Neil D Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Dan Rather Saves His Job, but Reputation Takes a Hit After Critical Report on Bush Guard Story The media gathers outside the CBS Broadcast Center in New York, Monday Jan. 10, 2005. Four CBS News staffers were fired following tge release of an independent investigation into the "60 Minutes" story about President Bush's military service. (AP Photo/Richard Drew) The Associated PressThe Associated Press NEW YORK Jan 11, 2005 — As his anchor career nears its end in March, Dan Rather's reputation as a hard-charging news reporter took some damaging blows from the independent panel that probed CBS's discredited story on President Bush's National Guard service. Three CBS News executives and the producer of last September's "60 Minutes Wednesday" report were fired Monday by CBS chief Leslie Moonves for rushing the story to air and then blindly defending it. Rather was portrayed by the panel retired Associated Press chief executive officer Louis D. Boccardi and former GOP Attorney General Dick Thornburgh as "pushed to the limit" by coverage of the Republican National Convenion and Hurricane Frances as final reporting on the story was done. "He's had a distingusihed television news career, he's one of the largest figures in this industry and this event doesn't erase the other things that he has accomplished," Boccardi said Tuesday in an interview on CBS' "The Early Show." The veteran anchorman did not appear to have participated in any of the vetting sessions or even seen the story before it aired, Boccardi and Thornburgh found. "The panel has found that his unwillingness to consider that CBS News and his colleague were in the wrong was a mistake, and that the broadcast would have benefited from a more direct involvement on Rather's part," Moonves said in a statement. Given Rather's voluntary retirement as anchor, a decision that Rather said was unrelated to the National Guard story, Moonves said he decided not to discipline him. Rather will move then to "60 Minutes," where Moonves said he will have "more time to concentrate on his reporting." Rather did not anchor the "CBS Evening News" on Monday, after traveling back from Thailand over the weekend. An aide said he was reading the report and did not have an immediate comment. ABC news [:"blue"] Ok, anyone what to hazard a guess that the White House is pressuring the managers of CBS behind the scenes to remove those people? I can see it now- White House Press Aid sends message "Remove Dan and those responsible or you will never see another interview with the President again nor have your questions answered during press conferences. In fact, I can see your press passport could be revoked...." [/] Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Lambert Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 One of the things in that report was the claim that the faulty reporting "was not the result of bias." But what other motive could they have possibly had? It is obvious Dan Rather got a pass because of his stature and the fact that he is retiring in two months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pockey Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I'm gonna miss him and all his funny oddball sayings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Jeannieb43 Posted January 11, 2005 Moderators Share Posted January 11, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> [:"blue"] Ok, anyone what to hazard a guess that the White House is pressuring the managers of CBS behind the scenes to remove those people? I can see it now- White House Press Aid sends message "Remove Dan and those responsible or you will never see another interview with the President again nor have your questions answered during press conferences. In fact, I can see your press passport could be revoked...." [/] <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> I agree with you totally. Dubya says: Anyone who doesn't support ME 100% is betraying the United States. Even if it takes lying to do it. [Lying, because there was credible testimony that--though the actual documents may have been fabricated recently--the content of those memos was correct. He was a spaced-out, drunk, druggy at that period in his life, and he shirked his duty. Simple as that.] If he were man enough, he would admit it. Quote Jeannie<br /><br /><br />...Change is inevitable; growth is optional.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Don't be so foolish to believe such conspiracy theories. CBS hosted one of the debates right after they aired this made-up Bush-hate story. The White House isn't calling the shots at CBS. Wow, some people will believe anything that stirs up hatred of Bush <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicodema Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 If you are going to cry the charge of conspiracy theories, you incur upon yourself the burden to disprove the contentions as such. Can you prove that Bush's military career was completely above-board and honorable, that he did not shirk duty nor turn up absentee several times when called, nor engage in abuse of alcohol and drugs? Can you prove the contentions against his military record ARE, in fact, "made up Bush hate stories"? Because if you can't, stop crying Bush hate. If you produce documentable, verifiable facts, I at least (can't speak for anyone else) will give them honest consideration, but I'm not going to listen to the wolf-cry of "conspiracy theory" because to me, that is the biggest conspiracy theory of all, that it's all "nothing but conspiracy theories". Quote "After such knowledge, what forgiveness?" -- T.S. Eliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Here in America the burdon of proof is on the accuser not the accused. Don't fall for every Bush-hating story out there. The election is over. It is time to get behind our President. Don't teach your children to hate. What the world needs is more love, there is enough hate already. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicodema Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Quote: Here in America the burdon of proof is on the accuser not the accused. You are accusing those bringing Bush's records to the table of indulging in "conspiracy theories". You must therefore, by your own definition (quoted above), substantiate that accusation or drop it. Quote: It is time to get behind our President. Like all the right-wingers and conservatives got "behind" Clinton? Is that the example you wish me to follow? Please point me to the example of "getting behind" someone perceived to be immoral and a liar (since that's how they saw Clinton, and it's pretty much how I see Bush) -- therefore someone over whose "support" one would have a fundamental crisis of conscience -- which you would like me to emulate in this case, and I'll see what I can do. Quote: What the world needs is more love, there is enough hate already. I agree with that. Now please tell me why our current administration is generating more hate by becoming progressively more intrusive, cold-hearted, calloused, cruel, jackbooted thugs determined to foist police-state elements into every level of daily life for the average citizen while bombing the palooka out of innocent civilians and little babies in a foreign land. Am I to be labeled the "hater" because I point out the hateful things I see around me? Is NO responsibility to fall upon those DOING those hateful things instead??? Quote "After such knowledge, what forgiveness?" -- T.S. Eliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Lambert Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 No, Nicodema, the burden of proof is on those who first accuse Bush of wrongdoing past or present, or who allege that there is some conspiracy they think they perceive. Personal opinions and the subjective way you may view things are not proof or even evidence. If you accuse Bush of anything, or claim there is some conspiracy directed by anyone connected with Bush, then the burden of proof is on you. Those who make such accusations are the first accusers. No burden to disprove those accusations rests upon the victims of these accusations. You asked: "Am I to be labeled the 'hater' because I point out the hateful things I see around me?" Yes. You only claim that you see hateful things all around you. Are they really there, or do they come out of your own heart? If you are going to condemn people because of an evil that comes out of you, and rail at those who try to tell you that what you claim is not objective reality, then you are merely burying yourself deeper in a world of your own imagination. How can anyone reach you except by telling you the truth and contradicting your interpretation of things? I understand that CBS News now has some openings. They might welcome someone with your outlook on life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> Like all the right-wingers and conservatives got "behind" Clinton? <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Absolutely. That is a fine example. When Clinton wanted to go to war in Bosnia, Congressional Republicans supported him. That is not the only time. Although Clinton never recieved 50% or more of the vote, his public approval ratings were always higher than that which obviously means people (like me) who didn't vote for him, supported him. Congressional Republicans also supported Clinton in his case against Saddam Hussien. Clinton only got into trouble when he tried to obstruct justice by soliciting purgury in order to prevent Paula Jones from being able to show a pattern of sexual harassment. Those troubles were of his own making. BTW, I am not convinced that Clinton actually harassed Paula Jones (but I am not a Clinton hater willing to believe anything bad about him). Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted January 13, 2005 Author Share Posted January 13, 2005 Quote: Clinton only got into trouble when he tried to obstruct justice by soliciting purgury in order to prevent Paula Jones from being able to show a pattern of sexual harassment. Those troubles were of his own making. BTW, I am not convinced that Clinton actually harassed Paula Jones (but I am not a Clinton hater willing to believe anything bad about him). Being a bit myopic, arent we? Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.