Here is something you never hear about: a disgruntled former employee of a major company sues his ex-employer over allegations that his termination was unfounded.

Wait, you hear about that sort of thing every day. Sitting atop the heap of lawsuits clogging America's already bulging judicial dockets is a new $70 million lawsuit filed by Dan Rather.

In September 2004, Rather narrated a story on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather that raised substantial questions over the legitimacy and validity of President Bush senior's military service during the Vietnam War.

Despite the palpability of Rather's report, it was later determined that his information originated from unsubstantiated sources. According to MSNBC, Rather's report said, "Bush had disobeyed orders and shirked some of his duties during his National Guard service and that a commander felt pressured to sugarcoat Bush's record."

Subsequently, Rather's role at CBS was marginalized, and he was let go from CBS News Corporation just a few months after said story aired.

According to The Associated Press, in his suit, Rather asserts that "the actions of the defendants (CBS) damaged his reputation and cost him significant financial loss."

Clearly, Rather feels that he was made a "scapegoat" by CBS News to alleviate the public controversy surrounding his ill-fated report. In his suit, Rather maintains that the story was true and that any aspect of the story that was found to be in error was not his fault.

Rather could be attempting to pass the blame onto others; however, given that he was the most visible component of the report, it is evident that CBS News was using him to make a statement. Furthermore, Rather's lawsuit asserts: "CBS intentionally caused the public and the media to attribute CBS' alleged bungling of the episode to Mr. Rather."

Undoubtedly, this situation exemplifies a fundamental pillar of journalism. Truth is always a journalist's greatest asset. When a journalist reports anything other than the absolute and unwavering truth, he risks jeopardizing his credibility. Given that Rather broke the public's trust by using unsubstantiated sources, is his lawsuit without merit? Not necessarily.

A person must be judged by the whole of his accomplishments, not the controversy of his mistakes. Unfortunately, in America, we are often judged by our errors. A single misstep can often outweigh a plethora of positive accomplishments. Nothing truer could be said about the news media.

Before this incident, many people would likely consider Rather to be a respected pillar of hard-hitting, American journalism. That track record has become irrelevant as compared to this story and even to this lawsuit.

To a degree, Rather does have a point. Instead of championing their asset, CBS News marginalized and eventually phased out Rather, in an obvious attempt to grease the always-slick wheels of the political machine and appease the White House, who was assuredly trying to counter President Bush's ever-declining public opinion ratings. CBS News allowed the White House to play Big Brother.

Rather is yet another victim of the American public's cynicism with the media. This cynicism has only been increasing in recent years. According to a 2005 report by Carroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center, "In 1990, 74 percent of Americans said they had a great deal or some confidence in the press. A decade later, that number had fallen to 58 percent. During the same period, confidence in other institutions remained stable."

Rather's predicament illustrates an important point. Given the extreme scrutiny on the media, journalists must take extra care to protect their creditably and reputation. They must report the absolute truth. This is the only way to repudiate the belief that journalists are spineless, unethical and untrustworthy leeches who will stop at nothing to acquire a story.

This entire situation is pathetic. The fact that Rather's role was reduced is pathetic. The fact that the report was not more thoroughly fact-checked is pathetic. The behavior of the leaders of CBS News is pathetic.

However, given the negative publicity that the lawsuit will produce, as old wounds are reopened, the public's opinion and trust of the media will surely take another blow below the belt.

[Reach columnist Chris Heide at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]