digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Dan Rather Files $70 Million Lawsuit against CBS

nytimes.com — Dan Rather, whose career at CBS News ground to an inglorious end 15 months ago over his role in an unsubstantiated report questioning President Bush ’s Vietnam-era National Guard service, filed a $70 million lawsuit this afternoon against the network, its corporate parent and three of his former superiors.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • allaboutdatiki, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21So what's the frequency?
    • redpoint13, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3I like how the story calls this one of the "darkest times" in CBS's News Reporting because Dan Rather got caught lying, but Fox News lies on a daily basis and no one gives 2 *****.
  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -37/+17Old Dan has definitely fallen off the deep end. No wonder they wanted him out.

  • jthomp3120, on 10/10/2007, -47/+56buried for description suggesting Dan Rather is wrong to sue. George Bush did receive very special treatment when he was stationed with the texas air guard. http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam
    • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -6/+47How does that change the fact that Rather passed forged documents off as the real thing on the air? We all already know that Senators sons get preferential treatment. The key is not to lie and use un-vetted information to say so...
      • ronjohn, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4How does that change the fact there are no weapons of mass destruction on Iraq and the yellow cake thing was fake?
        • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It doesn't and isn't the point of the article retard.
      • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7FTA

        By his own rendering, Mr. Rather was little more than a narrator of the disputed broadcast, which was shown on Sept. 8, 2004, on the midweek edition of “60 Minutes” and which purported to offer new evidence of preferential treatment given to Mr. Bush when he was a lieutenant in the Air National Guard.

        Instead of directly vetting the script he would read for the Guard segment, Mr. Rather says, he acceded to pressure from Mr. Heyward to focus instead on his reporting from Florida on Hurricane Frances, and on Bill Clinton’s heart surgery.

        Mr. Rather says in the filing that he allowed himself to be reduced to little more than a patsy in the furor that followed, after CBS — and later the outside panel it commissioned — concluded that the report was based on documents that could not be authenticated. Under pressure, Mr. Rather says, he delivered a public apology on his newscast on Sept. 20, 2004 — written not by him but by a CBS corporate publicist — “despite his own personal feelings that no public apology from him was warranted.”
      • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Forged documents? Proof please.
        • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7If you are going to go on sleeping under rocks - thereby abdicating your responsibility to be informed, don't come begging the rest of us for handouts. Go back to sleep dimwit.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm

          The forgerer was stupid enough to produce the documents on a computer, which produces perfect fontagraphy and positioning, rather that on a typewriter of the time period.

          The forgerer, Bill Burkett, was then forced to admit that the documents were not originals, but claimed he transcribed them from the originals. Or course, the officer whose name appears on the documents was long since deceased, so there's no one to verify the authenticity of the content.
        • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Insults != proof. The documents were never verified to be true or false, and THAT is the scandal (Rather should have verified them). Aside from that, there is NO proof whatsoever that they were forged, and there IS proof that the contents of the Killian memo are in fact correct and true.
          • HarryBauzonia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4No sweetheart. They were proven to be false. They were made in MS Word.
            Maybe you don't know but we didn't have PC's then (or Word). It may also surprise you to know that phones had a rotary dial instead of buttons and no one had ever heard of digital watches at the time.
            Anyway, they were proven to be false.

            Maybe you could go to the library and read up on it yourself instead of demanding the rest of us "prove" it to you. Apparently you never followed the story when it was happening, or maybe you just weren't old enough to be interested.
    • MaynardJK, on 10/10/2007, -7/+31He probably did receive special treatment. That still doesn't make it ok for a "journalist" to fabricate evidence of it. Dan Rather is wrong to sue. He should have checked his sources.

      What happens when a journalist has a grudge against you but has no evidence? Is it ok if he just pulls something out of his ass and calls it proof?
      • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7Um, when was it established that Dan fabricated anything?

        I thought that Dan was duped by the fake Docs.
        • cawpin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8It doesn't matter if he made them or not. Journalists should check their facts before they publish their works.
          • kurttrail, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1And I guess that journalists must be perfect then!

            Geez! You must be an adolescent. People make mistakes.
      • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3It hasn't been established that anyone fabricated anything. There is no proof either way. Funny how a Lt. Col. in the Texas air guard supposedly faked documents in order to libel the President of the USA, and yet was never investigated or prosecuted or even officially accused of anything....
        • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yes it was clearly established that the documents were not authentic. The report was touting EVIDENCE. Funny thing about evidence is it has to be authenticated. There was no evidence of Bussh getting special treatment via these documents - as reported by Rather.

          That constitutes a lie.
        • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2"it was clearly established that the documents were not authentic."

          *****. You said it yourself in your own post, the funny thing about "evidence" is it has to be authenticated, and Rather didn't authenticate it. THAT is the scandal. The documents themselves were never established to be fake, they just were not authenticated.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The description is the first paragraph of the NY Times story. It's a copy and paste Digg post.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Josh Howard, the Executive Producer at the time of the weekday 60 Minutes who was forced to resign, rejected Rather's claim that he was just a passive narrator, telling Kurtz: "He did every interview. He worked the sources over the phone. He was there in the room with the so-called document experts. He argued over every line in the script. It's laughable."
  • minorthreat, on 10/10/2007, -39/+33CBS has the right to hire and fire who they please and Dan Rather has the freedom of speech to say what he likes. But to fire the reporter for speaking the truth, in a time when everyone bowed before our great leader, is wrong.
    • RedNeckerson, on 10/10/2007, -12/+32The documents were proven to be forged.
      He was fired for lying, not for "speaking the truth".
      Are you a troofer?
      • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5He was fired for reading a lie off a cue card. Big difference.
      • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Proven to be forged? Source please.
    • hmmmok, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Please change your moniker. UR ruining my memory of them.
  • MajorD, on 10/10/2007, -19/+44I miss Dan.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5he seems to a lot more honest now that he's not part of the corporate media machine.
    • pixelate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Courage.
  • Etchii, on 10/10/2007, -10/+22He does GREAT reporting on HDNET now. Seriously, its worth a watch...its nothing like any other news show broadcast on US Cable Networks..(aka fair reporting).
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4As long as they don't zoom in too close when I've got the quality all the way up.
      • Etchii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Agreed, sometimes you get a screen full of OLD when watching the show lol
    • manstein01, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8If by "fair reporting" you mean extremely skewed left-wing viewpoint, yes, his show would be that.
      • Etchii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I will digg your comment, you are entitled to your opinion and I can see where you are coming from..

        Personally I've gotten the impression from watching his show numerous times that he tries to show the view points of both "sides" when talking left wing and right wing.
        Not everything has to be left or right, its called the middle.

  • SickMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -25/+44The story of Bush being AWOL was true, but the documents (which were given to CBS by a GOP plant) were fake. Dan reported what he was given, the Network threw him under the bus, and the story died. Meanwhile, Kerry's admirable war record was Swift-boated.
    This is really a story about one of the greatest campaign swindles pulled in American history. It is an act of pure evil genius that ultimately led to George Bush's re-election. I suspect one day we will learn that Karl Rove was behind it.
    • monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -15/+12It's disgusting what the GOP is willing to do to a true Vietnam war hero.
      • whaleyboy69, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Kerry chose to run on his war record. That mantle was not forced upon him. If there were people who felt that he was undeserving of the accolades that he demanded then I don't have a problem making those opinions a part of the dialog, Personally, I am offended that a person who has made a career out of criticizing the military would a) refuse scrutiny of his own record and b) cloak himself in military honor. FInally, what a rube to lose the election to Bush.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Give it a break Gengis.
      • gernblansted, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Disgusting, perhaps, but not surprising at all. Look what they're doing to current soldiers and recent vets... Extending combat duties, calling back reservists, using National Guard troops as opposed to regular troops (thus making them unavailable for National causes such as Katrina), not providing enough support for wounded vets, hosing down the country with vets returning with untreated PTSD, cutting benefits... Gawd, I could go on and on but all except those with their fingers in their ears and eyes closed while humming loudly already know how much the GOP (and even some Dems) 'support' the troops. To some of these folks, the troops are nothing but cannon fodder, at least until there's a photo op there or a chance to attack a political foe - at which point they wave the flag at the speed of sound.
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17"which were given to CBS by a GOP plant"

      Care to document that?
      • SickMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Sure.
        The rumor was reported in the New York Post. Rawstory.com reported on it as well. Here's a link: http://rawstory.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=64
        There were other indications the doc were a plant as well. For example, Jeff Gannon, the fake reporter who visited the White House dozens of times, was one of the first, or very first, reporters to break the story that the documents were fake. http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
        Also, an anonymous poster (who could have also been Gannon) on Freerepublic.com (a right wing blog) posted a detailed analysis about why the documents were fake almost immediately after the CBS made them public. A team of FBI analysts couldn't have done such a thorough job so quickly.
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"The RUMOR was reported in the New York Post. Rawstory.com reported on it as well." < emphasis mine >

        Yeah, gotcha.... YOU even admit is a rumor when you stated it as a FACT in your first argument. If I tried to do that in defense of Bush, I'd be buried deeper than the Marianas Trench... but since you're attacking Bush... THUMBS UP all around.
    • diggSJaustin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8And to think some people accuse liberals of being paranoid.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8ROVE!!!1!!!!1!!!1!!1one!!

      Of course we know who is really pulling the strings, Zombie Reagan.
      • TWINFM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5zombie reagan vs dennis kucinich in 08.
        Of course zombie reagan will just eat kucinich's brains to gain his courage
    • compdude32, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks SickMonkey I haven't laughed like that in years, I am not sure what part is funniest:
      your claim the story is true
      The claim that it is a GOP consipiracy
      The claim that CBS threw Rather under the bus
      or Your claim that Kerry has an admirable war record.

      Man it is really hard to choose which of your falsehoods is the funniest.
    • hifidawg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1SickMonkey, that must be some mighty good Kool-Aid you're drinking!
  • Ghstfce, on 10/10/2007, -17/+12I'm surprised it took Dan Rather 15 months to spend all his money and then sue to pay the bills. But I will say this, you have balls sir. You were brave enough to question "Dub-ya", even though your network was too scared to. Bra-freaking-vo.
    • toast24, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2As I have some experience with litigation, I would say that, for a case this size, and given the size of who he is going up against, most of the 15 months went into research.
    • CowboyJesus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I buried your comment at first, but had I noticed your name first I wouldn't have done so
    • compdude32, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yea I guess it takes balls to try to fraudulently change the outcome of an election. But then again this is the liberal way, they can't win elections on ideas so they try to win them through lies.
  • omnithought, on 10/10/2007, -20/+16Good for him. I hope he wins. He was a good main in a ***** system.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Josh Howard, the Executive Producer at the time of the weekday 60 Minutes who was forced to resign, rejected Rather's claim that he was just a passive narrator, telling Kurtz: "He did every interview. He worked the sources over the phone. He was there in the room with the so-called document experts. He argued over every line in the script. It's laughable."
  • rowlodge, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5i liked the way he didn't take anybody as more important than anybody else, including reporters. i would of retired and taken the money and run though.
  • bender240, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Here's a link to the wikipedia "memogate"/killian document article for those wanting more background:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memogate
    ...wait, is this the wrong link... i'm still on my first coffee of the day, and 2004 seems like it was over 15 months ago...?
  • Svengalus, on 10/10/2007, -9/+18He should have checked the facts/evidence before trying to break a story this big. It was the equivalent of the prosecutors in the O.J. trial having him try those gloves on, guilty or not you just ruined your case.
  • picsectionpleez, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Glad to see the NY Times showing up on the front page of Digg = looks like they made a good decision to go free and quit charging for access. Also love how easy their font is to read online. +1 just for the NY Times
  • KKat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+12In related news, the captain of the Exxon Valdez sues Exxon for firing him and making it difficult for him to work again as a captain. "The environmentalists gave me bad maps!" he claimed in his lawsuit. "Nevermind that they were of Mexico and I should have realized when I saw them I was in Alaska!". When questioned if he had been given bad maps by an low-level Exxon operative who wanted the oil shipped to Mexico, he said, "That's impossible!!!! Oil companies NEVER make mistakes or commit fraud!!!! It NEVER EVER HAPPENS!!!!"
    When your crediblity is shot Dan, stop digging.
  • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15Good ole GW getting preferential treatment in the guard is not the issue. I think we all know he did. Politicians kids have been getting special treatment at least as far back as when Fogerty was writing songs and probably before that.
    The issue is that Dan Rather passed off forged documents as real. I love investigative journalism and all for bringing on the dirt, just check your facts and present the truth.
  • trevorjez, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4"I can tell you that nobody at the Democratic National Committee or groups associated with us were involved in any way with these documents. I'm just saying that I would ask Karl Rove the same question." - Terry McAuliffe
  • Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Rather should just start broadcating the truth over the net.. the net is totaly taking over the media world.. I never watch the news any longer unless I want to get fired up about how bad big media is.
    • SickMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I think it's funny how CNN and some of the other news programs are trying compete by reporting on what's going on in the "Blogosphere". Meanwhile Fox News, which hates the fact that it can't control the message on the Internet, attacks it as if it were some sort of left-wing conspiracy. This is why net-neutrality is so important; it prevents a few large media conglomerates from controlling everything we see and read.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Josh Howard, the Executive Producer at the time of the weekday 60 Minutes who was forced to resign, rejected Rather's claim that he was just a passive narrator, telling Kurtz: "He did every interview. He worked the sources over the phone. He was there in the room with the so-called document experts. He argued over every line in the script. It's laughable."
  • lazerus9, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9John Kerry as president? Give me a break!! He stood on the stage at UF like a" Mumbling Mannequin" and did nothing, while that student was dragged off and tasered!
    • Svengalus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I love it. That incident is going to set a interesting precedent for democrat speakers. How long should I let the insane guy rant?
    • FyberOptic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The kid was a retard who got exactly what he deserved. Get over it.
      • lazerus9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My comment was concerning Kerry's response not the motivations of the student.
  • doggy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9this is the stupidest lawsuit that I have heard of, he left cbs willingly, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is after the money because his hd program is not going welll
  • marthrock, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Let it gooooo Dan ! let it go. put down the gun and just walk away. haven't you hurt enough people already? when is enough , enough? part of the healing is to admit that it's over...
  • orelses, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1How about some love for posting this first: http://digg.com/business_finance/Dan_Rather_Files_ ...
    :-)
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'll give you the same kinda love your "girlfriend" would...

      "Get back in the box, Gimp!"

      and a -1. Have a nice day.
  • MikeonTV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2if your going to capitalize the word 'files' you should do it to 'against' aswell.
  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11The amazing part is the retards that STILL think the report is true. It's like the dumb ***** 9/11 "truthers". Political parties truly make people stupid.
  • plizard, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1i'm suing the jena 6
  • Infowarmachine, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4ya it was a fraud, all the mainstream would say that was that hed gone crazy and had to be taken off the air, they refused to say why.. because what he said was true

    george bush's daddy made sure he never even had to leave the country
    his daddy also managed to cover up his failing grades at yale, where he failed history and other classes
  • Narasil, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4So I'm confused, is there some kind of inherit right to be a yellow journalist?
  • eatkitten, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4dan rather is a tuna ass.
  • edrift101, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I would have more respect for him, if he didn't back down at the time.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15I wonder of the lawsuit filed was typed on a 1972 IBM Selectric Typewriter or did he just use MS Word and run it through the copier a few times?
    • davharrington, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7ROTFLMFAO
      Somehow I doubt anyone who want's to believe Dan Rather's story will have any remote idea of what you are talking about.

      More attention should be paid to the fact that a blogger can expose BS MSM stories
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Owned! lolz
  • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4$70 million? What he deserves is a box of tissues and a subscription to Cosmopolitan.
  • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Several people involved at the time stated the memo was a reproduction of the original and the information in it was accurate including the secretary who typed it. The "Liberal Media" didn't bother to report that.
    • compdude32, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It is no secret that the command Bush served under didn't like him, that would provide good motive to say that, and if you really believe that a secretary can remember something she typed that long ago then I have some ocean front property in Arizona I will sell you cheap.

      Really the question of if the information is true doesn't matter (there is no supporting proof that it is true), the fact that someone chose to lie about it lends credence to the idea that the story is false, but that doesn't change the fact that Rather did not do his job and research his story.
      • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Actually, there is supporting proof that it is true, in the form of Pentagon military records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
  • Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Goes to show how they coerce reporters to only talk about things that don't rock the boat of powerful families and politicians. I think most reporters are nothing more than people who babble a preset script the corporate system makes for them. It's amazing how the news on the Internet versus television are drastically different.
  • adiosjefe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's the American way. You screw up and then you sue someone about it. Be a man Dan. Suck it up and take responsibility for what you did.
  • Hobofuzz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2" They work harder, stronger and faster"
    They seem to have mixed it up a bit.

    It's Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger.
  • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1WAY TO GO DAN RATHER! The guy was swiftboated, he didn't do anything wrong.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -3/+31972 IBM Selectric Typewriter
  • bobbknight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Wow I love all this Vietnam War *****, on the one side we have people who praise the draft dodgers who ran to Canada and were later pardoned by President Carter. Which by the way is the only thing he did that was worth a crap.
    Then you have the other side, where if you didn't serve in the Military your just wrong if you criticize it.
    Could the documents have been created in the time frame that was reported, yes.
    Was it likely that they were, no.
    The word processor that was available at the time that could have made the documents, the IBM Selectric Composer was probably not part of Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian's administrative arsenal due to size and cost.
    So most likely they were forged using Microsoft Word.
    Mapes and Rather failed in their due diligence to insure the voracity of the documents, this can be attributed to wishful thinking.
    When the documents were acknowledged as forgeries, this is the reason they were dismissed.
    I hope this goes to trial and Rather loses in a public forum.

    As to the quote from Rather's mugging it's: " What's the frequency, Kennith? "

    http://www.ape-o-naut.org/innuendo/
  • Happy_Phantom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sour grapes. Litigation is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
  • alphonseragusa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+61. Become journalist.
    2. Blatantly lie.
    3. Get fired.
    4. Sue for PROFIT!!!
  • pacifico555, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Round-up of winners and losers of the Rather lawsuit.
    http://independentsources.com/2007/09/20/winners-a ...
  • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It hasn't been established that anyone fabricated anything. There is no proof either way. Funny how a Lt. Col. in the Texas air guard supposedly faked documents in order to libel the President of the USA, and yet was never investigated or prosecuted or even officially accused of anything....

    Also according to wikipedia Pentagon records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act confirm the contents of the Killian Memo.
  • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The lawsuit alleges that the memos were authentic.

    Were they? You decide.

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/au ...
    • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1littlegreenfootballs.com is clearly an unbiased and professional source, LOL
      • HarryBauzonia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hey...everyone enjoy the preaching from this boy who gets his "news" from rawsewage and dailyKOS.
    • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1...
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3$50 to anyone who can find a way to post that .gif in the comments section. OK, how about someone posting a superscripted TH.
  • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2President George W. Bush’s Military Service: A Critical Analysis [pdf]

    http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechli ...
  • soupir, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Courage, Dan.
  • WaterJake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Dan Rather lost credibility. You can't have some one lacking in credibility as your prime news anchor, theoretically at least. Once the document scandal came to fruition, Rather was finished on network television forever.
  • SciFiFan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dan Rather says that he just reads the news... but once he is up there on live t.v. with the camera rolling, who is going to stop him from saying what he wants to say right there and then. They might cut him off, but atleast he wouldn't have lost his credibility like that.

    And in regards to the documents, it was wrong for them to forge documents, if that truly is what happened. However, as I said before, if Rather really cared about his credibility he would have done whatever he wanted.
  • gkiltz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3 It does not matter whether or not George Bushe did or did not receive special treatment in the Texas National Guard! The issue is whether the document in question CAME ANYWHERE CLOSE to being genuine, let alone proving that point!
    Even IF the document in question was a legit second or third generation photocopy(That is a copy of a photocopy, possibly of a photocopy!) the most it was capable of proving is that, in the 1960s at least, the Texas National Guard was poorly run, which was long since old news by that time!
    You flat out CANNOT VERIFY THE ORIGIN OF A PHOTOCOPY! A cleaver trixter can simply do too many things to it that you'll never prove.

    It is clear that someone allowed their own personal DEEP SEATED PERSONAL HATE for George W Bush to taint the report in many ways. Whether Dan Rather was actually the perpetrator, he at least was fully aware that the story was tainted by someone's emotions. Clearly he shared those emotions so deeply that he could not report on that story! OBJECTIVITY IS A GOAL, IT IS SOMETHING EVERY JOURNALIST SHOULD STRIVE FOR, FAIRNESS IS A PREREQUISITE TO BRANDING YOURSELF AS A JOURNALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    When your own emotions reach that level, you need to recuse yourself from the story. Dan Rather KNEW THAT VERY WELL! As a professional, he needed to recuse himself from that story, and admit he could not be fair, let alone objective!

    It takes someone with quite a large ego to do what Dan Rather did for so many years, and, that, I suppose is the nature of network television, but
    if he sees what happend to him over this as scapegoating, he goes beyond egotistical, and has crossed the line into delusional.

    • TheAthlon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good point. As I recall it came out that the document experts hired by CBS told the producers of the segment that since the document was a copy, it could never be proven to be genuine, it could only be proven to be false.
      Going forward with the segment and making the claims they did was career suicide for Dan and his producer.
      The truth is Dan and his cohorts so wanted this information to be true that they went ahead and reported it as fact and damn the torpedoes. So Dan lost his job-because he deserved to lose it!
  • jpowell180, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Heh heh...when the leftist CBS causes marxist Dan issues.."Courage"?
    ROFLMAO!!!
    Commie :)
  • marcgil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1everything is biased. sucks to be dan rather.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.