Question
•
TV
Dan Rather is suing CBS for 70 million dollars:
"Mr. Rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on “60 Minutes” after forcing him to step down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005. He also contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” and incomplete investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, “seriously damaged his reputation.”
"The suit, which seeks $70 million in damages, names as defendants CBS and its chief executive, Leslie Moonves; Viacom and its executive chairman, Sumner Redstone; and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News."
Full article here
Rather is referring to being used as a "scapegoat" in reference to the falsification of documents which questioned President Bush's National Guard record.
What do you think SodaHeads? Did CBS try to push all the blame on Dan Rather or was he deserving of it?
"Mr. Rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on “60 Minutes” after forcing him to step down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005. He also contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” and incomplete investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, “seriously damaged his reputation.”
"The suit, which seeks $70 million in damages, names as defendants CBS and its chief executive, Leslie Moonves; Viacom and its executive chairman, Sumner Redstone; and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News."
Full article here
Rather is referring to being used as a "scapegoat" in reference to the falsification of documents which questioned President Bush's National Guard record.
What do you think SodaHeads? Did CBS try to push all the blame on Dan Rather or was he deserving of it?
Loading...-
Answered None of the above
My inclination is that they kicked Rather to the curb and concurrently did everything possible to cover the corporate ass (es). But I'm not expert on news show production protocol ... so I'm open to any credible info that may surface in the legal process. However, there is quite a bit of disinformation afoot in this thread and we know that some of the stronger opinions will never change regardless of any new info that might be revealed. To wit:
(a)The hair-on-fire allegations that Rather is criminally guilty for trying to change the course of an election with this story is a bit much. It surfaced as a sort of neat looking scoop... a moderately interesting story with a whiff of controversy and a probable shelf-life of a few days ...but no big deal even if the worst was true (and it very possibly was). If it had not been fowled up with the unsanitary doc's, we'd all have forgotten it by now. And, most importantly, Bush supporters would not have been swayed one whitt !
(b)Rather was approaching Lame Duck status and the network probably saw him as a convenient target, perhaps expecting to realize some economic gains in the process. There are no compelling ethics that outrank financial considerations in corporate America and this fact is clearly visible in mainstream commercial news media.
(c)It is doubtfull that a player of Rather's stature was expected to do the nitty gritty research verification before broadcasting as that would be a rather inefficient use of time for ...My inclination is that they kicked Rather to the curb and concurrently did everything possible to cover the corporate ass (es). But I'm not expert on news show production protocol ... so I'm open to any credible info that may surface in the legal process. However, there is quite a bit of disinformation afoot in this thread and we know that some of the stronger opinions will never change regardless of any new info that might be revealed. To wit:
(a)The hair-on-fire allegations that Rather is criminally guilty for trying to change the course of an election with this story is a bit much. It surfaced as a sort of neat looking scoop... a moderately interesting story with a whiff of controversy and a probable shelf-life of a few days ...but no big deal even if the worst was true (and it very possibly was). If it had not been fowled up with the unsanitary doc's, we'd all have forgotten it by now. And, most importantly, Bush supporters would not have been swayed one whitt !
(b)Rather was approaching Lame Duck status and the network probably saw him as a convenient target, perhaps expecting to realize some economic gains in the process. There are no compelling ethics that outrank financial considerations in corporate America and this fact is clearly visible in mainstream commercial news media.
(c)It is doubtfull that a player of Rather's stature was expected to do the nitty gritty research verification before broadcasting as that would be a rather inefficient use of time for what is basically the highest talent on the team.
(d)The story was entirely plausible based on what was already known about Bush's military experience and there was no reason for Rather to doubt its veracity when he received it ... especially since the network with all its resources seemed to have no reservations. Remember also, the National Guard of that era (rightly or wrongly) did not have any notable reputation for hard-line military discipline.
(e)And please let's get this straight, the Imus deal was clearly not the same as Rather's fiasco. Because Imus was doing exacvtly what he was paid to do. That is, to be a flagrant, politically incorrect, disrespectfull, often cruel, often incisive, over the top, horses ass with a creative flair for getting over with a diverse range of major players in American society. And they mostly bailed on him when he made that blunder of grabbing onto a phrase that he didn.t even understand. That was his job and he had a contract. Okay to take him off air, but they legitimately still owed him the money,(less) -
Answered No, it was Dan Rather's fault but he doesn't want to take the blame!
Mr Rather was going to do everything within his power to derail the election of GWB, including but not limited to lying and using falsified documents.Why do you think so many citizens make heroes and victims out of those who have no standards.
-
Answered Yes, CBS decided to put the blame on someone and they used Dan Rather.
Yes, Dan Rather don't research any of his material anymore because he has people to do that. Not to mention what about the producers, CEO of CBS and all the other higher up above Dan Rather? Don't they have any responsibility to getting the story right?
Dan Rather was the Oliver North for CBS and 60 Minutes, the fall guy. -
But the thing about Dan Rather's report... it wasn't wrong, Bush did slack on his responsibilities while being in the military and did in fact not report to duty and used his daddy to get out of serving after he signed on to serve. So technically Dan Rather’s report was factual.
-
There are conflicting reports here, and wide differences in oppinion. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. I would guess that Bush was late a few times, someone found out and it got blown in to a story where he went AWOL. I'm not making any judgement on Bush's military service, I wasn't there, but I personally try and move on concerning things that happened 30 years ago. All I know for sure is the media is there to make money -- Dan Rather included. They don't seem to care if they distort the facts to make that money, so I don't take them seriously and I certainly don't respect them. It is all about money. Don't be fooled. This includes FOX, CNN, and all the rest!
-
I'm not fooled and I know the media considering I too was PAO (Public Affairs and Announcement Officer) while in the military and I know the military. If you're late for duty and have not made contact with your unit than you're listed as AWOL.
I'm like you, I could really care less about Bush's military record or no record (however you want to view him while being in or not being in the military), I figure there is so much that is going on NOW that we can hang him on that we don't have to look back into his history. We can get him TODAY for what he's doing NOW or not doing NOW!!! -
Answered It was the entire network's fault...
Mr Rather had a position of which he made the final decision whether or not to broadcast a piece he and others collaborated on. He is directly responsible for his choice.Be honest and accept the consequences like a man, Dan.
-
Answered No, it was Dan Rather's fault but he doesn't want to take the blame!
Rather is a dumbass. He was just as involved as anybody at CBS in that story. He tried to manipulate a presidential election and almost got away with it - that should be a criminal offense.
He's going down in flames again on this one. He would have been better off to just let it fade away - instead he chose to throw a gallon of gasoline on the smoldering fire by blaming others for his breech of ethics and now all hell is going to break loose. -
Answered No, it was Dan Rather's fault but he doesn't want to take the blame!
As proof that he is delusional, he and his lawyers claim the fabricated memos are authentic!
http://www.washingtonpost.com... -
Answered None of the above
I think Dan Rather was an excellent journalist until he became a "Kool-Aid" drinker and began to bash George W. Bush and aired that false report about him. It was HIS fault because he could should have been less eager to talk about the story and find out the FACTS FIRST!
Eric -
Answered It was the entire network's fault...
He was definitely made the scapegoat, but when you report at the level that Dan Rather reported at, there has to be accountability. I think it's the entire corporation's fault, but ultimately, you can't fire an entire corporation, and there had to be some sort of action taken to create the appearance that CBS doesn't tolerate erroneous reporting on that level. -
Answered It was the entire network's fault...
Unfortunately when a corporate cog clogs up the works with a foul up... some head must roll. I actually found it refreshing that some lower level person wasn't thrown under the metaphorical bus to take the heat. Management went to the responsible supervisor which unfortunately was Dan himself. In the end Dan was responsible for the content of his report. I actually don't think firing was all that necessary under the circumstances though. -
Answered Yes, CBS decided to put the blame on someone and they used Dan Rather.
I believe CBS is making Dan their scapegoat. I also believe that Dan being the seasoned anchor that he is....should take some of the blame too. He says the records were falsified....it's the person at CBS who got the story and ran with it's responsibility to know it's validity. If Dan did all the research for this issue he's responsible...if Dan just read the story and someone else did the research then it's that person's responsibilty along w/CBS to be able to authenticate the story. Either way CBS has all of the responsibility to what they broadcast on their station. But as they say Sh*t rolls down hill. -
raves +1
![Samuel[raccoon]](http://images.sodahead.com/images/profiles/0/0/0/0/3/9/7/6/0/profiles_me_4407_940227_media_small.jpeg)
Answered No, it was Dan Rather's fault but he doesn't want to take the blame!
Rather is a dumbass. He was just as involved as anybody at CBS in that story. He tried to manipulate a presidential election and almost got away with it - that should be a criminal offense.He's going down in flames again on this one. He would have been better off to just let it fade away - instead he chose to throw a gallon of gasoline on the smoldering fire by blaming others for his breech of ethics and now all hell is going to break loose.