Please, Dan Rather, don't appeal your loser case
We've always liked Dan Rather as a newsman. The folksy delivery. The steadfast gaze. Those live segments broadcast as a hurricane drenched him through his slicker.
So it's pained us to see him waste his time and money on what is so obviously a doomed lawsuit.
By Matt Belloni
Matt Belloni
More Stories by Matt Belloni
Emmys: The Reality Roundtable
Emmys: The Comedy Actress Roundtable (Video)
Emmys: The Comedy Actor Roundtable (Video)
We've always liked Dan Rather as a newsman. The folksy delivery. The steadfast gaze. Those live segments broadcast as a hurricane drenched him through his slicker.
So it's pained us to see him waste his time and money on what is so obviously a doomed lawsuit.
Like many in the legal and news communities, we raised our eyebrow when Rather filed suit against CBS back in September 2007 on grounds of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract over the 2004 broadcast about President George W. Bush's military service, which relied on sketchy documents that were critical of Bush's service record.
Sure, Rather had been the fall guy for everyone involved in the scandal. But the lawsuit seemed like the sour griping of a man whose personal embarassment over the way he left the job he loved had colored his judgment of the law. In the suit, Rather claimed that CBS owed him millions because, among other things, the network "warehoused" him and didn't pay him during his last 15 months with the company before his June 2006 termination.
But Rather was paid $6 million during that time and had a fairly standard "pay or play" deal, meaning CBS could use him or sit him on the bench as long as he continued to draw a paycheck. Where was the breach of contract or fraud? Plus, Rather was a garden-variety (albeit a very expensive garden) employee of CBS. Where was the fiduciary relationship that would give rise to a breach?
Today Justice James Catterson of the New York state appeals court agreed:
"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," Catterson wrote in the full dismissal of the case. "CBS was under no obligation to use Rather's services or to broadcast any program so long as it continued to pay him the applicable compensation."
The decision goes on to shoot down his other claims. Yet Rather and his lawyer, Martin Gold, announced today that they plan to appeal the ruling.
Please, Dan, don't appeal. You're 77. You did just about everything there is to do in a journalism career and made a ton of money at CBS in your 44 years there. You should drop this case, and while you're at it, dismiss your other fraud lawsuit against CBS topper Leslie Moonves and former CBS News chief Andrew Heyward. There's still time to put this misguided legal crusade behind you.