Dan Rather Should Stick to His Story ("Absolutely" believes fake but accurate story)

The Nation ^ | Fri Jul 14, 2006

[presidio9]

The other night Dan Rather was back in center ring. In an hour long interview with CNN's Larry King. Rather spoke with quiet fury about the suits at CBS who treated him, a 44-year employee, so disgracefully. It turns out that at the end, it was the lawyers--not actor-turned corporate honcho Leslie Moonves--who told Rather "we just don't have a place for you." But, as Rather understood--as has anyone watching the networks these last years--CBS News is a cog in an entertainment company.

[YaYa123]

What great advice for Dan!! He gets to look like a bitter old fool all over again. Go for it Dan!!


If you missed the Larry King/Dan Rather whine fest, you can read the transcript here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/12/lkl.01.html

[Zuben Elgenubi]

from the linked article: ". . . [were] largely sidetracked by the fixation on questions about the authenticity of documents aired on CBS on September 8.

The Nation doesn't want us to be fixated on authentic facts.

[cvq3842]

How absolutely fitting that Rather is now in the exact position he and other liberal pundits depicted Richard Nixon as being in - a somewhat pathetic old man, caught in a lie, who wouldn't come clean in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Again, I'm talking about their IMAGE of Nixon, not necessarily the reality. I'm not bashing Nixon, but referring to how he was treated.

Whatever treatment Bush received is not the issue - the clear deception and attempt to use one's position to hoodwink the public and throw an election is.

If Fox had tried this against Kerry, we would never have heard the end of it!

[Physicist]

In the days after "60 Minutes" aired its September 2004 report raising tough questions about President Bush's pampered "service" in the Texas National Guard, the heart of the story was obscured by a rightwing blog-fueled controversy over the authenticity of the so-called Killian memos.

What's the bigger story? The possibility that some rich kid might have gotten a pass in some guard unit almost 40 years ago? Or the FACT that one of our nation's premiere news organizations tried to subvert a U.S. Presidential election through fraud?

This was an attempted coup against the most powerful nation in history. It should be chronicled in the history books a thousand years from now. Whatever happened in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1960's is not newsworthy at any time.

[NonValueAdded]

Excellent, excellent point.

[Unicorn]

None of them want to say "Buckheads" name.

[misterrob]

Bush's NG unit suffered a number of deaths during training exercises. This was a no joke assignment. Their wing wasn't called up. Not his fault.

Draft Dodger Clinton and Ace Reporter Gore, well, those are different issues according to Katrina and her band of hatchet men.

[spinestein]

[RATHER: Absolutely. One of my disappointments was that, you know, over most if not all of my career, I've taken the view that we go into stories together, no matter what happens we stay together and we come out the other side together.]



That's the source of your problem, Mr. Rather. You and your fellow journalists no longer view yourselves as reporters committed to the job of accurately reporting news, but as warriors united in a common cause against your political enemies, with the end always justifying the means.

[presidio9]

(Follow "The Bronze Rule")

[four more in O 4]

He will never have peace, as he has hatred in his heart.

44 years and all he has is the hatred.

Bad choice... Hatred vs truth.

[Dont Mention the War]

Who are these morons that can only see the world through Noam Chomsky's eyes?

[spinestein]

[In the days after "60 Minutes" aired its September 2004 report raising tough questions about President Bush's pampered "service" in the Texas National Guard, the heart of the story was obscured by a rightwing blog-fueled controversy over the authenticity of the so-called Killian memos.]



What's most frightening is the fact that if the forger had not been so careless as to type the documents on a computer instead of finding an old typewriter, thus leaving incontrovertible proof of forgery in the use of "proportionally based fonts" (thank you 'BUCKHEAD'), this lie would be the accepted reality.

[spinestein]

HEE, HEE, HEEEEEE!!!

I'd forgotten about the "John Kerry as a Giant Oompa-Loompa" appearance.


That's almost as funny as the "AlGore rosy-face makeup"
appearance in the second presidential debate in 2000. His handlers painted him up to look like Ronald Reagan, including the hairstyle.

What the **** were they thinking?

[Big Digger]

Dan Rather hasn't "corroborated" a goddamn thing about his hatchet job on W's ANG record. If he can, let's see it. If he can't, shut the hell up. Otherwise it's hearsay from a total fraud and his loony, so-called informants.

[presidio9]

My favorite thing about that pictuture just might be the "Livestrong" braclet.

"Look at me! I'm hip. I'm vibrant. I'm athletic. I windsurf. And did you know I was in Vietnam?"

[spinestein]

From the linked CNN Larry King interview:

[KING: We're back with an extraordinary broadcaster, an old friend, Dan Rather. You mentioned earlier, I want to go back to it, unkept promises. Like?

RATHER: Well, I was told that I was going to be a regular correspondent on "60 Minutes." I wasn't. That's an example. There were unkept promises. And I asked several times that the promises be kept, and...

KING: What'd they tell you?

RATHER: ... Well, I was told through third parties we think we're keeping them. That was part of it. In some cases it was demonstrably true that they weren't keeping it.]





There's a life's lesson here and Mr. Rather is ignoring it. He should pay close attention to what it looks like when someone is lying to your face for what they feel to be good and justifiable reasons, so he can learn to recognize it better coming from his own mouth.

[BerniesFriend]

If you must torture yourself and read this opinion, please note that they cite molly ivin and "fair" group as supposed sources against the President..yeah..that is fair and balanced..

[JohnEBoy]

Physicist, your comment is exactly right.

In addition, here's the other side of this that I do not understand. In theory, the news media, in 2004 is supposed to bring us information to help us voters make a decision between the incumbent and the challenger. So, in that case, which one do I want to know about his military service 30 years ago. Well, Bush was already commander in chief. So I already knew what I needed to know about his ability ... and whether he got a pass in the TNG no longer holds any import on my decision.

Meanwhile, the challenger is the one I DO want to know about his 30 year old military service. And apparently, about 250 veterans who know him wanted to tell me about his military service, i.e., Swift Boat Guys.

So what does the "drive-by media" want to tell me about? Why, some trumped up charges about Bush from a single unhappy camper with an axe to grind. Meanwhile, they want to marginalize and lie about comments from 250 people who knew JFK during Viet Nam. Any story I ever saw about the SBV's was presented in a very negative light.

My point is ... regardless of your politics, if you are an "unbiased media person", why not tell both stories? And when you discover that the TNG story is based on fake documents, simply report it and move on. Makes you wonder.