Author Topic: Say What You Want About Dan Rather... (Read 1456 times)

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #15 on:** March 17, 2007, 12:19:43 PM »

Lets not forget his "its not over yet" election night antics

dont know how many of you caught that.
It was so comical it was a sad thing to watch

Shuckins · « **Reply #16 on:** March 17, 2007, 12:19:58 PM »

Gunga Dan

mietla · « **Reply #17 on:** March 17, 2007, 02:10:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hajo
...for reporting a Story on George Bush that was erroneus. .

It was not erroneous, it was fabricated. He knew it was fabricated, his staff warned him about it, and still he decided that his agenda is more important than his job.

Why don't he just go away in disgrace.

Maverick · « **Reply #18 on:** March 17, 2007, 02:13:22 PM »

Because stupid people are still willing to pay him.

mietla · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2007, 02:16:44 PM »

and even more stupid people are willing to listen to him.

Just because he supports their agenda, I guess.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2007, 02:19:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
It was not erroneous, it was fabricated. He knew it was fabricated, his staff warned him about it, and still he decided that his agenda is more important than his job.

Why don't he just go away in disgrace.

Don't forget that when he was called on it, he wouldn't back down.

mietla · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2007, 02:23:00 PM »

I bet he assumed that even if he gets caught, his "position" and his "body of work" will let him slide.

I also bet he was very surprised when they gave him an axe.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2007, 03:31:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Max
What's the frequency, Kenneth?

beat me to it!

Kieran · « **Reply #23 on:** March 17, 2007, 03:39:13 PM »

Speaking of "stupid people", I had a long, drawn out discussion on another board with a pro-Rather character during that incident. If you remember, the focus was around the font used in the supposed letters. Turns out the font was not created at the time of the letters. Even as this evidence was posted all over the web and the news, this guy kept saying, "Yes it was, yes it was!". Then the font's inventor/creator weighed in and made it very clear the font did not exist in the year of the "letters". Obvious forgery. What did the fellow do?

"Well, the information itself is true, so it doesn't matter..."

That's why Rather is still on the airwaves somewhere.

Shifty · « **Reply #24 on:** March 17, 2007, 07:30:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
I know Hajo, I remember. A journalistic lapse of great proportion, and I think his credibility was destroyed. I'm not sorry he's gone after an error in judgement like that.

My question to Dago was to prompt him to think about how he characterized Rather's news philosophy, and whether he thinks he's not getting the same treatment from the news source he uses.

What does Dago's news source have to do with the thread? To quote RPM.
"Say what you want about Dan Rather."

Dago · « **Reply #25 on:** March 18, 2007, 10:36:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shifty
What does Dago's news source have to do with the thread? To quote RPM.
"Say what you want about Dan Rather."

Oboe was trying the sad tactic of putting himself on a intellectual high ground by trying to find a way to discredit my opinion.

oboe · « **Reply #26 on:** March 18, 2007, 12:20:19 PM »

Dago,

I think your opinion about slant is generally correct; I just wanted to be sure you knew it applied to more sources than just Dan Rather.

Glad to hear you have a mix of sources.

Dago · « **Reply #27 on:** March 18, 2007, 12:58:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Dago,

I think your opinion about slant is generally correct; I just wanted to be sure you knew it applied to more sources than just Dan Rather.

Glad to hear you have a mix of sources.

Okay, that is fine, are you now going to question the others who seem to share the same opinion of Dan a me, or am I the only one you think needs to justify his opinion?

mietla · « **Reply #28 on:** March 18, 2007, 01:02:18 PM »

What's the deal with those royal "anchors" anyway? It's just a dude that reads a teleprompter?

Where is this gaga over Jennings, Rather or Brokaw coming from? What makes them so great and important?

They might as well oursource those jobs to India for all I care.

bj229r · « **Reply #29 on:** March 18, 2007, 03:03:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
What's the deal with those royal "anchors" anyway? It's just a dude that reads a teleprompter?

Where is this gaga over Jennings, Rather or Brokaw coming from? What makes them so great and important?

They might as well oursource those jobs to India for all I care.

Most of these guys decide what goes ON said teleprompter--Rather always did. What IS reported on can be perfectly accurate, but still skewed because of the connected things they choose NOT to report on.