What, a Republican as a sexploitative immoral hypocrite? This is news? 
Which one of the following is more likely to be true:
The answer should be rather obvious, but I doubt you’ll pick it… 
No! No! No! Don’t you see, rjung? She’s a journalist…and she’s a Republican!
It’s actually gotten to the point in this country where it makes the news when a journalist is a Republican.
How about “Are you still beating your wife, yes or no?”
I’m sure you’ve read Bernie Goldberg’s book which elucidates on the part of most journalists the very point of view you just expressed. Although overwhelmingly liberal, most jounalists consider themselves as merely rational, reasonable people who are centrist and have no bias.
There is only themselves, and right-wing nutjobs.
Just like you.
Regards.
Cronkite took a pretty good shot at Rather yesterday:
Dan was good at covering weather and space related stories. He always seemed to work up a little boner for them behind his desk, or out on a wave swept pier, waiting for the eye of the storm. On other news though, meh. Even all those artificial sounding Texasims failed to cover his ‘insecure dude trying to fake good’ persona.
Given that Goldberg has a track record of taking other reporters’ words out of context to fit his “everyone in journalism is a left-wing shill except me” act, I wouldn’t suggest giving him too much credit.
And how come whenever right-wing nutjobs (coughahemStarvingArtist*cough ) talk about media bias, they always trot out the same twenty-year-old canard about biased journalists, but ignore current studies showing overwhelming conservative bias on the parts of the publishers and editors of said media? Couldn’t be because it’d shatter those self-martyrdom delusions, now could it?
Al Franken!!! Al frickin’ Franken??? He’s your cite? He plucks one comment out of an entire book, claims it was taken out of context, and this is supposed to negate an entire book by a (formerly, until he outed Rather & Co. for what they are) highly regarded journalist with decades of experience at CBS?
(I take it this means you haven’t read the book? )
Well, actually I could go back 60 years or more to illustrate media bias, but who’s counting? The fact of the matter is that liberal media bias was abundant 60 years ago, twenty years ago, and right up to this very day.
So it’s your contention that CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine and USA Today are overwhelmingly conservative? These are who I think of when I think of the news media and I certainly don’t regard them as being overwhelmingly conservative.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Fox itself have become hugely popular due to years of pent-up resentment created by an overwhelmingly liberal media for which there was no alternative. Now there is an alternative and people are flocking to it like the oasis in the desert that it is.
It should probably be noted also that the popularity of Fox, etc. is exaggerated due to the fact that the country is approximately fifty percent conservative but has only one channel to turn to in order to avoid the ubiquitous liberal bias found everywhere else in the mainstream media. If the conservative viewpoint was spread among as many outlets as is the liberal viewpoint, I doubt that Fox, Limbaugh, et al., would be drawing the huge audiences they do.
So there! Put that in your smipe and poke it.
Good bye, Dan. Never watched your sorry ass anyway.
Dan was never the man to watch for hard journalism. Dan was the man to watch because he was just a little bit nuts, and he had full access. He, in about so many words, has called ‘bullshit’ in a presidential press conference on occasion. He asked questions completely from left field… and got answers.
Not always, but sometimes. I think I will watch him on 60 Minutes… Dan in the Field is a thing of glory. Much like Tom Baker’s 14’ Dr. Who Scarf.
To me he has always been Dan Rather than Walter.
So a reporter who agrees with your view of the “liberal media” is “a highly regarded journalist with decades of experience at CBS”. A reporter who does not is a biased shill. Gotcha.
They keep showing this clip of Dan Rather and Nixon.
In it, it looks like early 70s. Rather is at a podium and has apparently been questioning Nixon. . Nixon says to him, “Are you running for something?”
Rather, “No, are you?”
What is this? Is this suppose to show his quick wit?
All it is is rude, really. You’re standing at a podium interviewing the guy for chrissakes. Nixon’s been running for stuff for about 20 years straight at this point. . .yeah, he’s running for something.
Nixon’s question was a jab at your partisanship. Yours was a playground-level retort akin to “am too”.
The clip really makes him look petty and foolish and belligerent. Not witty and clever and satirical.
I care about Dan Rather.
Dan Rather SHOT HEROIN so he’d know what it was like when he was reporting on it. Dan Rather beats people up. He’s been attacked by wierdos and held hostage by cabbies. He’s been everywhere, done everything, doesn’t put up with the BS. Dan Rather says strange things with a straight face on national news. And he’s just a bit of a wierdo himself. He’s a people’s hero. He’s someone we can look up to. In his next life, he’ll be a punk rock star.
I’ll miss you, Dan.
He was “highly regarded” by people in the news media…until he turned “traitor” and spoke the truth about something most of the nation knew already knew about but was at a loss to explain, i.e., liberal bias in the media.
I didn’t say he was highly regarded by me, although certainly he is now because he had the guts (and the objectivity) to see things as they are and speak out accordingly, even if it meant he became a pariah to those he worked with and was close to during his aforementioned “decades of experience at CBS.”
Got me now?
I couldn’t agree more. To me, the fact that this is held up by his peers as an example of his strength and courage in pursuit of a story is just another example of the bias we’re talking about.
Dan Rather is a giant eared ass munch – I hope he grows a big pair of those man boobs -
He is one of the great journalists of our time. Conservatives hate him because he doesn’t sell himself out. The great liberal media bias is a myth, unlike the very real conservative media buy-us. I wish Mr. Rather a fond farewell.
Now compare that with Danny putting Clinton on “tough alert” during an interview with Bill and Hillary – Read -
I should say that he doesn’t really bug me as much as some of you.
I kind of like that he seems a little crazy at times. He’s no clone.
He’s not a great anchor, IMO. I never watch the CBS evening news. On “60 Minutes II”, he’s clearly the weakest link as an interviewer. Personally, I think his “home spun” expressions sound contrived and are mostly groaners.
So, he’s not telegenic. He’s not a great investigator. He’s not very witty. What is he? A little entertaining just because he seems a little on the edge. He built his reputation by plopping himself into the middle of things, bravely. Supposedly he was the first guy to go stand in a hurricane and report, the first anchor to do anchoring from the field.
I heard (on Don & Mike?) that Walter Kronkite said he’s going to feel bad for the next anchor because it’s going to be a tough act to follow. . .a tough act to follow Bob Schaefer, that is. . .Rather’s interim replacement. I haven’t found a cite, though.
I DO think that Rather is biased, but not so bad that it bugs me. That’s not my complaint with him at all. That wasn’t the point of my Nixon story.
Bye, Dan. Don’t let the door hit you…
You might be thinking of this —
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/07/wbr.01.html
Now ------ I’ve heard that Daddy Bush once verbally took it to Rather on the Evening News - was angered by Rather and showed it - I wonder if there’s a video –or- if not, a transcript. Anyone recall that? What happened --?
Thanks for that transcript. Clearly what I was getting at.
I’ve also seen clips of this bush senior thing you mentioned. It was when he was veep. Dan was badgering him about something he wanted to talk about and bush was saying “that’s not what we’re here to talk about.”
Kind of a meaningless confrontation, like the Rather/Nixon thing. More interesting just for the fact that a “confrontation” happened rather than anything that came out of the confrontation.
That probably sums Rather up half decently. Confrontations that are all feathers and squawking, but you still don’t know who the Cock of the Walk is after it’s done. Contrast to something like, I don’t know, maybe Jon Stewart laying into Tucker Carlson and really saying something meaningful. Or anything Tim Russert does on a weekly basis.