paley on the network, tried to exert influence on the news division.

The one possible exception was during the Watergate period when President Nixon and his operatives put a lot of pressure on Bill Paley, who was the owner of CBS at that point, to roll back some coverage. It only succeeded for a brief period. With that exception, never that anybody during that time put pressure of any kind. We're in a different era now. We're in the second decade of the 21st century. I do think that it's something for the US consumers to be concerned about the close relationship between the big corporations and their desire to constantly increase profits and the big government, which would like to have a little sweetheart coverage.

Brian: A related question, I think, from Eric in Manhattan. Eric, you're on WNYC with Dan Rather. Hello.

Eric: Hello. Thanks for taking my call. Dan, I think you're fabulous. I've been watching you for so many years. I just turned 71. Do you feel that a 24-hour day news coverage has become a bad thing as opposed to when my folks nice to sit around the black-and-white TV and watch the six o'clock news? Also, do you feel that the idea of an MSNBC and a Fox and the networks that are becoming so partisan has really stopped people from thinking for themselves?

Dan: Well, as to the first, I'm not going to say that the advent of satellite and cable news and now internet news has been a bad thing. It's certainly quite a different thing. The big difference is that in the heyday of the evening news that you're talking about back in the 1960s, '70s, held on to the '80s, most reporters had a deadline once a day. Maybe twice a day.

Once cable and 24-hour news came in, they had a deadline every five minutes. Now, in the internet age, there's a deadline every nanosecond. That increases the pressure on reporters to file constantly. There's less real hard shoe-leather reporting than there used to be and there's less international or foreign news being covered. As to the second part of the question, help me out here, if you wanted to know--

Brian: Well, I think he thinks if-- he wants to know if you think the dividing up into partisan channels is polarizing the country unnecessarily.

Dan: Well, I do think we can't change it. To directly answer your question, I do think that it hurts, that there's a tendency for the public to believe with some good reasons in some cases. In the case of Fox News, it's just a straight-out propaganda operation for President Trump and the White House that that belief, "I'm strong with many Americans," as there's the counterpart. Well, MSNBC is pretty much the same for the Democrats. I think there's some false equivalency there, but none the less, people think it. I don't think it's assigned for the better, but it isn't going to change.

Brian: What's the false equivalency as you see it?

Dan: Well, I do think that while Fox is a straight-out propaganda operation, it follows in its prime time coverage, the Trump and White House landing completely. MSNBC certainly leans left, certainly is more supportive of the Democratic candidates and its Democratic cause. Because it's allied with NBC News, which is a distinguished news-gathering operation, I don't think that they are as partisan and is likely to put forward such things as conspiracy theories and base conspiracy theories as Fox.

Brian: I see that even though you're a star from old media, if I can call it that, you have two million Twitter followers. Do you like using Twitter?

Dan: Well, I do. I like it because it gives me at least the illusion of being relevant on the edges and perhaps in a microscopic way, [chuckles] but I'm surprised by what's happened with Twitter. Social media these days, if you want to have a voice at all even a faint, small voice, it's not an option. You have to be on social media, which is the reason I'm active on Twitter and Facebook.

Brian: Do you have thoughts on how much Twitter and Facebook can be forces for good as opposed to misinformation and a coarsening and dumbing-down to 280 characters in addition to the polarization of our national conversation?

Dan: Well, I worry about all of those things, Brian, and you're right to raise it. Everything from the deep polarization to the dumbing-down of things, but one has to deal with reality. These days, if you're going to reach a broad audience, and especially if you want to reach an audience of younger people, then it's not an option. It's imperative that you have to accept the limitations and the dangers of Twitter and Facebook because, otherwise, you're pretty much sealed out from the national conversation.

Brian: James in Los Angeles, you're on WNYC with Dan Rather. Hi, James.

James: Good morning, Brian. Mr. Rather, I'd like to, one, I'm not going to bother repeating everyone's accolades for you, but I miss you on nightly TV. Two, tell me what you think the-- What grade would you give the White House press correspondents right now on the daily grilling or non-grilling of President Trump?

Dan: I was White House correspondent for CBS News for 10 years, 10 years in the '60s and '70s. We've broken up service in Vietnam as a foreign correspondent for 10 years. I have tremendous admiration, and I use the word "tremendous" advisedly here, by and large for the president of White House press corps. I think that they had done an excellent job of asking the right questions, following up on questions. They're limited in what they can do. Sometimes I get frustrated because they can't do more.

I think, by and large, the White House press corps has done a very good job of trying to hold the Trump administration accountable and particularly asking tough questions and following up with tough questions. Are they perfect? No. Generally, in the practice of journalism, journalism is not an exact science. On its best days, it's kind of a crude art. I give these young men and women-- In this case, I'm 88 years old now, so they're all younger now. I give them a lot of credit for, particularly, the last three or four years, doing an excellent job.

Brian: One of my favorite things about watching you as I was coming up was watching you-- and we're talking about conventions. We're talking about White House coverage. I loved watching you on election nights. On the CBS News election return shows, you were so energized. How much did you love those among the various things you did on TV?

Dan: They were among the things I love the most, election night. Election night, there was always a certain amount of excitement. Also, there was a sense that it mattered. You were doing something that mattered. You report something bigger than yourselves. I loved election nights. I still love election nights. I have a different role now. Practically, no role. In answering your question, among the things that I did as anchor and managing editor to CBS Evening News and the face of CBS News for those years, election nights were always among my favorites.

Brian: What should the networks do on election night this year? I worry about this, with the likelihood that the large mail-in and absentee vote could mean delayed results, but still the kind of commercial pressures on the networks to mount those shows as if they're doing play-by-play of a sporting event, that's going to have a winner and a loser by eleven o'clock.

Dan: Well, a lot of it has to do with-- It's a good question, Brian. A lot of it has to do with the networks lowering expectations. It's possible. It's possible that we are able to pretty much know the winner by eleven o'clock on election night, but this year is not probable. I think beginning right now that everybody in journalism should be preparing the public not to have that expectation, to know that it may be well into the next day after the election. It may be days. It may be weeks before a winner is known.

Now, we're well ahead of ourselves here because if it's a landslide, the proverbial landslide to use a cliché, for one party or one set of candidates or the other, then we may have an early decision. As things look at this moment, that's not so likely. It may very well be quite a long time. I repeat for emphasis, we can only help by lowering the public's expectation and let them know that it could be a very long time, which is to say it could be weeks before the decision would be known.

As you recall, we went through this in 2000, the 2000 election. It was quite sometime before the actual figures were known, but this is uncharted territory. It bleeds, Brian. As I know, you've discussed on the program, so no doubt, the possibility that in a close election with no immediate winner announced that if President Trump is on the negative side of that, does he even agree to leave office? This takes us down pretty far down the road, but we have to be prepared for a national crisis if the election is very close.

Brian: Before you go, your one-man stage show, Dan Rather: Stories of a Lifetime, is now available as an audiobook via Audible. When you were performing Stories of a Lifetime, how was it being on stage and telling your own story and not someone else's?

Dan: Well, frankly, I got comfortable with it, but it wasn't comfortable in the beginning making a stage presentation. This was off-Broadway. Not Broadway, but it was way off-Broadway. It was a whole new experience for me, but it only took a short while. Once I established and this company that I had established a rapport with the audience, then it got to be, frankly, fun. I'd just tell stories and tell stories the old way and old time. I appreciate you mentioning it. It was a great experience for me. Brian, before we get away, let me express my admiration for you and what you do. You've made yourself a real institution in New York City and, for that matter, a national one. I'm really pleased for you and proud to know you.

Brian: Well, that coming from you is giving me a little goosebumps and I'm going to take this clip and build a trophy case for it.

Dan: [laughs]

Brian: Thank you very, very much, and thank you for coming on. Dan Rather, his audiobook, Stories of a Lifetime, is available now from Audible. Dan, thanks. Keep it up for many more years.

Dan: Thank you very much, Brian. Good luck. God speed.

Copyright © 2020 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.