digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Dan Rather Moves To Mark Cuban's HDNet

news.com.com — Three weeks after his bitter departure from CBS News, veteran broadcast journalist Dan Rather has reached a deal to host a weekly news program starting this fall on premium high-definition channel HDNet.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • loquito, on 10/12/2007, -34/+16The question is.... Will he still have the same lousy investigative skills that finally got him kicked out of CBS?
    • iamskew, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Lousy investigative skills? He was hardly the only person working on that project, he was just the guy who reads it. Yes, he was the editor, be he wasn't the only one to blame. And besides, he's got years upon years of briliiant work behind him that one story shouldn't ruin. To put it in geek terms: If you accidently create buggy code with a security hole, should you be banned from computer programming for good?
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -14/+10"Lousy investigative skills? He was hardly the only person working on that project, he was just the guy who reads it."

      Ummmmmm...IIRC, Rather had final say over any segment that he had to read on air. Which means that it was ultimately HE who gave a go-ahead on the story before it had been vetted.
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13I forget, have they ever CONCLUSIVELY proved that those documents were a hoax? I don't think they did. Just about the only "proof" against those documents was all the conservative bloggers talking things about typewriters, with liberal bloggers saying that it's possible the fonts and spacing (et al) were used at the time anyway.

      From what I remember, the whole debate over the documents disintegrated instantly, the moment conservatives started lashing out at Dan Rather for airing the report (instead of debating the facts). We never really did get to the bottom of this.

      Unless I'm wrong, is it still possible that those documents weren't hoaxes?
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3possible but not probable. he would have made a lot more noise about it before CBS took action.
    • oldtimegamer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Yeah, I have watch dan all my life and i couldn't disagree more. Yes he read the new, but he was unfortunately misinformed by his people.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The memo was a hoax but and the man that the memo claims to be from is dead, but his secratary, while maintaining they are fake, still says he would agree with the contents.
      So i can see dan trying to get verification and other people who knew this guy said "yep that sounds like him"
      STill an appology should have been enough to get him out of trouble.
      The big quetion is who faked them and why
    • right75, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6@iamskew:

      I don't think so. Rather has hardly made an effort to hide his true political leanings, and the man definitely wanted those documents to be real.

      As a result, he left CBS a tainted reporter. And rightfully so. His journalism was pathetic.

    • seanmc303, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Let me just put on my tin foil hat for a second and pose a hypothetical situation. What if the Bush administration was getting tiered of having their boy's sterling military record tarnished and they also wanted to let that liberal media know who's in charge still? What if Carl Rove, or anther crony, fabricated a document that they knew they could prove as a fabricated document later and "leaked" this said document to CBS. Proving that their fabricated document was a fake would discredit the entire notion that George's Sterling military career wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Not only would it divert the questions regarding George's military record, but it would also send a clear message to the press.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I decided to do background check myself.. apparently they know who faked them now. Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former Texas Air National Guard officer

      and i was wrong about his secratary what she really ssaid was "if he wrote them that is how he felt"

      there are other sourses but this has al the info together
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"If you accidently create buggy code with a security hole, should you be banned from computer programming for good?"

      If you "accidently" did it intentionally and maliciously for the purpose of harming someone else.........yes.
    • jcidiotashram, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@iamskew
      even though you are the guy who reads the news, brought in by the other journalists, you are still responsible for what you read. you can't claim credit if it is good, and if it goes bad, can't hide behind the excuse that you just read it. O.K one mistake. still you have to own it.
      if you write a buggy code with a security hole(when you wrote it you were not aware of it, but once you find the hold, own the responsibility and fix it, instead don't go and whine).
    • iamskew, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2But that's really the point. I don't think Rather knew at the time that the document was fake. Yes, he got overexcited and and went on the air with news he should have researched more, but I can understand the mistake with the demanding 24-hour news cycle and the desparate need for ratings. Is it an excuse? No. But do I understand? Yes. And yes, it is clear Rather comes from the left-wing, and he wanted that story to be true more than he should have. But as far as TV journalists go (who pale in comparison to a good print journalist) he is a great journalist.
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4A university professor with a PhD has concluded that the documents were real. He provides extensive evidence:

      http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/index.htm

      I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, but I think most people have given up on this WAY too fast just because conservative bloggers started whining. I'm not saying I believe they're not a hoax, but there's certainly plenty of reason to not jump to conclusions. When this story happened, everybody jumped to the conclusion that they're fake (because of the aforementioned whining), and everybody stuck with those conclusions without much research afterward. This is not a closed issue yet, in my opinion.
  • hakamarob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16does anyone want to see dan in HD?
  • buk110, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I know when I got HD, I wanted it so I could see wrinkly old men broadcast the days news. Nothing better than a nice zoom in on that guys liver spots
  • akira117, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Old people in HD.......*Shutters*
  • bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I love HDNet. While I'm not a big fan of Dan Rather, he's high-profile, and if he brings more (deserved) attention to HDNet, I'm all for it. Dugg.
  • migsims, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Not that I give a Sh** about Dan Rather-Boring, but moving to an HD channel that not even Comcast carries as a "whole" channel, is pretty dumb.
    • Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Isn't your issue with Comcast? I know Time Warner runs HDNet full time.
  • yafo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Damn, I'm sure his 'retirement' is alread being quite lucrative... I doubt they expect him to do much there besides be a familiar face lending respect to the program. I doubt he'll be working 60 hr weeks.
  • LSUMyrtleBch, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Who cares?
  • phunlee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2He got a raw deal for accurate information collected inappropriately..

    Microsoft Word is the devil's friend.
  • ScottMaximus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Is it the Newscaster's job to do QC on every story they read? Thats why we have researchers.
    • loquito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6People forget that he wasn't just the guy that read the news, he was the guy that signed off everything he read on the air. He was an idiot for putting his name behind something some blatantly false and to top it off, during an election year. The worst part about it is that he didn't even say he was sorry afterwards.
  • rmad1949, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The older one is the more they have seen the past. President Thomas Jefferson never read newspapers and said "more truth in the advertisements." Mr. Rather has seen so many lies, sensationalism and BS ran through the CIA owned media that what is the difference from him or some snot-nosed kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth spinning 360 degrees have to do with anything? Unfortunately, what is in our belief system is who we are... and I would bet 50% of what one believes is hogwash. Turn off the boob-tube and go read a book. There is no TRUTH.
  • mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Yes! I Can finally be able to masterbate again.
  • steal_apps01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Dan's a veteran reporter that most of us have watched me being young i've watched Dan my whole life he's a good reporter and though I don't own a HDTV and won't for probably 20 years in the future I support Mr. Rather.
  • halvertos, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2YAY DAN RATHER!
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5i notice the same people willing to drum Dan rather out of his job for getting his facts wrong wouldn't do the same to bush.

    Dan's apology follows.

    "Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

    But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

    Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully."
  • wicked9, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3i hate the mavericks
  • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8He's a partisan hack then, he's a partisan hack now.
  • slipjack, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Rather was crucified... plain and simple. The right-wing attack dogs finally caught him slip up, and roasted him for it.

    Dan Rather is barely a liberal, which is what makes the right's hatred of him even more disturbing. If anything, he's a moderate.
  • mashedpotatoes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Bottom line: Documents were accurate. People who proved they were accurate were suddenly silenced. Anybody with a brain in their head and has researched our president knows the scenarios fit with his lifestyle.

    A good question is, smart people use Digg and smart people are anti-Bush so why all the anti-Dan Rather chatter?
    A better question is, why is this story even on Digg?
    • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@mashedpotatoes
      Bottom line: Documents were accurate.

      ...and you Moonbats wonder why you keep losing elections. You live in fantasyland and you pull "facts" from your arse.

      Nobody was "suddenly silenced" - this stuff is amazing. If the documents were accurate Dan Rather would have never resigned in disgrace. GEEZE!
  • Skinner72, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Dan's error is nothing compared to the LIES spread by the bush administration to justify a war in Iraq.
    • jeffjonez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Dan Rather will be welcomed as a liberator of TV News, not as a weapon of mass distratction.
  • leehodge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@Skinner72
    Dan's error is nothing compared to the LIES spread by the bush administration to justify a war in Iraq.

    Name one, Moonbat
  • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Air America Television hosted by Dan Rather in High Definition. Oh boy! Can't wait!
  • Dred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2well that moron has to work somewhere.
  •  

    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.