When Dan Rather steps down from the CBS Evening News this week, his CBS colleagues won't be the only ones sad to see him go. For right-wing media critics, Rather has long served as their "liberal media" bogeyman, personifying the nightly news' supposed tendency to skewer Republicans and coddle Democrats. But given the central role Rather plays in the conservative critique of the media, the evidence for his alleged liberalism is remarkably flimsy.

If Rather's unguarded comments over the years indicate any kind of bias, it's a fondness for power and an unwavering support for American military action. During the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Rather professed support for illegal attacks on that country's electrical supply: "When U.S. pilots in U.S. aircraft turn off the lights, for me, it's 'we.' And about that I have no apology." Rather has made similar comments about the Iraq war, acknowledging that his reporting would reflect his view that "when my country is at war, I want my country to win."

But perhaps more distressing was Rather's explanation of the near-absence of media skepticism prior to the Iraq invasion: "Look, when a president of the United States, any president, Republican or Democrat, says these are the facts, there is heavy prejudice, including my own, to give him the benefit of any doubt, and for that I do not apologize."

These are clearly not the words of the mythical liberal crusader that has been caricatured by conservatives. And you can't find much evidence on his newscast to support their argument. A FAIR study of the network newscasts in 2001 found that Rather's CBS Evening News featured substantially more Republicans than Democrats (76 percent vs. 23 percent). The difference between CBS and the other networks was slim, but such analysis belies the notion that Rather's network-- or any of the others-- have a left-wing bias.

And coverage of the Iraq war was similarly skewed-- and not in favor of the left: During the first three weeks of combat, Rather's broadcast had the highest percentage of official U.S. sources (75 percent) and the lowest number (less than one percent) of U.S. anti-war voices. When Rather famously announced after the September 11 attacks that "wherever [Bush] wants me to line up, just tell me where," perhaps his most valuable service to Bush was the failure to pose difficult questions or feature dissenting perspectives on the Iraq war.

Rather's right-wing critics busily catalogue every fond remark Rather has made about Democratic politicians like Bill Clinton, while ignoring or downplaying the very same sycophantism when Republicans are the objects of Rather's affection. Thus his calling Elizabeth Dole "my fair Liddy" at the 1996 Republican convention is forgotten or overlooked, as are his tributes to Ronald Reagan, whom Rather called "a conduit to connect us to who we had been and who we could be." On Reagan's passing, Rather tipped his hat and remarked: "We will think of him always when the West wind blows."

Discussion of Rather's retirement will surely focus on the now famous "Memogate" report, the 60 Minutes II segment from last September which reportedly hastened Rather's departure. The report relied on documents that CBS did not properly verify to make the case that George W. Bush did not properly meet his National Guard service requirements. But Rather was responsible for similarly dubious reporting that did not attract nearly as much critical attention. Rather's coverage of the Afghan mujahedeen in the 1980s, for example, relied on bogus re-enactments to buttress Rather's gung-ho reporting from the front line of the Soviet invasion. Such excesses, though, did not challenge powerful domestic interests-- if anything, it reinforced Cold War conventional wisdom. As such, there were no calls for an investigation or resignation.

Right-wing media critics and pundits have been effective in tagging Rather with the "liberal" label. But the context of Rather's entire career points to a different conclusion. More often than not, Rather's reporting followed the journalistic pattern that Rather himself criticized in 1991:

"We're gutless. We're spineless. There's no joy in saying this, but beginning sometime in the 1980s, the American press by and large somehow began to operate on the theory that the first order of business was to be popular with the person, or organization, or institution that you cover."

Rather's retirement would be more of an occasion for regret if he had tried harder to fight that tendency-- in himself and in the news business in general.

Peter Hart is activism director at FAIR (www.fair.org) and author of "The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly".

###