Dan surely doesn't need the money. He's safely working somewhere, so he doesn't need the job for a creative outlook. So he doesn't have to sue CBS to be able to keep living. He worked for CBS for about 40 years, rising to the top and being presented as the network's face. That's a good career, and CBS didn't have to pick Dan Rather to be their man, there are others equally talented, but he was the lucky one who was picked.

A classy thing to do would have been to move on with his new career, work hard, live well and show everyone that he could put out a good product. And to not speak of CBS other than to say that he had 40 wonderful years with the Tiffany Network, while he disagreed with how they treated him at the end, he would always be grateful for the oportunity to be the CBS anchor and to have had such a career.

I don't know why he would sue under the circumstances, other than to think that the worst things some of us suspected of him are probably true.

[QUOTE=Superman;3489440] Yeah, those agencies that liberals believe in were clobbered regularly by the media. QUOTE]


Apparently the media did not clobber those agencies hard enough, which means they took it easy on them compared because they were biased towards them. ;):D

In all seriousness, local news will often blast away at local govt.....It is the national news that typically tends to lean a bit left "most" of the time. In regards to Clinton, the media would have had a field day had it been a republican.

The national media without a doubt typically is biased towards anti-war, anti-gun, pro-gay, anti-big business, enviromental protection etc. These are typically liberal stances, not conservative stances. How can one say this is not bias?

Sure you can cite examples of the press reporting unfavorably on a lib, but overall, conservatives are drug over the coals more often and more severely. I am pretty sure that you won't agree and that is to be expected. ;):D

You're right about one thing, Tim. I don't agree.:D

In your list of issues, there common denominator. Media loves to rile people, and "us against them" is a common theme. That's why they crucify government offices. The "us" position will always be the people. The "them" position might be gubmit offices, or might be corporations. At any rate, if the "us" is ordinary folks and the "them" is organizations, then conservative causes are going to be on the losing end of that exchange more often. In spite of the temporary and fascinating public perception turnaround, liberalism is populace-based, and conservatism is elite-based. It is often said here that liberalism is socialism. Yes, it places the interest of the lowly worker-bee ahead of the interest of the owner of the hive. And that gives the media some ammunition, considering there are many more worker-bee viewers than beehive-owner viewers.

here's a link to little green footballs. it's the blog that did did the five minutes worth of fact checking that CBS failed to do.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27118_Rathers_Lawyer-_Nobodys_Proved_the_Documents_Were_Forgeries#comme nts


and liberals know how to "stick with a Lie", no matter how wrong they've been proven. watched c-span last weekend, some guy was still denying the rosenberg's guilt.

Yes, that's what the guy that was kicking Dan's ass kept yelling during the attack.

The evidence for liberal mainstream media bias is undeniable.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

excerpt:
Whether you sample your news feed from ABC or CBS (or, yes, even NBC and MSNBC), whether you prefer Fox News Channel or National Public Radio, The Wall Street Journal or The New Yorker, some of the journalists feeding you are also feeding cash to politicians, parties or political action committees.

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

I think Wayne is probably referring to original subject matter. Rather had an ax to grind with Bush the elder, and the younger. I remember an interview with the elder Bush where Danny boy flat lost it on the air, it was pretty funny really.

Hope they don't cave and settle, he is a loser and so is his lawsuit.

I agree with the above and I aspire to be a "beehive-owner" rather than a worker bee. I am not there yet, but I believe "I" am the only one responsible for my potential success or failure.....not other people who happen to have already become succesful. I feel like the sheeple are all too willing to listen to the media present news to them in a way that makes them feel like it is always someone elses fault (ivy league grads, business owners, the wealthy, conservatives etc) that they are where they happen to be in life...........I say bullshiit!:)

In general, those who take responsibilty for their success or failure in life, lean right while those who blame it on others do not. (keep in mind, I said in general....no doubt there are examples to be found both ways)

Actually YOU are wrong. What part of admitting a mistake don't YOU understand? It can't be a mistake it MUST be a "conspiracy"? http://forums.pelicanparts.com/suppo...ys/men_ani.gif

Fact is, they did do it, conspiracy or incompetence, cbs came very close to f**king the American people. Make all the exuses you like.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1190329867.jpg

Huh? The western part of the panhandle isn't in the Central Time Zone? Or CBS didn't claim they made a mistake about that?

Byron, I didn't say they didn't do it, I don't dispute it may well have been incompetence. My comment is you make as many claims of liberal conspiracies as the liberals do of the conservatives. Where is the "excuse" you think I am making? Excusing what?

Oh, and again, you seem to LOVE to resort to name calling. Again, how does that advance the discussion of issues. I've already offered the opinion that Rather is a huge egotist and that CBS was wrong to have made that call. "They came very close to F**king the American people"....? How? Making that call changed the outcome of the election? Your guy won? What's your beef? Seems to me you've just got to have the last word.

Dan, what name did I call you, I didn't mean too, as for the excuse,
instead of saying, Yes, my guy did win, but, the fact that cbs "had the power and used it" to try and change the out come, is wrong, no matter what party benefits. Remember, we aren't talking about a cable network, but one of the big 3, the one that was considered the most trusted news on the tube, and is on every TV in America(since it is free) so too think that they would really "not know" that FL. had 2 time zones is a reach. Any one who has ever been involved with any broadcasting could tell you that. So, my next trip to Cali, we gonna do Jager Bombs:D

BTW, you cleared it up in your last post.

I’m Rather Grateful
You go, Dan!

By Jonah Goldberg


In 2004, at the height of the Dan Rather Memogate story, I wrote in National Review: “Across the media universe the questions pour out: Why is Dan Rather doing this to himself? Why does he drag this out? Why won’t he just come clean? Why would he let this happen in the first place? Why is CBS standing by him? Why ... why ... why?

“There is only one plausible answer: Ours is a just and decent God.”

Well, God has not forsaken us. Dan Rather seems divinely inspired to crash more times than a Kennedy driving home from an office party. The multimillionaire semi-retired newsman is suing for $70 million, $1 million for every year he’s been alive since he was five years old. Which is fitting, because that’s what he sounds like. The gist of his lawsuit is that CBS used him as a “scapegoat” in the Memogate story to “pacify the White House.” The swelled-headed former anchor, who used to brag incessantly about his toughness and independence, also whines in his suit that the network forced him to apologize under duress when “no apology from him was warranted,” and that the former managing editor of CBS News “was not responsible for any such errors.”

Indeed, according to Rather and his lawyers, the only mistakes made were by CBS management, which, in its eagerness to “appease angry government officials,” had the temerity to apologize for passing off fake documents as real ones in a news story intended to sway a presidential election.

Oh, Rather is also crying himself to sleep on his enormous pillow every night over the outrage that CBS “refused” to send him to cover Hurricane Katrina despite the fact that “Mr. Rather is the most experienced reporter in the United States in covering hurricanes.”

Rather used to compare his job to “a very high trapeze act, frequently with no net.” Three years ago, he went splat in the bull’s-eye of the center ring. Now, with the circus long since out of town, he all of a sudden wants a net rolled out.

But you know what? I say, “You go, Dan!”

Frankly, we need this. And by “we,” I mean a grand coalition of people who delight in watching one of the 20th century’s most pompous gasbags fall from the top of the laughingstock tree and hit every branch on the way down. These are dour times, and if Gunga Dan and Hurricane Dan and What’s-The-Frequency-Kenneth Dan want to trade their Afghan robes, yellow windbreakers and enormous tinfoil hats for some baggy pants, bright-orange wigs and floppy shoes, I say let them. I just hope all of the Dans show up at the courthouse in a teensy-weensy clown car.

But we also need this because Rather’s “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” routine will help us get to the bottom of a story that was actually under-covered. CBS News, under Rather’s direction, ran with fake documents - or, to be fair, documents so shoddily verified that no unbiased journalist would have run with them. When confronted with the rank incompetence and bad faith of the team he led (the lead producer tried to coordinate with the Kerry campaign), Rather first allowed three of his colleagues to be thrown under the bus, while he took a few more face-saving laps around CBS before he was quietly escorted out the door like the muttering office old-timer who’s gone off his feed.

But now he’s back like a crazy man who shows up unannounced at the Christmas party smelling like cabbage and old newspapers, wearing a trench coat but no pants. He wants $20 million in compensatory damages and a whopping $50 million in punitive damages. I’m no fancy lawyer guy, but last I checked, punitive damages were awarded to send a signal that “this must never happen again.” So what’s the “this” here? That network news divisions should never again spend weeks selling off their credibility like a fire sale at Wal-Mart, claiming their story was “fake but true,” only to cave in to reality and admit they made a mistake?

The beauty of this lawsuit, which has most legal observers laughing so hard that their neck veins look like one-pound sausage casings with five pounds of ground chuck in them, is that if it goes to trial (shortly after unicorns file my taxes), CBS will be put in the position of having to prove that the story was bogus, while Rather will be forced to look even more like a grassy-knoll theorist, climbing back to the top of the laughingstock tree. So I say again: You go, Dan! I’ll bring the popcorn.

Ahhh, President Clinton SWORE that he did not have sex with Monica.... Just because someone swears that something is true does not mean it is....

This just in...

More. GO Dan, go.

http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Yeas_and_Nays/2007/9/26/Rather-chokes-up-and-hunkers-down

". . .he may call President George W. Bush as a witness should the lawsuit proceed to trial (and Rather said he hoped it would)."

JP, did you bring enough popcorn for everyone?

QUOTE: "CBS claimed it didn't realize that the western part of the Florida panhandle was in the Central Time Zone.'
________________________

Gee thanks 'Mr Obvious'!

From a recent Miss America pageant we learn that half the population has trouble reading maps. And of course elections in the USA must be a relatively new phenomena? And the Florida borders must have been moved recently?

How else would a "major news agency" NOT KNOW (after how many years of reporting election results?) the obvious?

Amusing excuse.

"Liberal media?" Ha! I love it! Liberal, as in Rupert Murdock, Clear Channel and Pacifica News. Was ABC's "liberal bias" showing when they refused to release "9/11 Press For Truth" (a $40mil production btw) because it was considered "controversial"?
Even the few other movies covering the war: "Uncovered: The War on Iraq", "The Fog of War", and "Fareignheight 9/11" all had to be independant productions because they couldn't get funding from the major sources. Ever wonder why?

The documents in question were "secretly leaked" by someone within the Bush administration and sworn to be accurate to Rather. He reported it with the best fact-checking possible at the time. This next statement is important, now, so listen up: The actual documents were "unavailable".

A simple retraction/correction would have been the end of it, but the FCC went ahead and gave CBS one of the highest fines to date......just as if the FCC were working directly for the Bush administration.
This wasn't a case of illicit porn, frequency jamming, national networking interference, nor any other serious situation. It was over a single news story that was based in truth. Bush's AWOL(cough..desertion) and DRUG usage had previously been substantiated by numerous sources. Can you say turn on, tune in, and drop out anyone?

Now let's make a comparison:
1)A reporter not fact-checking a story. vs
2)A president forging documents and repeatedly lying before congress(a federal offense) and the public .

Keep supporting the socialist, coke-head, deserter President who has protected the terrorists and is working hard to sell America to the Communists.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1190902063.jpg

You're citing movies and "documentaries" as evidence of no liberal bias in NEWS REPORTING? Apples to oranges. I've never seen Clear Channel or Pacifica, don't even know what they are. Are they mainstream media? Opinion makers? What does Rupert Murdoch have to do with this? CBS and Dan Rather f*cked up. It's really that simple.

Wow, that's a whole lotta crazy right there.

I have less respect for TV networks and their anchor "stars" these days than I do for politicians.

The only people making any real money in this society are CEOs and media types. Sad situation.

A. The media is overwhelmingly liberal. Period. Numerous surveys from their own ranks and others (without bias) have proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Try Pew for starters. You want to deny this go ahead but you look as silly as Dan.

B. Pacifica is beyond liberal- they're fu*king whack jobs (but they do play terrific jazz and blues when they just shut up).

C. Keep defending an egotistic, lying, pompous, long overpaid nut case who is, in actuality, madder than a wet hen locked out of the hen house over the fact that his shoddy reporting, lies and utter bombast were exposed and that he was canned after he became a huge embarrasment to himself and his employer.

D. Eat my superscript Dan and all you Dan defenders.

Oh and for all you liberal media deniers- a little something from one of your favorite sources- NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1919999

When even they admit the press leans left I would hope that some of you, at least, will clear the fog from your eyes.

NPR leads the pack in liberal bias and we have the privilege of paying for it with our tax dollars too. At least CBS never got a dime from me, so I don't really care as much about their nonsense. Never watched them anyway.

I've hated CBS ever since they did that hit job of "reporting" on Audi's "unintended acceleration" back in the eighties.

I looked in awe and thought....they're lying...and they're getting way with it. I couldn't believe it.

Thank God the net can call these *ssholes on it quickly now- and too bad for Audi they couldn't do it back then. I remember getting an "I survived an Audi test drive!" t-shirt from the dealer.

Is the seperating of actual news and commercials a "liberal" thing? The Paul Harvey format for every channel, then.

Well the simple answer is: he likes a good story.

And this is not about him - it's about CBS brown-nosing with the current administration and a whole lot of shoddy denials and cover-up of a story that was in all essential respects true.

Also: those documents cited were never proven to be inauthentic. They couldn't conclusively be proven authentic - and that is a big difference.

Rather has said it's not about the money, and that he will not settle the claim.

He claims he was wrongfully dismissed and that CBS was colluding with the Bushies in getting rid of him and that the story is correct.

The spin that the loyal media is putting on this suit is predictable. My guess is that if this case actually gets heard, Rather will come out of it looking very good.
Anyone care to wager on this?

Here we go again- "the story is true- even if the facts aren't"- because I want to believe it's true....that Georgie just soo got over... and that John Kewwwy is sooooo brave.

When will you guys ever remove the Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers???

Guess what? Dan was working at will- and CBS had every right and every reason to ***** can him. His case will go nowhere and shows what a petulant non sensical whining loser he is.

I think you are wrong about this. I recall that he had more than a year to go on his anchor contract - and several years on 60 Minutes.

But that's neither here nor there.

Good point- I very well could be. In that case it will come down to what was in the contract.

Did his contract specifically allow him to make-up 'news' ?

Joe, shhhh! it took them years to forget the dirty details, now you bring them back up?
Just look, a whole bunch of grown men with their fingers in their ears humming so they don't have to listen to it ;)

PS Good one Byron LOL

Dottore, I'd have an easier time believing Bush pre-wired the WTC to come down on 9/11 than CBS actively collaborated with the WH to get rid of Rather. And if Rather loves a good story, he should have refused to apologize for his shoddy reporting and gone on the air and told the world that CBS was strongarming him and he wasn't gonna take it. That would have been courageous and a truly awesome story. The fact that he didn't have the balls or facts behind him to tell CBS to f&ck off and then just quietly retired, sounds to me like he didn't have a case or wanted a case for a later lawsuit.

A single reporter suing a "big liberal media" outfit?

I thought the neocon-types would want the reporter to win against the "big liberal media", if it is that.

Well, it certainly says that most people in the media identify themselves as liberal, same is true for schools, but that does not necessarily imply that as a school teacher I tried to sway anyone's opinion on politics. In fact, most teachers leave their religion and politics at home. I would expect the same in the media.

And if you feel their need to be more conservatives in media, well get in there.
But I doubt that will happen, as, just maybe, people who identify themselves as liberal are more willing to take lower paying jobs for the good of society rather than seeking personal financial gain.

Are you aware of the extent to which the WH and the military leaned on the various media that were trying to break the story of the Abu Ghraib abuses?

Is it such a stretch to imagine the Bushies trying to discredit the reporting of a story that would be very embarrassing to the new Pres.?

I wouldn't have thought so.

At any rate I think no one today cares whether Bush actually completed his stint in the service. The many blunders of his time in office make these juvenile pecadillos almost laughable by comparison.

But the story of a large US network colluding with the WH to discredit one of its own in order to score political points of some kind is a good one - and that is, I think, the best explanation of why Rather has brought this suit. He's a newsman, and this is a good story.

Are you too young to have ever seen a typewriter? Typewriters of the early 70s didn't superscript numbers. I guess if you are deluded, you can convince yourself that the Texas Air National Guard had a multi-million dollar prototype typewriter. Whatever gets you through the night.

Again, the documents were never proven to be authentic. That much is clear. They were also not proven to be fakes. That much is also clear. So don't hang your hat on the documents just yet.

Rather claims he can prove their authenticity in court. Let's wait and see shall we?

This will never go to trial. CBS will pay the old man a few million to go away -- maybe even let Rather do a primetime news special to feed his pompous ego.

I wish they would take it to trial and make him exhaust his fortune on this frivolous suit.

Well Rather has stated publicly that it's not about the money - and that he will not settle. He wants to see certain people deposed and cross-examined, and the story told.

We'll just have to see.

Unless of course you want to take that wager...