Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on March 17, 2007, 03:48:40 AM
-
...he has put together a VERY good news program on HDNet!
link (http://www.hd.net/danrather.html) :aok
-
All then news he thinks you should hear, and the slant he thinks you need to hear it presented with?
No thanks.
He blew his facade of "professional" journalism, and exposed himself for the fraud he is. Never again.
-
What's your news source, Dago?
-
Oboe
Dan rather was drummed off network TV for reporting a Story on George Bush that was erroneus. He decided not the check the validity of the story, broadcast the story and was called to task and ridiculed when the story he broadcast was proven false.
His network was embarrased and he was embarrased. His trust as a news journalist was gone, and showed his bias politically. Thus.....banished to HDNet.
-
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.
-
Now who was it who was looking for bias in mainstream news?
Dan Blather is a prime example of it. He let his bias get the better of him.
He has zero credibility.
Bronk
-
Damn good news man :aok
-
Originally posted by oboe
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.
I use a lot of sources, but pick up most of my news from internet news sources, including AP, Rueters, and the local news channel. I also watch CNN in the morning, and Fox in the evenings.
I also read books, you might try "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. It is in your library, doing so will give you a good picture of Dan Rather by a CBS insider with detailed stories of Rather and his deliberate and biased manner of presenting the news. It was written long before Rathers fraudulent smear on Bush. An amazing thing about Rather, even after his "memo" was proven to be fraud, he said "the memo might have been fake, but the story was true". How could he actually say that when there was NO proof? Because he wanted to believe it, so he said that. Any true professional journalist knows, you cannot present something as true unless you have proof that has been checked and double checked.
Unless you are Dan Rather.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I use a lot of sources, but pick up most of my news from internet news sources, including AP, Rueters, and the local news channel. I also watch CNN in the morning, and Fox in the evenings.
I also read books, you might try "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. It is in your library, doing so will give you a good picture of Dan Rather by a CBS insider with detailed stories of Rather and his deliberate and biased manner of presenting the news. It was written long before Rathers fraudulent smear on Bush. An amazing thing about Rather, even after his "memo" was proven to be fraud, he said "the memo might have been fake, but the story was true". How could he actually say that when there was NO proof? Because he wanted to believe it, so he said that. Any true professional journalist knows, you cannot present something as true unless you have proof that has been checked and double checked.
Unless you are Dan Rather.
Yup. Damned impressive book
-
Dan? I'd rather not.
-
What's the frequency, Kenneth? :rofl
-
that was a funny incident.
-
Dan's a rather good editorialist. Journalist, nope, but good at opinion pieces, provided you agree with his opinion of course.
-
when it comes to journalistic integrity.... You really can't say enough bad things about blather.
lazs
-
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
====
Hey, thats my line :aok
-
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
-
Gunga Dan
-
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.
-
Because stupid people are still willing to pay him.
-
and even more stupid people are willing to listen to him.
Just because he supports their agenda, I guess.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Max
What's the frequency, Kenneth? :rofl
beat me to it!
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Don't people just retire anymore ffs.
-
bj229 what you are stating is true. Reporting half a story....or only the portion of the story that suits ones needs. All stories etc. have context.
Thus reporting "out of context" is not unusuall these days.
What ever happened to the term "Truth in reporting?"
I haven't heard it used much lately if at all.
I guess the truth in the substance of the report is no longer in vogue.
What sells, or advances ones personal opinions does apparently.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Most of these guys decide what goes ON said teleprompter...
Well, I know, but still does not seem to be a rocket science. Ability to read and write (and perhaps a pleasant voice and good pronounciation) is all there's needed.
All extra "talent" can only screw the real story and turn a report into an editorial.
Having strong opinions and voicing them is perfectly fine. Just admint that you are in a Rush Limbaugh league and do not pretend to be an objective reporter.
-
That's my point--they turn it into an editorial all by themselves
-
You know one of the funniest things about that letter Dan Rather had was the layout and the font. It looked like Word default Times Roman and was helped along by the paper clip saying, "Hey it looks like you're writing a letter".
-
Originally posted by Dago
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?
No, I think that would be redundant. And remember I share generally the same opinion of Dan as you.
Just wanted to remind people that slant cuts both ways, and you were the first respondent in the thread.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Just wanted to remind people that slant cuts both ways, and you were the first respondent in the thread.
Let's see........ CNN<<>>Right. I can see where we need you to remind us.
-
Fox lol thats like news outa a cracker jackbox
-
I've never heard anyone on this board show an example of exactly WHY Fox is right-wing in their news presentation, merely that they ARE. (They obviously SEEM right-wing compared to the others)
-
A news agency whose editorial views are squarely in the middle of the political spectrum would be perceived as being part of the far right by the rest of the "mainstream media."
-
Originally posted by Keeler101
Fox lol thats like news outa a cracker jackbox
This kind of thing is typical stated by someone who never actually watched Fox news, but rather just parroted what his left wing heros said.
-
Originally posted by Dago
This kind of thing is typical stated by someone who never actually watched Fox news, but rather just parroted what his left wing heros said.
I've watched Fox. It is embarassingly biased. They do right the way Jim Carrey does comedy- in your face.
-
Originally posted by Dago
This kind of thing is typical stated by someone who never actually watched Fox news, but rather just parroted what his left wing heros said.
I've watched Fox. I've no leftwing heroes.
I really dig St. Thomas More -- a lefty maybe? Don't think so.
Fox was cartoonish at times when I was watching it in 2003-2004. Don't know about now though I do check their website daily to see what they're up to.
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
A news agency whose editorial views are squarely in the middle of the political spectrum would be perceived as being part of the far right by the rest of the "mainstream media."
Exactly, everything is relative. Schwarzenegger is actually a moderate, if not a left centrist. But compared to the extremist commie pinkos of california he looks like a Reactionary.
-
Here in sunny Baghdad we get the BBS... and I thought CNN was biased, ya'll have no idea how bad it can really get until you hear the drool that comes outa the BBS!
-
Originally posted by VWE
Here in sunny Baghdad we get the BBS... and I thought CNN was biased, ya'll have no idea how bad it can really get until you hear the drool that comes outa the BBS!
You mean the BBC? :huh
-
Originally posted by VWE
Here in sunny Baghdad we get the BBS...
British BS
-
I thought he was talking about this board.:aok
-
OK, now that we've seen all the Rather bashing has anyone watched Dan Rather Reports on HDNet? I caught his show on Iraq and it was very inspiring. In my opinion there is no bigger "flag waver" than Rather. Bob Schieffer is a close 2nd.:aok
-
what color was the flag he was waving?
-
Red, White and Blue. 50 stars, 13 bars.
-
Originally posted by rpm
OK, now that we've seen all the Rather bashing has anyone watched Dan Rather Reports on HDNet? I caught his show on Iraq and it was very inspiring. In my opinion there is no bigger "flag waver" than Rather. Bob Schieffer is a close 2nd.:aok
If I told you George Bush had an HDNet show that was fantastic, would you care to view it yourself given what you believe about him? I doubt it. And I wouldn't blame you.
Dan Rather does not deserve another look on my part. He cannot be trusted.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I've watched Fox. It is embarassingly biased. They do right the way Jim Carrey does comedy- in your face.
Ok...so it ought to be easy to show an example or two
(p.s. An aside--has ANYONE ever heard of a banana MAGAZINE?:( )
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ok...so it ought to be easy to show an example or two
(p.s. An aside--has ANYONE ever heard of a banana MAGAZINE?:( )
What... are you suggesting Fox ISN'T far right? heh.
You win. Fox isn't right.
-
I don't really care what Rather is doing now.
It's what he did for so long that makes him so easy to forget.
You know the storry of Pierre the Greatest Bridge Builder in all the world right? Suck one and it's no longer Pierre the Bridge Builder, it's Pierre the **** sucker.
Dan got what he was asking for, a new nickname.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't really care what Rather is doing now.
It's what he did for so long that makes him so easy to forget.
You know the storry of Pierre the Greatest Bridge Builder in all the world right? Suck one and it's no longer Pierre the Bridge Builder, it's Pierre the **** sucker.
Dan got what he was asking for, a new nickname.
Dan Blather?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
What... are you suggesting Fox ISN'T far right? heh.
You win. Fox isn't right.
No....I'm asking you to provide an example or two of something you claim to be blatantly obvious--Fox's newscasts
-
And then the example will be attacked, if you cant accept the fact that Fox is right leaning then I guess CNN is middle of the road.
shamus
-
Alright... you won't accept a "you win"...
Watch the program... let's say, "Fox and Friends". Watch what happens if they mention Hillary. Or Rosie. Or Nancy. Listen to the snarky remarks they make. Listen to how snide the characters are.
Do I have to mention Shepard Smith? Bill O'Reilly? John Gibson?
Brit Hume is okay; he comes closest to broadcasting news without interjecting his personal opinion.
I mean, c'mon. These guys embrace Ann Coulter.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Alright... you won't accept a "you win"...
Watch the program... let's say, "Fox and Friends". Watch what happens if they mention Hillary. Or Rosie. Or Nancy. Listen to the snarky remarks they make. Listen to how snide the characters are.
Do I have to mention Shepard Smith? Bill O'Reilly? John Gibson?
Brit Hume is okay; he comes closest to broadcasting news without interjecting his personal opinion.
I mean, c'mon. These guys embrace Ann Coulter.
"Fox and Friends" isn't news, it's AM drive-time fluff, like "Good Morning America", or "Imus", neither of whom claim to be objective, straight-forward news---O'Reilly is commentary, and Gibson is commentary--Shepard Smith has actual, official 'news' blurbs at 30 minute breaks. Hume does opinion/round-table discussion stuff on the Sunday morning show, as well as the last 20 or so minutes of his 6-7pm daily 'news' hour. At least on Hume's panel you GET liberal/dissenting views, unlike CNN or MSNBC. I don't enjoy watching 4 conservatives blathering about the events of the day any more than 4 liberals doing the same--some actual intellectual discourse (as opposed to shouting matches like Hannity/Oreilly). Nearly ALL opinion shows on Fox are conservative, as they have studied the market and discovered there is no one filling the right-of-center niche--Quite easy to get the leftist vews from Olberman, Matthews, Cafferty and such. Wonder why Fox has better ratings...hmm.
-
That won't do, Bj.
The slant of the network is tied to the image they project, and Fox presents a "hard-right" image with all of their shows. I know the difference between news and entertainment, believe me. However, there is no way you can spin Fox as any more reputable than CNN, CBS, ABC, or NBC.
You've hit on one thing though... FOX has done its demographic research, and are serving up what people want to hear. Does that make it news? Of course not.
That said, there is no true "unbiased" news source. Best to take news from opposing news sources and find the middle.
-
That said, there is no true "unbiased" news source. Best to take news from opposing news sources and find the middle.
Ok..I'll agree with that---(But I'll wager there are more liberals on Fox than conservatives on all the other nets combined:p )
-
Originally posted by bj229r
(I'll wager there are more liberals on Fox than conservatives on all the other nets combined:p )
If you count Ann Coulter and Bill O' Reilly as liberals, then yes.