Network anchors are often too big for their chairs

Saturday, November 27, 2004

Dan Rather's retirement as anchor of the "CBS Evening News" was front-page headlines all over the country, a telling sign that Rather and his fellow network anchors have violated a cardinal rule of journalism: They have become bigger than the stories they once covered.

Journalists should cover the news, not make it. But the top names in television news have often been bigger than news, from Walter Cronkite to Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, to the current big three: Rather, Tom Brokaw (also about to retire) and Peter Jennings.

Cronkite is often credited with playing a major role in turning U.S. popular opinion away from the Vietnam War by the manner and tone he took in reporting the war as Rather's predecessor at CBS. This has been seen widely as a badge of honor for Cronkite, but it can also be seen as a reporter going beyond his role, interjecting opinion into what is supposed to be impartial news gathering.

Anchors are neither columnists nor editorial writers. Those positions exist in the printed media, where they are segregated from straight news coverage. Television also has a place for opinions: those talking-head segments where windbags from the left and right yell over each other. But the anchor is supposed to be parallel to the newspaper reporter, mixed in with a bit of the managing editor. No matter how you look at it, anchors are supposed to keep their opinions to themselves and let the news be the story.

In England, the television anchors are called newsreaders, a less-grandiose term that keeps them in their place. But here in the United States, where we substitute celebrity for royalty, we must have our stars to both admire and pull down -- whether the medium is sports, the arts or even the news. Rather and his ilk have been elevated to celebrity status because it is good for ratings and because that is what the public appears to want.

Early in their careers, Rather and the other anchors were true reporters. Rather, 73, did some top-notch work in the field, especially his dispatches from Vietnam. But he got famous, too famous, and he ended up acting as though he was more than the story. Most recently, his "60 Minutes" work is being investigated by CBS to see whether he used false documents to shed a poor light on President Bush's military record. (Rather will continue as one of the hosts of "60 Minutes Wednesday," formerly "60 Minutes II.")

Most television news is to real news as a doughnut is to a balanced meal. So perhaps we should not get so worked up about the comings and goings of network golden throats. Rather will be replaced by someone else who will likely see himself (it never seems to be a herself) as some sort of arbiter of world events.

Do not ask us to give homage to Dan Rather. If he were still a serious newsman, he would not want it. He would just fade away silently and quickly.