Well, since Walter Cronkite is even smacking him around saying he should have been replaced a few years ago, I'll take a jab...

Who wants to bet he cries like a little bitch before signing off tonight???

[Edited 2005-03-09 21:29:31]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Thread starter): Who wants to bet he cries like a little bitch before signing off tonight???

I'm in! 

He's been on the air for 26 or so years, I think he's earned the right to cry if he wants to.

Tell me what other news anchor goes overseas and in the middle of a war?? Dan Rather has done it numerous times.

So who the hell cares if he cries or not, he's earned it.

Just because he doesnt cater to your "great" Republican needs doesnt mean he's not a good anchor.



[Edited 2005-03-09 23:21:52]

He will continue full-time with 60 Minutes.

Given his complete cock-up with his misguided "analysis" regarding Bush's military record, his reputation is shot. The best job for him is reading the news with no analysis.

How can anyone trust his journalism on 60 Minutes now? He should be fired from 60 Minutes.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Thread starter): Who wants to bet he cries like a little bitch before signing off tonight???

I think he has been doing that at least since he was last on Letterman.

What the hell was that "if we had more time to examine the documents" crap? What deadline. Notice that they seem to have stopped it alltogther now the election is over hmmmm.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 3): How can anyone trust his journalism on 60 Minutes now? He should be fired from 60 Minutes

It is interesting that he is sticking around with the commentary show that he f'ed up on.

Quoting Usairwys757 (Reply 2): Tell me what other news anchor goes overseas and in the middle of a war?? Dan Rather has done it numerous times.

All of them.

Quoting Usairwys757 (Reply 2): Tell me what other news anchor goes overseas and in the middle of a war?? Dan Rather has done it numerous times.

Edward R Murrow
Walter Cronkite

both of home where better anchors.

Quoting N5176Y (Reply 5): All of them.

You couldnt be more wrong N5176Y, give me a freaking break.

All of the major news anchors have been in Iraq. Peter Jennings, Brian Williams, Wolfe Blitzer, etc.

Quoting Usairwys757 (Reply 7): You couldnt be more wrong N5176Y, give me a freaking break.

All of them have been there.

What the hell was that "if we had more time to examine the documents" crap? What deadline. Notice that they seem to have stopped it alltogther now the election is over hmmmm.

They did, and they continue to do so.

I suspect that its pretty hard to chase after the "evidence," even if it really does exist.

Conspiracy theories have it that phony papers were planted to pretty much sink any GWB service investigations - as they did - and make folks like Rather look like an idiot - which it did.

Rather and the folks at CBS should have known better. Alas, his many decades of news reporting is now sullied (although I still don't understand why people respect and adore news anchors so much - just read the news, dammit), while GWB comes off smelling like a rose.

"...what other anchor goes overseas and in the middle of a war??"

Hmmm...Al Gore. Ooops...he wasn't an anchor.

Anyway, as stated several times above, there have been some. But how is that a criteria more important for credentials than reporting (vs. "instigating" vs. "creating" vs. "personal or social or corporate comentary"?) Regards..Jack

The documents were fake but everything contained in the documents was correct. Bush didn't take his flight physical, etc., etc. Shit, the Whitehouse never disputed the memo's content. Saying Bush service in the TANG was spotless would be like calling WWII a lie because the Hitler Diaries were forged.

btw, Rather does have the right to cry on the air.

Quoting LAS757300 (Reply 12): The documents were fake but everything contained in the documents was correct.

Please elaborate.

Quoting LAS757300 (Reply 12): The documents were fake but everything contained in the documents was correct.

Got Proof?

The Killian memo made several assertions, the most important being: 1. Bush used connections to get into the TANG 2. Bush disobeyed an order to keep current.

I'll tackle each.

1. National guard airmen and soliders were barely used in Vietnam. In fact, less than 100 died during the entire war. Because of this, many people used the guard as a way to avoid being drafted into the regular forces, Bush being one of them. His father and his father's friends got him to the top of the TANG waiting list, no one with a brain disputes this.

2. Bush didn't keep his flight physical up to date.

I would also add that the secretary who worked for the Texas Air National Guard remembered writing similar memos.

Quoting LAS757300 (Reply 15): 2. Bush didn't keep his flight physical up to date.

So... is there any proof of this?

Quoting N5176Y (Reply 16): Quoting LAS757300 (Reply 15): 2. Bush didn't keep his flight physical up to date. So... is there any proof of this?

Christ, you guys should know this stuff before you go spouting off about the 60 Minutes Report.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif

That good enough for you NnumbersY?

No. You'll have to present something even some-what remotely legitimate, not someone's personal homepage with a fuzzy gif.

You dont judge an entire career based on one event. Overall Dan Rather has done so much good to reporting and CBS then he was done bad. All those hacks on FOX news will never be able to be half of the reporter he ever was.

Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 19): All those hacks on FOX news will never be able to be half of the reporter he ever was.

Hey, if you can garner twice the audience with half the reporter, that's a hell of an investment!

To me one of the great problems of CBS news is their failure to push people out at age 65. They have a lot of half-dead white males, especially on the program 60 Minutes. They need to get younger (40's age) people in key positions to attract a broader audience. Also by keeping people well past 65, you limit opportunties and goals for not only younger men, but more importantly women and non-white persons. By pushing people out at 65, they also may push out the older, more liberal generation of journalists like Rather was seen as. They could then have a staff whom are younger and perhaps less liberal leaning, more likely to keep their politics private or neurtal to the public to help their careers along.

Oh, Jesus. You'd doubt probably doubt the documents authenticity if I handed you the original, as it wouldn't futher the political power of your Dear Leader.

I've yet to see anyone dispute the document I linked to. The independent investigation into the Rather documents confirmed this with the National Guard. Try again!

Quoting N5176Y (Reply 8): All of the major news anchors have been in Iraq.

But who went to Vietnam? Anchors in wars today are much safer than Vietman. After all these years, I also think he is "allowed" to cry. Didn't your mothers ever teach you respect people?

-SOAC

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 23): But who went to Vietnam? Anchors in wars today are much safer than Vietman. After all these years, I also think he is "allowed" to cry. Didn't your mothers ever teach you respect people?

My mother not only taught me respect, she also taught me reading comprehension. I never criticized Mr. Rather about anything he has done. Mr. Rather was not the only reporter in Vietnam.

Quoting N5176Y (Reply 20): Hey, if you can garner twice the audience with half the reporter, that's a hell of an investment!

If you're going to judge a reporters relevance by the size his audience than Rather beats Fox by a long shot.

Of course Fox News reporters have filed made up reports and gotten away with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Cameron

Quote: On October 1, 2004, he was the center of controversy, when a parody he wrote, mocking John Kerry with fabricated quotes, was posted publicly to the FOX News web site.

Quote: Quotes in his story included, "Women should like me! I do manicures," "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" and "I'm metrosexual — [Bush's] a cowboy." FOX News management apologized for the "error" saying it was the result of "fatigue and bad judgment." Cameron, however, was not suspended or fired for the incident, although FOX did say that he had been reprimanded, without providing further details.

Quote: Cameron's wife worked for the presidential campaign of George Bush in 2000. In spite of that, FOX News allowed Cameron to cover the Presidential campaign without telling the audience about the link. Cameron interviewed Bush at least once during the 2000 campaign.

No, I didn't watch his finale, just like I didn't watch Brokaw's finale.

The era of the old liberal newscaster reading from the teleprompter at 630pm is over, and good riddance!!

When will Peter Jennings retire? He is in some ways, worse than Brokaw or Rather. At least the other two graduated from high school!!

Goodbye, Dan, and thanks for nothing!! You've turned into the very same person you despised...Nixon!!

Funny how these "liberals" like Rather and Brokaw ran with all the fake stories about Clinton. Trooper Gate, for example. The reporter who broke that fake story now admits he lied and paid Arkansas State Troopers to say Clinton slept with prositutes while they guarded the hotel room door. Oh, that damn liberal media.

Quoting N5176Y (Reply 24): Mr. Rather was not the only reporter in Vietnam.

I was just comparing him to the other reporters mentioned.

-SOAC

ZOTAN wrote, in part: "Overall Dan Rather has done so much good to reporting and CBS than he has done bad."

I think I pretty much understand the thrust of your opinion, but would add, that after capturing a fair amount of snippets of his "good" reporting, I'll still stand by my observation that he is quite liberally opinionated (which is o.k., IMHO) but he shouldn't slant his news presentation even so slightly with this (or another) bias and label it as "news" or "reporting".

As far as the "hacks" on FOX, does anybody remember a little exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Mr. Rather where (in reference to Mr. Clinton's honesty and the Hoover affair), Dan replied to a couple of Bill's questions:

"Listen, who among us have not lied about something." >and<
"...I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."
(O'Reilly Factor, May 15, 01)

Compare this with (Dan) Rather Reporting, Sep 05, 01, when commenting on a new book on Richard Nixon (who, I think I correctly suppose that Rather pretty much hated) and the Vietnam War:

"[O]ne of the things we can learn is how often, how effectively, we the people were lied to about the war and about what the president was and was not doing, as compared to documented facts."

A little bias ??

I'll not debate the important difference between a Hoover and a war, but of course, there IS an important difference between a few off-degrees in the good ol' carpenter's level. No matter how subtly the bias sneaks through (even simple ommision of certain facts can subconsciously bias the viewer who does not seek other sources for comparison or spend time in analyzing), the result is not a positive. Regards..Jack

Dan Rather is finally gone, and as many said, good riddance. Lets see what's next.

You know who would be a great replacement? Brit Hume. He's a moderate conservative who tries to be fair and balanced. I'd dare to bet that in no more than a year he would get to the top in the ratings war.

Quoting Usairwys757 (Reply 2): Just because he doesnt cater to your "great" Republican needs doesnt mean he's not a good anchor.

He was awful. He was consistently behind Brokaw and Jennings in his status. His ridiculous quips made it difficult for me to accept that his journalistic style was the best CBS could do for broadcast news for the entire nation.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 3): Given his complete cock-up with his misguided "analysis" regarding Bush's military record, his reputation is shot.

Agreed. Anyone remember him getting ripped by Bush Sr. before the '88 election? And how about the prank call about Bobba-bouie's (spelling) teeth on the morning of the Columbia disaster? After the caller called Rather an idiot, Rather confirmed it in his own words. That's totally unacceptable in his position. It was a perfect example of his inadequacy when put on the spot. He should have been able to deflect the criticism while acknowledging the accident/mistake in allowing such a character the opportunity to get through.

Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 19): Overall Dan Rather has done so much good to reporting and CBS then he was done bad. All those hacks on FOX news will never be able to be half of the reporter he ever was.

Brit Hume is one, as spoken by SFOMEX here.

Quoting SFOMEX (Reply 30): You know who would be a great replacement? Brit Hume. He's a moderate conservative who tries to be fair and balanced. I'd dare to bet that in no more than a year he would get to the top in the ratings war.

Brit's great. He was classic in the debates while working for ABC during the '88 election.

Bye, Dan.

-R

Mr. Rather obviously has more class than the author of this thread, that is not even debatable.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32): Mr. Rather obviously has more class than the author of this thread, that is not even debatable.

If Dan Rather was God's gift to broadcasting, like some of you seem to believe around here, why was he consistently last in the ratings of the big three? Not only last, but not even close to second and falling more!
Local CBS affiliates are screaming for joy today as they now have hope that their viewers aren't watching another local newscast because they finally have a chance to ride the coat tails of someone who isn't a tired old-school biased anchor.

I don't understand why everyone is concentrating their hatred of news coverage on Dan Rather. If Dan Rather should be fired, then the entire FOX News cast should be shot, pissed on and shot out of a cannon....

Even more dangerous are the Rush Limbaughs of the world. Why no call to turf that idiot?

Quoting Airplay (Reply 34): Even more dangerous are the Rush Limbaughs of the world. Why no call to turf that idiot?

Because Rush Limbaugh is NOT a news broadcaster for one of the three big networks. Rush Limbaugh does not report news. He is a political commentator that openly makes his opinions and biases known. The same goes for everyone from Sean Hannity to Al Franken. You tune in knowing you are getting biased talk and opinions.

That is the difference.

To put it another way, Rush Limbaugh openly states his agenda during his show, which people tune in to hear, his opinion, while Dan Rather pushes his agenda behind a hidden wall of bias, when people are not tuning in for that, but are there for the news. When you tune to Rush you know what you are going to get. When you tune to Rather and are hearing a story about Social Security, the War, etc, you are getting a biased story that is supposed to be news. How much of it is slanted you don't know. To me thats much more dangerous than any opinionated "big talker."


See?

Quoting Airplay (Reply 34): If Dan Rather should be fired, then the entire FOX News cast should be shot, pissed on and shot out of a cannon.... Even more dangerous are the Rush Limbaughs of the world.

With statements like "shot, pissed on and shot out of a cannon," I believe you are the one that is dangerous. I hope your parents don't let you play with sharp objects.

Brit Hume better than Dan Rather? Whoa..... sorry, just threw up a little bit. Are you on crack?

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 37): Brit Hume better than Dan Rather? Whoa..... sorry, just threw up a little bit. Are you on crack?

Say that again in about 2 years when the ratings come out. I figure at least 2 years to clean CBS's image up.
Again, if Rather was so great why was Dan Rather was consistently in last place by a far margin. You tell me how he was go great but never could get ratings. Hume would be a great Rather replacment and could bring CBS no where but up.

[Edited 2005-03-10 18:31:15]

I'll say it again. Ratings mean nothing. You think Fox and Brit Hume get better ratings because they're better journalists? Because they have so called better journalistic "ethics" than Rather? Give me a break. Just because he has better ratings does not make him a better journalist. Let's take a look, shall we?

• When FNC first started up, Brit Hume was hired for his show, and he was a contributor to Weekly Standard and American Spectator, both ultra conservative.
  
• The most frequent panelists on his three person panel which concludes Special Report with Brit Hume include Fred Barnes, exectuive editor of the Weekly Standard, Mort Kondracke, a centrist editor of Roll Call, and Mara Liasson, a reporter for NPR and a registered Republican. Balanced?
  
• An example of his lying on his show. August 26, 2003, he claimed that "U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California." Statistically, it was found that an American soldier was 46 more times likely to die in Iraq than being murdered in California. Did he apologize? No, his response? "Admittedly it was a crude comparison. But it was illustrative of something". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Hume
  
• Feb 3, 2005: Hume distorted a statement by FDR in 1935 saying that FDR supported privatization. In fact, while Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits, he never proposed replacing those benefits with private accounts. http://mediamatters.org/items/200502190001
  
• Click this link to see other controversies surrounding Hume and stuff he has said, its most enlightening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Hume
  

I can go on and on if you want. Check out the links, they're most enlightening. I personally can't understand how a man with such obvious political leanings, who has and still does show his colors when carrying out his "journalism", can be a better reporter than Dan Rather. I would never trust getting my news from him, as better ratings don't make him a better journalist.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 39): Mara Liasson, a reporter for NPR and a registered Republican

If she is so right wing, what the hell is she doing on the blatently socialist NPR?

That's not the point I was making, and you're being pretty petty picking out a single thing out of my entire post rather than addressing it as a whole.

The point I was making there is that Brit Hume's most common panel is not balanced, with two republicans and one centrist. You could even argue that she is a moderate/liberal republican, but she is still republican. This does not make for a balanced panel.

Now care to address my post rather than pick on one thing?

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 39): I'll say it again. Ratings mean nothing. You think Fox and Brit Hume get better ratings because they're better journalists? Because they have so called better journalistic "ethics" than Rather? Give me a break. Just because he has better ratings does not make him a better journalist. Let's take a look, shall we?

Tbar,
Wow. You said a lot about Hume. However, not one word was uttered about why Rathers ratings were so low.
Face it, the guy is out dated, biased, dull and boring. He went out like a beat dog whimpering with his tail tucked. Floundering ratings. People losing jobs over his and others in the organizations antics. The entire CBS company tarnished by his and others actions.
And yet, when asked about his ratings being bad you answer it by saying how biased Hume is.
It's obvious you're reading straight out of the liberal playbook here.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 42): It's obvious you're reading straight out of the liberal playbook here.

Wow, so you don't like how I post and rather than address my post, you throw out some tacky "insult". This has nothing to do with political leanings, this has to do with journalistic honesty and integrity.

Rather messed up with these memos, and he lost his job because of it. The way he is getting butchered by people for this mistake is funny when you compare it to what other "journalists" have done. You are talking about ratings rather than journalistic integrity. I'm saying, ratings shouldn't matter, but rather journalistic integrity should come first. No journalist or media figure should sacrifice their integrity to improve their ratings. No journalist should let their political leanings interfere with their presentation.

Trying to compare Brit Hume to Dan Rather because of ratings is ridiculous. My post was aimed at the comment that Brit Hume would be better than Dan Rather, which I vigorously oppose.

Dan Rather may have been dull, he may have been boring, etc. etc., but as far as I know he never sacrificed his journalistic integrity for ratings (except for the memo scandal). If you look at Brit Humes time with Fox News, its is questionable at best. He may have good ratings, better than Rather, but I wouldn't trust him with my news for a second. Why? He's shown in the past he'll lie, make up statistics, and let his political leanings interfere with his news.

Why was Rather lower in ratings than Brit Hume? I don't know and I don't care. All I feel is that Rather is a better journalist than Hume, and for Hume to replace Rather would be a joke.

I can continue to point out things Hume has done if you'd like. Otherwise, my gripe with this is not about the ratings of the two. Ratings don't make the journalist.

I would rather NOT see Dan leave, he was a CLASS ACT compared to other newsmen and women.

Tbar,

You're quoting MediaMatters, a FAR left organization. I'm supposed to believe its not biased?

You're also using wikipedia, which has a slogan on its front page:

"Welcome to Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Wow. I'm not sure I want to prove my point by directing someone to a website that has open internet editing. I'm not sure I can trust it to be 100% correct. If you think so fine.

I'll say it again, you're using plays straight out of the liberal playbook.

For those who missed it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4331479.stm

I thought he was extremely dignified.

Why wouldn't this data be correct? You won't trust it because its a liberal website? I don't understand, those are things he's been known to say on the air. This isn't stuff people are making up, do a Yahoo! or Google search on it, and you will find many more sources showing he said these things. This isn't made up stuff. Wikipedia has monitors that check everything that is edited and submitted as well.

Anyways, you still didn't address my points, stop going around them. What about my last post? What do you think about journalistic integrity? IF what I posted is true (since you don't believe it), do you think Brit Hume has sacrificed some of his journalistic integrity? Why isn't the media all over him like they were for Dan Rather? Should ratings be the most important thing for journalism?

Please, please stick on the topic. I don't even feel like we're discussing the same thing. Your response to my last post was "I don't like your sources". Why don't you address my points instead.

To address your source issue as well:

Here's the article where Hume made his comments about FDR
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146409,00.html

Here's other sources on his comments made about the election on June 2, backing up what is said on Wikipedia and media matters.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/brit_hume
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/B/Brit-Hume.htm

Here's the article where Hume made his comparison of California to Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95850,00.html

I only wish I could find the actual Fox News Grapevine clip where he said these comments, if I do I'll post it right away.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 48): Why don't you address my points instead.

Tbar, kudos to you for being willing and able to place links to help support your point. But this has shifted away from Rather to how seemingly awful Brit Hume is.

Not that I've cared to follow Rather's career in great detail, but he probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to advance period without JFK being assassinated. Rather, being New Orleans bureau chief, had the journalistic endeavor of a lifetime sitting in his lap in the wake of the assassination. How he was able to swindle his way to the anchor chair (18 years later, I believe), I'd be interested to know.

Hume, Brokaw, Jennings, Koppel, Rather, Wallace, Couric, Russert - they've all had their miscues (some more than others). Who can forget after midnight in early November 2000, when the newscasts were calling it for Bush over Gore - flipping to NBC's broadcast as Brokaw and Russert were going over the (supposed at the time) outcome, while Katie was visibly upset and kept her head turned off-camera? And you've let us have some information regarding Brit Hume. But to bring the post back to subject, Rather has left more than just a sour taste.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 43): Dan Rather may have been dull, he may have been boring, etc. etc., but as far as I know he never sacrificed his journalistic integrity for ratings (except for the memo scandal).

Here's a quote from Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes :"I think Dan is transparently liberal. Now he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too. But I think he should be more careful." Taken from Larry King Live, July 28, 2002. Here's the website, and, yes, admittedly devoted to checking Rather's inadequacies:

http://www.ratherbiased.com/compare.htm

Regardless of the intent of that website, I remember Rooney's sentiments from then, which would give another perspective to Rather's journalistic integrity. Check out (further down the page) Rather's last comment about lying while being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things." --Dan Rather on FNC's O'Reilly Factor May 15, 2001. Uh, yeah . . . OK, Dan.   Now, how can a statement like this be made by someone with journalistic integrity?

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 43): This has nothing to do with political leanings, this has to do with journalistic honesty and integrity.

Not with Rather.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 41): Now care to address my post rather than pick on one thing?

Very well. Let's start here:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 43): Trying to compare Brit Hume to Dan Rather because of ratings is ridiculous. My post was aimed at the comment that Brit Hume would be better than Dan Rather, which I vigorously oppose.

You summed up everything you've been saying in a nutshell there. You've made some references to Brit Hume's inadequacies as a journalist, focusing mainly on two (about FDR and comparing California to Iraq). The other, about the elections, I'm unable to access with the computer here at work. And, anyway, I've used wiki-formatted websites previously (like memory-alpha.org for Star Trek fans), so I'm leery about trusting the content of such a site, regardless of said monitors. You mentioned there's similiar content on Hume that can be found through Google or Yahoo searches. I'd be more assured of the content of those sites, should you care to provide them, rather than that wiki site.

But let's focus on your point about Hume's comments about FDR. Check out this website:

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcb...ves/2005/02/much_ado_over_n_1.html

Hume accurately described FDR's intents about privatization. Not only does this website deny the findings of that media matters site, it trumps it by providing FDR's speech on Social Security.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 43): I can continue to point out things Hume has done if you'd like.

Fair enough. Up to this point, I've liked Hume, though, I'd like to see more you can provide. But back to this topic of your post, in which you vigorously oppose sentiments of Hume being superior to Rather. We could go back and forth, but to sum it up, they all make mistakes. But if we are to compare these two, Hume is simply superior due to the integrity that you claim should be standard in measuring these journalists. When Andy Rooney, a guy on Dan's own team, calls him openly biased and says that Rather needs to watch himself, that's pretty indicative of Rather's quality. Hume doesn't have anyone like that on his team calling him out like that.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 43): Ratings don't make the journalist.

I agree, but, in another perspective, it does in their world.

-R