Dan Rather admits US media failing to reveal the truth

Greetings all,

The failure in current US media is finally starting to leak -

In the UK, Dan Rather compared the current situation in the US media to the fear of "necklacing" in Sth Africa.


"It's an obscene comparison," Rather said, "but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around peoples' necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be neck-laced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck."

Talking to another reporter, Dan told it straight about the careerism that keeps US journalists in line. "It's that fear that keeps [American] journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore-in on the tough questions so often."


Read the article here :
www.baou.com...


Iasion

what in the flying # is Dan Rathers talking about truth for!

What a #ing farce - this is the guy who got busted for LYING about military records of our president.

WORST POST EVER

Good story. Good link.

Thanks.

Dan did not fight the good fight even though he may speak of it now. His words therefore hold little impact as a result to me. Admitting what is wrong about the profession you chose after you've gone your entire career through it is not how to show you have any belief in ideals you later espouse about it. Sure people who are in the media have more of a right to say things about it simply due to experience, but not if they don't say something until the tail end of their time spent in it.

That's not the point, his career wasn't threatened before. Now that he knows his career is over, what does he have to lose. He may as well come clean. Out of the closet if you will, maybe he isn't doing this for anyone but himself, to clear his conscience. He isn't talking smack, he is only human. What a reporter can only be wrong once, and that one mistake ruins everything worked for. What would it be like if you messed up once and were never allowed to redeem yourself, to try and prove you can do it right.

People make mistakes all the time, it is apart of life and the learning process, it's called "learning the hard way".

To learn from other peoples mistakes, is the easy way, all reporters should learn from his, but we know they won't.

When did Dan # in your cereal, sounds like a personal problem to me.

Not defending him, but I am trying to give a different perspective. I still don't have an opinon on the whole "records" thing, but I tend to put my money on the under dog. They often are the one being targeted by a smear campaign.

Rather is a bitter old man who let his self-importance get the best of him. He fielded a story so full of wholes amateur journalists drove an Abrams tank through them, then he let subordinates and others take the heat, while he finished out his twenty-fourth year as CBS anchor. I've seen Rather play fast and loose with the fact far too often to be very moved by his final defeat.

As for that link, it's sheer propaganda. Giving Rather a pass on comparing his fate to "necklacing" is just the kind of journalism that Rather is supposed to be criticizing.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
what in the flying # is Dan Rathers talking about truth for!

What a #ing farce - this is the guy who got busted for LYING about military records of our president.

WORST POST EVER

One source was not verified in the Bush story. He was "busted," for this obvious planted "straw man," amidst the records. Now there are verified sources that illustrate every point in the piece. It is astounding that so many people not only put up with all this dishonesty, but think they are taking the high road, when in fact the truth is sinking like the titanic. All of this is just rearranging the deck chairs while the orchestra plays onward.

Honestly why should I respond to all the paid professionals here, who blog for money, or just copycat those who do?

[edit on 10-3-2005 by SkipShipman]

Blog for money? Jeez, maybe I'm in the wrong business. Any professional bloggers here? There's gold in them thar keys, keyboards, that is. That's a joke, son!

[edit on 05/3/10 by GradyPhilpott]

as posted by SkipShipman
Now there are verified sources that illustrate every point in the piece.

Given the time that they had to print them up, I imagine there will be all kinds of "verified sources" to sprout up.

Your blogging point is lost to me in that Mr. Rather and CBS screwed up and screwed up badily. Was no "mistakes are made, get over it." They rushed this story to press, hoping it would have an impact on the elections, and did not have their collective story(s), sources, and arses in proper order. Simple piss poor media and journalism reporting. CBS's ratings were already the lowest of the Big Three and now, they are the pits because of this rush job. The principle figure behind all this: Mr. Rather, among others.

He ends up getting proven seriously in error by the power of the Internet. And now people want to defend his actions? BAH! I respect his past work and doings, but his journalistic integrity sunk lower than a whale's crap at the bottom of the ocean after this incident. Personally, he got and deserved what anyone else in the journalistic field would have gotten: a 'thank you" and a boot in the behind. If this had been any other news anchor man from any news media outlet, the same would have happened. As such, Mr. Rather deserves respect, but also deserves what he got as a result of this incident!

Journalism and journalistic integrity has hit the bottom, and it is effecting even the Internet and those who supposedly report the "news."

Speaking of such and your mention of "bloggers," might want to read this?
Decline in TV News Credibility

Just among college students:


Look on the bright side: at his age, retirement is a plus. Just ask Walter Cronkite his thoughts on Mr. Rather and retirement.





seekerof

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Blog for money? Jeez, maybe I'm in the wrong business. Any professional bloggers here? There's gold in them thar keys, keyboards, that is. That's a joke, son!

[edit on 05/3/10 by GradyPhilpott]

Verifying your swiss bank account....checking...savings...CDs....yippie, horray! Just jillions are here already! Hey come to think of it, love that Bush! Whatta guy isn't he?

Dan Rather should know. He lied about the Bush memos and still refuses to acknowledge the truth that they are fakes.

Dan did not fight the good fight even though he may speak of it now.

I tend to agree, Frith. I mean he goes on the Letterman show after 9/11 and bawls like a baby but has he really done anything since then? He's talking obliquely about what HE himself felt. So what's the point of exposing power-politics in the media if you yourself are a shriking coward?

Rather cuts a giant fart at the end of his career and then he compares what he's been through to the TORTURE of necklacing? I've got more respect for the average blogger than I do for Dan Rather.

as posted by SkipShipman
Hey come to think of it, love that Bush! Whatta guy isn't he?

The issue may be seen and percieved by you as political (ie: the reference as quoted above), but the real and obvious issue was journalistic integrity and credibility.

Rather made it a political issue.
Others are making it a political issue.
You are making it a political issue.

In truth, it is not. He (Rather and CBS) failed simple Journalism 101.




seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by SkipShipman
Now there are verified sources that illustrate every point in the piece.

Given the time that they had to print them up, I imagine there will be all kinds of "verified sources" to sprout up.

Your blogging point is lost to me in that Mr. Rather and CBS screwed up and screwed up badily. Was no "mistakes are made, get over it." They rushed this story to press, hoping it would have an impact on the elections, and did not have their collective story(s), sources, and arses in proper order. Simple piss poor media and journalism reporting. CBS's ratings were already the lowest of the Big Three and now, they are the pits because of this rush job. The principle figure behind all this: Mr. Rather, among others.

He ends up getting proven seriously in error by the power of the Internet. And now people want to defend his actions? BAH! I respect his past work and doings, but his journalistic integrity sunk lower than a whale's crap at the bottom of the ocean after this incident. Personally, he got and deserved what anyone else in the journalistic field would have gotten: a 'thank you" and a boot in the behind. If this had been any other news anchor man from any news media outlet, the same would have happened. As such, Mr. Rather deserves respect, but also deserves what he got as a result of this incident!

Journalism and journalistic integrity has hit the bottom, and it is effecting even the Internet and those who supposedly report the "news."

Your argument about the news is generally directed in the diagram, but it is certain these students are thinking about Fox News, not Dan Rather. The Bush administration is on record as paying out over $70 million for bloggers, and other assorted information techniques. I mean no harm and assess no one here on those terms, by way of proof. Maybe your enthusiasm against Dan Rather is from your own independent readings. It seems however that political pundits here are vehement, even when all the facts are not entirely in place.

The piece was planted with a discrepency, a straw man argument. They blew away the entire piece like OJ Simpson's jury. The general tenor of the story is entirely correct, but as I said before only one part of it was probably planted by the Bush crew. Now if all of this is your idea about news anchors being non credible, I simply think you are wrong. Mr. Rather has asked pointed questions to Presidents in the past, something entirely lacking today even from he himself as he suggests due to a "climate of fear." When people are afraid of the clear light of day, then something is terribly wrong, and this issue is not the only place where most anyone thinking in sober terms would agree.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
what in the flying # is Dan Rathers talking about truth for!

What a #ing farce - this is the guy who got busted for LYING about military records of our president.

WORST POST EVER

Let me apply logic to the above quote.

1. It was Dan Rather who made public certain documents forged by a woman and proven to be forged, regarding the military record of George W Bush. Therefore Dan Rather is incapable of talking about the truth and is a LIAR.

2. It was George W Bush who made public certain documents forged by a foreign person and proven to be forged, regarding the purchase of uranium by Saddam Hussein from Niger. Therefore George W Bush is incapable of talking about the truth and is a LIAR.

The difficulty is, you can substitute 100s of different LIES in the case of George W Bush, while Dan Rather was removed after the first one.

Thanks AMM, BEST POST EVER for exposing the lies of George W Bush.

how can you trust old dan hes and idiot hes retartedblah stupid

Strawman argument my behind
Skipshipman:

Your argument about the news is generally directed in the diagram, but it is certain these students are thinking about Fox News, not Dan Rather.

Ermm, no. Seen FOX mentioned in that link? Seen Dan Rather mentioned? Apparently you have missed the larger picture here? Its called journalistic intergrity, SkipShipman. You know, the basis of Journalism 101 in which you will not or do not go to print or media without simply verifying your sources completely, period.

The Bush administration is on record as paying out over $70 million for bloggers, and other assorted information techniques.

Just as the Democratic Party (ie: Dean and others) were exposed as spending monies with bloggers.

I mean no harm and assess no one here on those terms, by way of proof. Maybe your enthusiasm against Dan Rather is from your own independent readings. It seems however that political pundits here are vehement, even when all the facts are not entirely in place.

And?
Are you not stating your opinon, just as I am? Political pundits are varied and eveywhere, you and I included, huh? your point?

The piece was planted with a discrepency, a straw man argument.

Okie dokie. How about a big fat "F" in Journalism 101?

The general tenor of the story is entirely correct, but as I said before only one part of it was probably planted by the Bush crew.

Probabilities? Source? Link?

Now if all of this is your idea about news anchors being non credible, I simply think you are wrong.

Ratings indicate otherwise, don't they?

"climate of fear."

That alledged climate of fear certainly hasn't kept the media from tearing Bush a new behind every chance it gets, huh?

When people are afraid of the clear light of day, then something is terribly wrong, and this issue is not the only place where most anyone thinking in sober terms would agree.

The clear light you speak of indicates to me that the man was wrong and in error and was proven such. I'm sure that he, as with CBS, will think twice before popping off another political entry without verifying the credibility of their sources, huh?






seekerof

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Rather makes a good point. After all, there was a time in America when we were truly free. Journalists with the same integrety of Rather (called the Yellow Press back in the day) were able to lie about people to serve their political wishes and no one would condemn them for it. For shame, America! What happened?! Don't you know you're not supposed to hold the media accountable for anything? After all, it was the Bush administration who gave Rather the forged documents. There's no proof, but it must be the case because liberalism and the liberal elite, such as Rather, are perfect.

...heh, I seem to be in a bit of a bitter mood today...

EDIT: I like the "admits" in the subject. Makes it sound like it was forced out of him. I'm sure he didn't want to "admit" that he was right and the rest of the world was wrong

[edit on 3-11-2005 by junglejake]

To the op great post voted you for the way above award. Rather has nothing to lose and is telling the truth. All of our major media outlets are owned by corporations and many of them are making money off of this war; so is George Bush Sr. through his holdings in some companies and someday this president probably will inherit some of that money. So who do I believe the media jocks who are running scared for fear of losing their jobs or the guy who has nothing to lose by telling the truth. HHMM I think Dan is telling the truth and its about time someone in journalism does.

Originally posted by goose
Rather has nothing to lose

On that point, we agree completely. Rather has nothing to lose by making these statements and everything to gain. You say Bush Sr. is making money on the Iraq war. Follow the trail for Rather, as well, and see if he is saying these things for the sake of exposing the truth or for personal profit. I assure you, a Rather boring book is going to be coming out about poor Dan Rather fighting against the man day in and day out, trying to deliver fair and balanced news which would land a democrat into the highest office in the world.