Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Dan Rather back on the air with Jon Stewart and Colbert tonight
huffingtonpost.com — Dan Rather had a rather impressive 43 year streak of covering elections. Scandal forced him out of the anchor chair and many thought it'd be the end of his run. Not so, for Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are coming to the rescue! He'll be on with them for the Midterm Midtactular. Jon Stewart's my hero.
torifile- 425 diggs
- digg it
- reeder, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Nice pick-up, JS&SC!
- melodramatic2, on 10/12/2007, -20/+10Couldn't have been that hard, since any other reputable station would alienate half their potential viewers if they brought someone in with his history of inaccurate reporting.
- Gerbil, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10Shhhhh.... He shills for democrats. It is not inaccurate reporting - it is "his version of facts"...
- melodramatic2, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9It is undisputed that the news he was reporting was inaccurate, and it was the primary reason for him "retiring". Nothing I said was demonstrably false, and yet partisan Diggers want to censor what I said.
What I said was: Only a show with the political immunity of comedy could put Dan Rather on without questions being raised about the station's objectivity. - drog, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19"It is undisputed that the news he was reporting was inaccurate"
Actually, the news he was reporting WAS accurate, however one of his multiple sources was not. There is a big difference. - melodramatic2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9"Actually, the news he was reporting WAS accurate, however one of his multiple sources was not. There is a big difference."
How can the news reported be accurate if the source was not accurate, and not even scrutinized appropriately for accuracy?
A simple logical extension of what you said would conclude that I'm right and that no station would want him on board even if he only gives the appearance of "apparent" scandal. - PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13neg diggs does not equate cencorship.
freedom of speech doesnt mean people have to agree with you.
You want to censor peoples freespeech right to digg your down
and that is censorship(if enacted)
I hope you understand the difference. - melodramatic2, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4@PowerCow
"censor (n):
a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence or to watch theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene or politically unacceptable"
By definition, anybody digging somebody else down to try and hide their comment is performing the act of censorship. That is not in dispute. I was, in fact, complaining about the reasons for my comment being censored, not that it was. I hope you now understand the difference between disagreeing with someone, and trying to hide what they are saying based on your emotions, or political affiliations.
People have a right to say what they want, and also to ignore what they want, but I'm saying that people here are digging me down because of they don't want others to hear what I have to say, not because they have a counter-argument that they want to present. - ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2When he investigated how Bush avoided Vietnam, Rather was right about the facts, but he fell into a trap set-up by Karl Rove, who manufactured a lying informant to discredit Rather's investigation, and it worked...because the mass-media were on Rove's side.
But Rather is no saint. He was THE journalist picked-up to view the Kennedy assassination film shot by Zapruder, and he lied about what he saw, saying Kennedy's head moved forward instead of backward. So he clearly is working for the CIA. But it seems it was not enough to protect him from the Bushes, who took control of the CIA, or at least tried.
Watch The Men Who Killed Kennedy (on emule) and you will stop worshipping Rather. And search Fletcher Prouty .
All that makes me think that Colbert and Stewart are establishment whores, like all those in the media who are supporting the Democrats.
Never forget: two sides of the same coin! - Latentk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You have got to be kidding me. Are all left wingers like yourself such conspiracy theorists? Back up what you have said with some solid proof IS.
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5damn, you all make me laugh =)
It doesnt matter whether or not Rather's source was accurate or not. It was the method of his reporting that was in question. He should have checked all his sources beforehand. Even if that one person was a plant to make Rather look like a fool, he still should not have done the interview LIVE. If you are not 100% sure about your sources accuracy or truthfulness, you dont interview live. Especially with such a high profile report. - randf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1let me see...dan rather--source fabricating journalist, CIA operative, now comedian. makes sense to me
- skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Actually, the news he was reporting WAS accurate, however one of his multiple sources was not. There is a big difference."
Hmm... this sounds strangely familiar. Isn't this the same reason we invaded Iraq? The news Bush was reporting WAS accurate, however one of his multiple sources was not.
You liberals can't have it both ways, apologizing for Rather and then calling Bush a liar when the same situation arises, even if it did lead to more dire consequences. - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@skyshock21:
I find it very humorous that you think only liberals would support Rather and condem Bush. What an interesting mind you have... - reeder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone else hate these ***** annoying Ditto-Trolls who just spew impotent rage filled nonsense for no reason. I believe this is the website you worthless idiots meant to type in:
http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/
- SCMacUser, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Saw it. Was very glad to see him back. I miss him :'(
- rabidjester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I need to get me one of those terrorist cakes!
- marix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2anyone have a torrent of this?
- groggyboy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6i saw it, loved it. But i was wondering if anybody else felt Colbert's diatribe during the second half was a little too far off the deep end. I found his comments about Blacks, Italian Americans, and Natives to be plain, old fashioned racist. I understand Colbert plays a character, but was that really appropriate? Altho I wonder if there even is a line to be crossed anymore with Colbert...
And geez man, get over yourself already!- FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Colbert is playing O'Reilly, so no, there is no line.
- Latentk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Right Flag, and Rather is a saint comparatively.
- piwy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn, don't you Americans get tired of calling people racist?
- 13tongimp, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Rather was great, and played up to the whole 2000 Prez election deal. It was a great segment and the highlight of the show. I'm glad to see he has a sense of humor about it and was willing to take part.
In a semi-related matter, did anyone else see when Fox News drew a penis on live TV?
http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=3937285
Are they trying to suggest something? lol - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Ok, it may be because it's 3:19 am, but am I reading most of these comments correctly and seeing many of you being serious about how the news is being reported on the Daily Show and the Colbert Report?
And I missed both...now I'm sad- rabidjester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, it was live so they mentioned some of the races as the results came in. On the east coast, there was no delay and a "*****" came though. Good times.
- rabidjester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, it was live so they mentioned some of the races as the results came in. On the east coast, there was no delay and a "*****" came though. Good times.
- blloo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0woooo
- FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3My favorite part was when Rather couldn't stop laughing after Jon did his Lieberman
- widman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Video online (the top middle one)
http://www.comedycentral.com/
Or Torrent of this show
http://www.mininova.org/tor/479140 - Tekmazter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I find it funny all those who immediately come to defend Rather when someone makes a bad comment about him. America voted on this guy's agenda long before it voted on Bush's. His news show was DEAD LAST for many years and falling futher and further behind when this whole scandal broke. Those who defend him should have spoken up then, not now.
The man was completely biased in a postition of which you absolutely must not be. - umberloid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Rather also has a new show on HDNet starting next week.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by