Rather Sues CBS, Saying It Made Him a ‘Scapegoat’ - Page 4

hytem · 09-27-2007, 06:36 AM

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.

cairns · 09:55 AM

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.

cairns · 09-27-2007, 09:54 AM

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.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

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.

cairns · 09-27-2007, 10:07 AM

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.

john70t · 09-27-2007, 10:18 AM

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

Dottore · 09-27-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRM

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.

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?

cairns · 01:22 PM

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.

Dottore · 09-27-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cairns

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.

cairns · 09-27-2007, 01:39 PM

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

island911 · 09-27-2007, 01:41 PM

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

sammyg2 · 09-27-2007, 01:47 PM

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

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

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.

john70t · 09-27-2007, 02:03 PM

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.

stevepaa · 09-27-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cairns

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.

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.

Dottore · 09-27-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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.

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.

Rearden · 09-27-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dottore

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

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.

Dottore · 09-27-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rearden

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?

Rearden · 09-27-2007, 02:54 PM

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.

Dottore · 09-27-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rearden

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...