Rather's Parachute rescues him from firing!

[Rsak]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6807825/

4 get fired from CBS over the forged National Guard story, but Rather pretty much gets a complete pass on it.

The worst you could say from this artilce about Rather is he was among those who were "rigid and blind" in their defense of the report.

[Narith]

Personally I think if there is this much to do about a news story based on bad info which was then recanted and appoligised for, that they went and fired people for it.... I think that maybe it wasn't a piece of bad journalism, maybe they stumbled onto something they weren't supposed to and someone had friends that pushed to make sure they paid for the information they released.

[Rsak]

Yeah it had nothing to do with fariness, accuracy, or interanl standards like the investigation claims.

Funny that no other news organizations have been able to support the claims made by CBS which is what would obviously be the next step if this were all a big coverup.

[Relbeek Einre]

So the question is, was Rather really just too busy to personally check everything or is it a coverup?

[Burz]

Coverup. Rather isn't Ron Burgundy.

[Sindarre]

I would not consider it a coverup. But they will naturally want to protect Dan Rather since he is practically an institution. There is no way for Dan Rather to personally verify everything he brings to the air as an anchor. He trusts his team to do that and one of his producers let him down in a gross display of incompetence (not likely) or a gross display of unprofessional journalism (bingo). The inherant political bias made it easier for Dan Rather and the 60 minutes team to "want" to run the story. Their ego and political bias made it easier for Dan Rather and the 60 minutes team to "want" to circle the wagons once it hit the fan. Personally I think Rather got screwed by Mapes but he pretty much SHOULD have seen it coming but didn't want to because of his desire to nail Bush for journalistic reasons (the big scoop) and political bias (inherantly liberal). I think it's crystal clear Mapes wanted to nail bush and sacrificed CBS, Dan Rather, and overall media credibility to do it. She then tried to ignore the order to double check the documents which is probably what led to her being canned vice asked to resign.

In a way I feel sorry for Dan Rather. He was going to go down as one of the legendary and storied anchors/journalist of our generation. But the mud from this at the twilight of his career is going to stick (for good reason). His retirement which could have been much like that of Tom Brokaw now seems more like a forced resignation in shame even though CBS would never admit as such if true. Either way that cloud is there.

In another way I don't feel sorry for him. He had a heavy hand in building his staff and producers. In fact I bet he was personally involved in the who, what, when of every senior member of that show. He knew the story was being done fast. He knew the story was being done fast for both the scoop side of it and the political side of it. They rushed the story because they wanted it OUT before the election more then they wanted it OUT for the scoop.

The question of a cover up is almost moot at this point. The damage was done no matter what the investigation here came up with. The only outstanding question in my mind was how many KNEW they were fakes when they aired. I am confident Mapes KNEW they were fakes and her actions seem to demonstrate it. Did the rest?? Did Dan?? We will probably never know the truth about that.

[Relbeek Einre]

I think that's fair, Sindarre. Not sure how much I agree with all of it, but that's a fair analysis.

What amazes me about the whole debacle is how FOX news and the Washington Times run false political stories, well, frequently, and Sinclair Broadcasting runs blatantly false hit pieces...

...but it's CBS that gets nailed to the wall.

I think it's half the fact that it involved an actual forged document, and half that I believe CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN are held to a higher journalistic standard than FOX News or the Times.

Which is an interesting, really. There's that phrase again, "The soft bigotry of low expectations."

[Narith]

Seriously though, if they were faked documents where are the real ones?

May be a cover up, may not be. Personally I think there is some reading to do between the lines. All news agencies have thier screw ups, not all of them are this public and this drastic as to punishment of a single screw up. This was however, a piece against Bush.

I see two sides of the spectrum, one that CBS is being extremly harsh on thier people and there really is nothing to this story that the real documents are out there that these were turely faked that the whole story was made up to bash Bush in hopes of ruining his presidency because Bush is our lord and saviour, or..... The other side of the spectrum that Bush is using mafia tactics and calling in favors to make the underlying point that if you screw with him he will ruin you. That there was some truth to the documents showed, but they were quickly snuffed from the public's attention, that we do not have such a great person running our country and in fact has something major to hide that if you dig enough you will find, but if you try to bring it to the public's attention you will wind up like these people. The fact that Rather is a huge public figure saved him from the favors that Bush called in, however it didn't save the others.

The truth, I am sure, is somewhere in between the two. However, until we see the real documents and know the whole story we will never know the entire truth.

[davidking]

How about there were no documents?

[Rsak]

An example of such a false political story run by FOX news or the Washington Times would be?

I fear those have not had as much press as this National Guard story which is honestly suprising.

[Narith]

Well, if Bush was in the national guard there has to be a record, so where is his record?

Also just because this story got more national coverage has nothing to do with the fact that every other news agency has this type of screw ups, the differences are that these kind of penalties are not pressed on thier workers with this much publicity given to the punishment, and the only thing I can see that is different between this case and every other case is the fact that this case was a strike against Bush.

[davidking]

Narith.. how long have you had your head buried in the ground?

[Narith]

So you are saying that Bush's national guard records are out there for public viewing and at least some if not all bad journalism reports result in multiple firings that make national news coverage for several days if not weeks or month, not just the ones that were anti=Bush?

Ah I am so sorry I didn't realise that, now if you would be so kind as to point me where I can find all of this?

[Ddrak]

Ron Burgundy would pwn Rather!

Dd

[Aabe]

So the question is, was Rather really just too busy to personally check everything or is it a coverup?

You are about to give the story that might turn the election. Could be one of the bigger stories of your career. Would you be too busy to personally check it over from top to bottom??

[Relbeek Einre]

Narith, this one did have extra legs because the conservative political spinmeisters leapt on it like jackals on a gazelle carcass, true. But there are plenty of cases where journalists get it up the arse and it has nothing to do with Bush. Jayson Blair, for example, or Armstrong Williams.

The reaction to Rather was, well, really because he has the highest expectations. He's the heir to Cronkite's throne, and Cronkite, well, was the best anchorman ever.

Rather has a long and very, very distinguished history as a journalist. He nearly got fired in 1974 for a famous exchange with President Nixon in which he definitely got the better of the embattled President, making him hated by conservatives for decades, but no one can take an objective look at his career and say it was anything short of distinguished and grand.

That's why I don't believe he'd throw it away on a memo so cheesy that it was going to instantly be found false.

[davidking]

Rather has a long and very, very distinguished history as a journalist.

/laugh /gasp..


haha..

[Narith]

That's why I don't believe he'd throw it away on a memo so cheesy that it was going to instantly be found false.

That's one of the biggest problems with this, they didn't try to prove that Bush was a upstanding decent national guardsman who did his job well and had a good war record, instead the RNC only put thier best spin doctors and people on proving the documents were fake... They showed them to be fake in the end but not by any means that any normal citizen, nor Rather, could have figured out easily. If it was so easy to figure out to any normal citizen why did it take the spin doctors of the RNC to do so? Why couldn't any normal citizen who saw the program or Rather himself just look and see?

As far as Williams and Blair, thier stories never recieved near the media coverage that Rather's is which I admit is possible that it is in part due to the fact that he has more fame, however I think the story that caused all of this is more at the core of the publicity of the punishments and the story is about Bush.

This entire story just smells foul.

[davidking]

Yeah.. yet another konspirocy!

[Relbeek Einre]

Bush had an abysmal record as a Guardsman in a champagne squadron to avoid Vietnam service, we know this. Even if the document was real it'd be gilding the lily.