Naw, I don’t care. But I’m not singling out dear old Dan. I don’t care about most celebrities.
I found the video!!! It is at the linked site along with some funny as hell quotes from ‘honest Dan’ – Here are just the first two, not the best two, of approximately 40 or so. Go to the linked page for the video or quotes – or both—
It is true that the network news isn’t nearly the iconic institution that it used to be. So younger people may not be aware of the celebrity status that TV news announcers had. Walter Cronkite was found “the most trusted man in America” by a major poll of the era. Dan Rather comes out of that time, so he resonates with a lot of people.
Translation: “I can’t refute the charge, so I’ll attack the messenger instead.” Figures.
I was just about to ask you the same thing; it sure sounds like you’re getting your mischaracterization of Franken from the usual right-wing suspects.
And I’ve flipped through Bias at the local bookstore. Can’t say I’ve bought it, though – the over-the-top self-martyrdom drama from Bernie left an icky residue on my fingers. I didn’t want to contaminate the rest of my library with that gunk.
That just shows how far off the deep end you are. The “mainstream media” is so heavily biased to the right, it’s a full-time job just to track it all.
Took a second to get that. I was looking for a drunken post exclaiming my hot man love for Rather. 
Translation: “I can’t refute the charge, so I’ll attack the messenger instead.” Figures. 
Really, rjung, you should read it. It’s quite enlightening.
So that really is your contention?
Amazing.
Too bad they can’t bring back Walter Cronkite.
I recall seeing ‘honest Dan’ on Bill O’Reilly’s show sometime over the last year. Here’s a quote from that appearance:
“I believe a person can lie and still be an honest man.”
I think Bob Schieffer is an excellent choice. He has Cronkite’s likability and trustworthiness and he doesn’t give off the aura of having an agenda. Too bad he isn’t going to fill the position permanently.
Oh, how like a Republican, to rip off someone else’s material and pass it off as your own.
I beg forgiveness if my tolerance for moronic right-wing glurge is less than yours; after all, I haven’t been building up my tolerance of bushit through years of watching Fox News and listening to talk radio. But perhaps someday you will grok the radical notion that one doesn’t have to read every page in a book to get the gist of it – an event that will probably happen soon after you read something deeper than a Betty & Veronica collection.
Funny, at first I thought you were talking about Dan Rather’s report about Bush’s National Guard service.
Not ripping off or passing anything, chum. Just throwing your own lame accusation back at ya.
Nothing to beg forgiveness for, friend rjung. I rarely watch Fox and I haven’t listened to talk radio in more than a decade, and even then only sporadically. It may come as a shock to you, but my opinions, philosophies and beliefs are all my own. Yep, it’s true. Hard to believe, I know, since you can’t fathom that anyone could hold a viewpoint different from yours without having been brainwashed into it, but there ya go.
Oh, and by the way: there are millions out there, just like me, who have come to our beliefs the old-fashioned way, i.e., through common-sense, observation and life experience.
You think Fox, et al. is creating us, but in reality we have created Fox. And why? Too many decades of the likes of Dan Rather, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, USA Today, Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
You swallow the ‘glurge’ you happen to already believe in, and I swallow the ‘glurge’ I already believe in. The difference is that I recognize your beliefs are ingrained and only bolstered by the 'mainstream media," whereas you think my beliefs spring wholly formed through Fox and Limbaugh. It seems to be beyond your comprehension that anyone could disagree with you honestly and reasonably.
(But I do still admire the way you handled the results of the election.) 
Regards, old buddy!
I liked Dan best when he was in the field. My first memory of him was on the day that President Kennedy was assassinated. He gave a report to Walter Cronkite from a phone in the hospital. I didn’t realize for years that that had been Dan Rather until I heard a replay.
I remember him more for reporting from the front lines in Vietnam and for staying on top of things during Watergate. That man was a good example of the courage that he mentioned at the end of his show tonight.
Sure he was different. I think he got too emotionally involved. But while that may not have been very good for a journalist, I respected that in the human being.
I also liked that he had a copy of “The Cowboy Code of Honor” hanging in his office. (I think you have to be pretty old to understand why that made him special.)
I think he will be good on Sixty Minutes.
I wouldn’t be so sure. He’s been doing pieces for 60 Minutes II for a while now, and I think he’s a lot more Barbara Walters than Mike Douglass.
Anyway, I watched his final broadcast last night. I was really hoping for some kind of “Network” style flip-out, rant and rave.
“What the hell is WRONG with you people?” kind of thing. Alas.
Actually, Cronkite gave Rather’s name when he announced that “Dan Rather reports…to repeat, our reporter Dan Rather says…Rather has told us…”
If it hadn’t been true, Dan Rather’s journalism career would have been over.
Starving Artist and rjung can argue about media bias until the cows come home and the truth will likely be somewhere in the middle, but the fact that you can utter tripe like this with a ( presumably ) straight face about a TV personality who is clearly and relentlessly agenda driven is leaving me gobsmackered. The man lied and made shit up under the guise of “journalism” in an attempt to influence a presidential election for God’s sake. If you’re going to argue that there is little or no liberal media bias, you don’t start with the most openly biased person in the industry as your example.
I think you’ve got a great point there, Weirddave. I really fail to understand how anyone can deny media bias. All you have to do is watch the news to see it.
I notice, incidentally, that most of the accusations of media bias against Fox news target their non-news shows, like Bill O’Reilly (kind of like Paul Harvey “News and Comment”–that “comment” is an advance notice that he’ll be getting some biased shots in).
The main reason I watch Fox news is that they have NEWS. I watch in the morning, while getting ready for work. It seems like all the networks show is promotions for their current shows and their favorite celebrities. They don’t talk about what’s going on in the world. Fox does.
Brainwashed, nothing – you were simply dropped on your head one too many times as a child.
Someone has to make up the “below fifty percentile”.
Just remember, when you say “All of the media is biased against me,” you’re just a hair’s width away from “All of the people are conspiring against me”, a.k.a. tin-foil-hat territory…
Bah. I’ve seen Dan throw fastballs at LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. When the Afghan war and even the Iraq war began, he was essentially a cheerleader for the administration. Since the body bags started coming in, the feature “Fallen Heroes” has been a staple of CBS news each night. If he’s such a liberal stalwart, he wouldn’t have been doing these things. He’s a genuine journalist that has compiled an impressive record. While Bush was dodging the National Guard in Texas, Rather was dodging bullets in Vietnam to let the rest of know what was really going on there. During the Civil Rights era, Dan was with the marchers and suffering the wrath of the racists of that era. He’s a pro, he’s paid his dues, and has served the country well. I, for one, am grateful for his service.
Throwing fastballs or hardballs is the defining element of media bias. It has to go with tone; facial expressions indicating approval or disapproval; giving two minutes to one side (usually the liberal side) of an issue followed by a five second rebuttal attributed to the other side, then claiming that by doing so they’ve presented both sides; etc.
Ever notice how media people almost glow with pleasantness when interviewing Democrats or liberals and how they scowl and look dubious when interviewing Republicans or conservatives?
These kinds of things are what we who object to media bias are talking about when we object to it. It isn’t simply a tit-for-tat tally of talking points.