Did Rather-Bush Tiff Help Sink CBS Anchor? : Television: Two years after their heated prime-time exchange, the newsman’s ratings have fallen while the President’s popularity has risen.

Possibly there’s no connection between Dan Rather’s ratings tailspin and President Bush’s popularity in the polls as 1990 begins. But very possibly, there is a connection, after all.

It was two years ago this month that the famous, combative Bush-Rather TV interview turned the former vice president’s image from that of a wimp into a he-man in nine minutes on the “CBS Evening News.”

Bush got the best of the coverage that followed the incident, in which the anchor was widely chided for an argumentative, accusatory approach. Rather was certainly digging for legitimate information--the extent of Bush’s involvement in the Iran-Contra affair as he sought the presidency. But he was outfoxed by the well-prepared Bush camp, which believed CBS was out to get their man and succeeded in making Rather the heavy.

Bush’s shrewd television adviser, Roger Ailes, was to say later that he had the feeling that “CBS decided to take George Bush out of the race, period” with the Rather interview.

Despite criticism, Rather remained atop the nightly news heap in 1988--CBS’ savior as its prime-time lineup self-destructed. But now, by the oddest coincidence, the long-dominant anchor has lost his spot as No. 1 at the end of Bush’s first year in the White House, replaced by Peter Jennings and ABC’s “World News Tonight” as the 1989 winner.

True, ABC News has been coming on strong with Jennings, Ted Koppel, et al. True, various surveys have indicated that ABC’s nightly news is the least critical of the White House, probably a ratings advantage in covering a popular President--and that CBS is toughest, a proud tradition at the house that Edward R. Murrow built. True, also, that the plummeting ratings of CBS’ prime time may also finally be dragging Rather down with them.

But maybe, just maybe, that Bush-Rather interview was a more than subtle factor that stayed in the back of a lot of minds--and helped propel along the defection from CBS News of viewers with long and critical memories. Because the interview was strong and polarizing and, at times, even nasty with some dirty infighting. Let’s go back for a minute and remember the way it was.

“You’ve impugned my integrity,” Bush told Rather, “by suggesting with one of your little boards (visuals) that I didn’t tell the truth. . . . I’m asking for fair play, and I thought I was here to talk about my views on education, or on getting this deficit down.”

Said Rather: “One-third of the Republicans and one-fourth of the people who say they rather like you believe you’re hiding something.”

With Bush protesting that CBS told him the interview was going to be a political profile, he nonetheless had one well-prepared thrust that undeniably scored powerfully against Rather. The anchor, just four months previously, had embarrassed himself and his network by letting the “CBS Evening News” go black for six minutes by angrily leaving the set when he was told a tennis match would run over into his broadcast. And this is how Bush one-upped Rather in their interview:

Rather: “I don’t want to be argumentative, Mr. Vice President. . . .”

Bush: “You do, Dan. This is not a great night, because I want to talk about why I want to be President. Why those 41% of the people (referring to poll figures) are supporting me.”

Rather (interrupting): “Mr. Vice President. . . .”

Bush (continuing): “And I don’t think it’s fair to judge a whole career, it’s not fair to judge my whole career by a rehash on Iran. How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York? Would you like that? I have respect for you, but I don’t have respect for what you’re doing here tonight.”

Rather told Bush, “The question is, you’ve made us hypocrites in the face of the world.” And then the CBS anchor continued: “There are clearly some unanswered questions remaining. Are you willing to go to a news conference before the Iowa caucuses, answer questions from all comers. . . .”

“I’ve been to 86 news conferences since March,” said Bush.

“I gather,” said Rather, “that the answer is no. Thank you very much for being with us, Mr. Vice President.”

And, with that, he cut away bluntly and ended the interview. Remember?

It was clearly one of the most extraordinary broadcasts in TV history. And it could be argued that Rather, in his zeal, ironically gave Bush just the hand he needed on his road to the presidency--a dramatic turnaround moment in front of a national audience.

But if, indeed, Jennings is the network anchor of the 1990s--as he’s being described--it could well be because his easygoing style has been a comfortable fit with the nation during a time of such laid-back Presidents as Ronald Reagan and Bush. Jennings is a good journalist and a good anchor, but there is something necessary--if not endearing--about the testy, grating, bulldozing manner of Rather, who may go off the deep end at times but at least is going for something .

Probably the worst thing TV news can do is ease up on its intense coverage of a popular President like Reagan--which it did--or Bush, who is flying high with huge public support of the U.S. military move on Panama and the capture of dictator Manuel Noriega. As David Brinkley noted months ago, it was Mikhail Gorbachev who really opened the door to the new political mood and events of Europe, but Bush is inheriting good will simply by being President as it’s happening.

Chances are, Rather will continue to be the hardest-hitting network anchor, warts and all. He can drive you crazy with those corn-pone sayings that often don’t seem to say anything. He smiles too forcefully, as if he’s uncertain audiences love him. And he certainly seems to fit what Richard Nixon, another Rather nemesis, wrote incisively in TV Guide about television reporters--that “in many ways they are political actors just like the President, mindful of their ratings, careful of preserving and building their power.”

Rather “went too far,” Sam Donaldson said after the Bush interview. It’s hard to argue with that, and maybe the CBS anchor is finally now paying the price. But perhaps, when you think about it, TV doesn’t have enough slashing, down-and-dirty interviews on its legitimate newscasts. I wouldn’t mind seeing Rather and Bush do their thing once a month. It’s better to have a reporter who sometimes goes too far than not far enough.