| Author |
Message |
    
Strawman
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4631
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 12:17 pm: | 
|
another full of crap lib sent packing.. Dan's last day... |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1686
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Its about time.
Put another dab of gravy on grandmas biscuits, he's out the door! |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3239
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
It's the End of an Error. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 573
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
If you miss him there is always 60 Minutes II.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 615
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Yep, and you can always turn on Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh so you can get your earful of systematic, regular lying and tendentious tripe.
Why be satisfied with 1 big lie from Rather when you can get a daily fix of mendacity from the above-named former disc jockeys? |
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 845
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Dan Rather = jounalist with political agenda
Sean Hannity, Rush = talk show hosts who entertain and have a political agenda
Journalist are supposed to be unbiased. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 191
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Ken Auletta wrote a good article about Rather in last week's New Yorker. My conclusion is that Rather fell victim to the Peter Principle -- he got promoted to anchor when his heart was always into being a reporter.
Not that I care. I never liked his abrasive and quirky style so I rarely watched him.
BTW, in British television they use the term 'news reader' where we use anchor. I like it better because it's more accurate and less pretentious.
|
algebra2
Supporter
Username: Algebra2
Post Number: 3043
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
You can always tell the fools who somehow want to compare a Rush, Hannity, Rhodes, Frankin etc. etc. with a Rather..
It's amazing those who can't tell the difference between commentator and a newsman/woman. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2095
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 6:44 pm: |
|
Rather: My name is Dan Rather, with CBS News.
Nixon: Are you running for something?
Rather: No, sir. Are you?
Then, that look on Nixon's face.
We didn't stop laughing all night.
|
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 846
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 8:25 pm: |
|
I know the feeling Tulip. I've beein laughing all night knowing Dan Rather lost his job for trying to make up a story on GWB. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3244
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 9:04 pm: |
|
algebra -- the difference between a newsman/anchor and a commentator? I think the difference is people who declare their bias and commentary as opposed to those who pose as unbiased journalists and comment all the time within their newscasts and deny doing so.
The story I saw in the NY Times (I think) included a poll that said 29% of people believed all or most of what Dan Rather had to say. That's less of a figure than the hardcore partisans who have the same politics as Rather. |
D.
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5534
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 9:56 pm: |
|
Brought down by Times Roman. |
CageyD
Citizen
Username: Cageyd
Post Number: 244
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 10:35 pm: |
|
There was some reporter on NPR today who said that the organization Fairness in Reporting had done a survey of Dan Rather's tenue vs. that of other network newscasters and found that the Rather newscast provided the more conservative view point of stories more often that the other major networks. I guess the Rather/liberal spin is just another example of letting corporate and political entities with an agenda create our reality. Rather was a thorn in the GOP's side forever, not because he was liberal but because he was dogmatic on issues - liberal or conservative. Since Nixon put Rather on his enemies list, GOP wackos have been trying to discredit him - I guess it say something about Rather that it took this long for him to be taken down. |
D.
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5539
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
Toppled by a typeface |
Strawman
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4634
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 8:11 am: |
|
"I guess it say something about Rather that it took this long for him to be taken down."
for starters stop listening to NPR, it's making your brain soft.
Secondly, Rather lasted this long because of his agent Richie Leibner who owns over half of the CBS talent roster across the country. (Not to mention Rather's nice big fat juicy contract)
libs, they never get it. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 194
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
I still wanna know who created those fake memos. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1699
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Karl Rove of course. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 195
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Vince Foster is more likely. |
mary gallagher
Citizen
Username: Bushwhacked
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
singlemalt
Rather didn't make up the story. It is true that Bush went awol and pulled the same strings to escape the consequences as he used to avoid going to Vietnam in the first place and has not been refuted. Rather's mistake was being duped into reporting that true story on the basis of a few possibly forged documents. But even the former secretary of the documents' author who denied typing them says their content was correct.
As for any bias on the part of Rather, here's what award-winning investigative reporter Greg Palast (who came up with the smoking gun documents on the theft of the 2000 election and pre-invasion plans by the U.S. to privatize Iraqi oil) has to say:
I'D RATHER NOT SAY GOOD-BYE, DAN
Wednesday, March 9, 2005
By Greg Palast
Without his make-up, Dan looked like hell warmed over: old, defeated, yet angry. And he told our television audience something that just blew me away. American journalists, Dan Rather said, simply may not ask tough questions about George Bush or his wars.
“It’s an obscene comparison," Rather said, "but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people’s necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be neck-laced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck."
Talking to another reporter, Dan told it straight about the careerism that keeps US reporters in line. “It’s that fear that keeps [American] journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore-in on the tough questions so often.”
Silence as patriotism. He admitted, “One finds oneself saying, ‘I know the right question, but you know what, this is not exactly the right time to ask it." It was making him ill and he was ready to say, basta, enough. Suddenly, there was fire in those eyes.
"It's extremely dangerous and cannot and should not be accepted and I'm sorry to say that, up to and including this moment of this interview, that overwhelmingly it has been accepted by the American people. And the current Administration revels in that, they relish and take refuge in that."
Of course, Dan said all these things to a British audience. But back in the USA, Dan had promised America he would be a good boy, a trained press puppy who would poop on the paper set down for him. He told his US audience, "George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions. He wants me to line up, just tell me where."
But CBS' million-dollar man was about to step out of line.
In 2003, BBC Television questioned George Bush's career as Viet Nam era Top Gun fighter pilot. In the British broadcast, I held up a confidential letter from Justice Department files stating that Poppy Bush had put in the fix to get Junior Bush out of 'Nam and into the Texas Air Guard. George could spend the war protecting Houston from Viet Cong attack.
A year after the BBC broadcast, the I'm-going-to-be-a-real-journalist-now Rather decided to run the same story on 60 Minutes. And just as he predicted, the press-police at the network and in the White House seized him and lit the tire around his neck.
What was Dan's mistake? Yes, yes, he shouldn't have embellished the story with a document he couldn't fully source. But that memo (not the one in the BBC report) was about a side issue, not the key accusation, that Senior Bush got Junior out of the draft. Despite not a jot of evidence that the main story of draft-dodgin' George was wrong (BBC never withdrew it), CBS cited Rather's insistence on the veracity of that report as grounds to crush his career and his reputation.
Rather was convicted by a corporate kangaroo court. Dickie Thornburgh, who had been Poppy Bush's Attorney General and owed his big salaries and career to the Bush family, ran an "independent" investigation which concluded -- surprise! -- the Bushes had done no wrong. It was Dan that committed the evil. That whacky conclusion went along just fine with the diktat of Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom, CBS' owner, that a "Republican administration is better for media companies."
In "Darkness at Noon," Arthur Koestler explained why old Communists, brought up for trial by Stalin, still sang the system's praises -- just before they were shot. To do otherwise would have been to cast doubt on the cause to which they sacrificed their lives. Now, Dan Rather, like those soon-to-be executed victims of Stalin, has bowed his head in silence in the face of the evil purge. To do otherwise, I suppose, would be to acknowledge that his career has been a path of increasing salaries and celebrity bought by increasing toady-dom.
Imagine if Edward R. Murrow, after having exposed Joe McCarthy, replied to criticism by bowing his head for the noose-man.
Rather died as a journalist years ago by accepting the evil gag orders of the media moguls. Still, I applaud his attempt with the Bush story to kick his way out of his professional coffin. Unfortunately, his current silence simply gives aid and comfort to the censoring corporate news-killers.
Tonight, Rather read off his last "news" broadcast, if you can call it that. To Dan the newsman, and to American journalism, all I can say is, rest in peace.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page