Robert Redford on the murky intersection of journalism and politics

Share

Robert Redford, 79, has made a career out of films that focus on the murky intersections of politics, media and morals. Most famous of these, of course, is All the President's Men, where his Washington Post reporter, Bob Woodward, helped expose the Watergate scandal. The Candidate, Three Days of the Condor, Sneakers, Spy Game, Lions for Lambs, and The Company You Keep poke into the same grey areas. Even his romance The Way We Were has a subplot about McCarthyism.

That intersection is a busy one this fall. Our Brand is Crisis, opening Friday, stars Sandra Bullock as an embittered spin doctor working for a dubious candidate in South America. Spotlight, about the team of Boston Globe reporters who uncovered sexual abuses in the Catholic Church, starring Rachel McAdams and Mark Ruffalo, opens in mid-November. And Trumbo, which focuses on a screenwriter (Bryan Cranston) who fights back against the Commie-fearing U.S. senators who tried to quash free speech in the 1950s, follows soon after.

Truth, Redford's new drama, opening Friday, wants to be in that same group. It wants to tell a straight-up, hero/martyr journalist story, based on an incident that occurred in 2004: A CBS news producer, Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett), and her anchor, Dan Rather (Redford), believed they had proof that higher-ups helped fudge George W. Bush's service record with the Texas Air National Guard in the late 1960s and early 70s.

In the film version, the story aired, the Republican base kicked up an Internet fuss and CBS caved to (implied) pressure from the White House. They rescinded the story, and canned Mapes and Rather.

But the truth was twistier than Truth. It was election season. Then-president Bush was fending off Democratic challenger John Kerry, whose past military service was also under scrutiny. The clock was ticking. The documents Mapes and Rather relied on weren't 100 per cent verified. Alas, those details aren't the stuff of which crackerjack, Academy Award-clip speeches are made.

Off-screen, there's plenty of drama. CBS declined to sell the film commercial time on its shows 60 Minutes, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, CBS Evening News and CBS This Morning. But the filmmakers held that story back until two weeks later – when the film opened. And when I spoke to Redford by phone recently, he, too, suggested (among other things) that CBS hung its reporters out to dry.

You knew Dan Rather before playing him, correct?

In 1974, four states, including Utah, were gathering to build 11 coal-fired power plants, unbeknownst to the public. I found out about it, and went to 60 Minutes. They sent out Dan Rather, and we did a segment. It was successful: The companies pulled out of the project, and then they blamed me for it. Dan and I have spoken periodically since then, but not intensely until now.

You make no attempt to look like him in Truth.

I didn't want to do a caricature, I wanted to do an essence.

What's his essence?

Dan had a manner unlike other newscasters, a respectful politeness. I believe it came from his lower-class background. Texas ditch-digging family. He came from the bottom up. The striving had him reach to be more dignified. I went with that rather than his looks.

You phoned to tell him you'd be playing him in Truth. What did he tell you about the scandal?

He said, 'Bob, it was about loyalty. Mary and I were loyal to our jobs, to each other and to our bosses. Our loyalty to each other remained. But our loyalty to our bosses was taken from us.'

I know you support journalists. But there's a strong argument that Mapes and Rather rushed the story, that they didn't have the necessary facts.

I don't like to pussyfoot around on an issue. I knew this story was taken from Mary Mapes's book [Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power]. I knew the film would have that point of view. Obviously the Bush administration had a point of view, as did CBS. But the book was written by someone who'd been hurt. That's the story this film is telling. I don't think it will be happy for CBS, but they have to bear the brunt of the truth, which is, they let them go.

But aren't facts more important than feelings in news?

Look at what happened with Brian Williams at NBC. He was suspended, then he was brought back. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes have not been brought back. That tells you something about their bosses.

Does it?

I've been through this before with All the President's Men. The similarity was, Woodward and Bernstein were fighting hard to uncover something that the Nixon administration didn't want them to uncover. The pressure against them was enormous. But they were supported by their paper, The Washington Post, and their editor, Ben Bradlee. Dan and Mary, in the end, did not have that same support, and this film looks at why.

But in All the President's Men, Bradlee is always telling them to wait, to report more. He won't run the story until he's sure they have it.

Dan and Mary felt they were uncovering enough facts to suggest things were not what they seemed to be. To get to what the real story was. For me, it's all about story.

Protecting journalists doesn't mean not admitting they make mistakes.

I think the film looks at that. Yes, there probably was a mistake. But was it worth getting rid of the journalists?

The film suggests that the White House pressured CBS. Do you agree?

Journalism is always in danger when it has a strong counteroffensive. We're in danger when politics intrudes on the truth. You don't expect CBS to send flowers. They're being criticized.

Do you think there's a liberal bias in the media? Do you think the right wing wants to bring the media down?

I don't think about left or right. I just want to make sure that there's some kind of balance. I think skepticism is very, very important. Skepticism is part of what journalism should be.

What's missing in journalism?

A simpler focus point. I'm bothered by the tendency to want to cram too much information into small spaces and short times. Seeing talking heads on television telling you one thing, and a tape running underneath them telling you something else, I think is bad for the public.

Truth suggests that bloggers can shout down facts. Where do you stand?

Unfortunately I don't have a strong enough opinion, because I don't have Internet.

You're kidding.

I don't. But I'm happy.