Should Dan Rather resign?

[hoosier]

When Jason Blair went phony in the NYTimes, the two top editors took the blame and resigned.

When the USA Today writer admitted to faking travel and stories, the two top editors took the blame and resigned.

When Dan Rather's phony documents were revealed, what's up with Dan?

[Rudey]

He should resign.

Undoubtedly, for a story this large, he didn't just read the words.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
When Dan Rather's phony documents were revealed, what's up with Dan?

Did he have a fake ID or what?

Seriously, I wouldn't mind seeing him retire -- although he's always been my least favorite of the major anchors.

CBS has a little bigger problem than the papers mentioned above, though.

They don't have an Heir to Rather waiting in the wings.

I think Mary Mapes, the high level producer of the story, will probably get blown up. The rest depends on how much Rather was really involved in the investigation. There's no question that by putting his name and face on the project that his credibility will take a big hit.

One thing that does not surprize me is that CBS is admitting and reporting their own failure, as is Rather. As I recall, there was some doubt that they would. Had they not, they would have put not only their credibility in danger, but also their owned station licenses and their very corporate existance in danger.

[hoosier]

That Was Then, This Is Now
From an interview with Dan Rather, published by Broadcasting & Cable on Aug._30:

Is the media doing a good job covering the 2004 election? Or is there too much attention on the Swift Boat flap?

Rather: "I would like us to concentrate more on issues and less on campaign process. But there is always a tendency to go with what's sensational. Also, we're human, and humans keep making the same mistakes. In the end, what difference does it make what one candidate or the other did or didn't do during the Vietnam War? In some ways, that war is as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns. What's far more import is this: Do they have an exit strategy for Iraq? If so, what is it? How will they address the national deficit? And what are the chances their plans will work?"

When John Kerry was under attack over Vietnam, Rather pooh-poohed the idea that a candidate's Vietnam record was relevant, and never mind that Kerry sought to build his whole campaign around his war-hero legend. But nine days later, Rather broadcast old news about President Bush's National Guard service as if it were the story of a lifetime (which we suppose it was, though not in the way he'd expected).

Under such circumstances, is it unreasonable to harbor suspicions of partisan bias?

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

ya know- I havent liked the man in years and I think some new blood may help CBS not only on recovering their status as reputable news but also in the ratings-game.

[Kevin]

I don't think it really hurt their credibility in my eyes. About any of the national news networks would have probably run with this story.

The fact that CBS is now trying to make ammends and has admitted to being wrong satisfies me. People make mistakes. I have a hard time believing that this was intentional.

[The1calledTKE]

I wonder why hoosier didn't ask the same question when Geraldo gave away the location of the troops he was traveling with which put all their lives at risk.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
I wonder why hoosier didn't ask the same question when Geraldo gave away the location of the troops he was traveling with which put all their lives at risk.

I sincerely despise that man. Speaking of flip flops. Anyone remember him during the Clinton impeachment? He was Mr. Democratic talking points.

He's a Republican leaner now.

-- Well, I do understand that CNN pays slave wages compared to FOX.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Resign? I thought that Dan Rather was dead.

[adduncan]

Originally posted by hoosier
When Jason Blair went phony in the NYTimes, the two top editors took the blame and resigned.

When the USA Today writer admitted to faking travel and stories, the two top editors took the blame and resigned.

When Dan Rather's phony documents were revealed, what's up with Dan?

And when Dateline NBC rigged a truck to explode and burn before the impact on its gas tank (remember that?) they ate some crow, made a few on-air apologies, tolerated the usual lampooning by SNL then went right on with the show. Anchors didn't get fired, maybe a few memos went out behind the scenes, who knows.

The difference is, 60 Minutes, like Dateline, is a magazine show. It isn't all about facts - it's about speculation and opinions as well. The NY Times and (believe it or not... ) USA Today are of the "hard news" genre that historically separates factual news from commentary.

I think Rather will face what Dateline did and move on.

Although, IMHO, the world won't stop turning if he did retire.

--add

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ktsnake
I sincerely despise that man. Speaking of flip flops. Anyone remember him during the Clinton impeachment? He was Mr. Democratic talking points.

He's a Republican leaner now.

-- Well, I do understand that CNN pays slave wages compared to FOX.

CNN is the network that employs Kerry aides and thinks it can still be unbiased? Yeah Carville you are one unbiased host.

-Rudey

[honeychile]

Originally posted by ktsnake
I don't think it really hurt their credibility in my eyes. About any of the national news networks would have probably run with this story.

The fact that CBS is now trying to make ammends and has admitted to being wrong satisfies me. People make mistakes. I have a hard time believing that this was intentional.

Wow - I'll have whatever you're drinking! You honestly, in your heart of hearts, think this was properly researched before being rushed in front of the public? If so, I surely hope you're not a journalism student - or you're going to find your integrity impeached on a daily basis!

Not only did CBS mess up on their research, but they've given every one of their competition reason to laugh at them at every turn - not pretty.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
CNN is the network that employs Kerry aides and thinks it can still be unbiased?

OK, and one more time, FOX is the network that has a president who ran Nixon's campaign.

While your point may be valid, it goes both ways. And, there's a difference between being a reporter and a commentator. The same as the difference between a reporter and editorial writer in the print media.

As for Snake's points, I disagree with one and agree with another. I think CBS's credibility has suffered substantial damage.

I agree, though, that this was not done on purpose. Again, they couldn't afford risking losing the licenses of their owned stations. Remember again that on-air TV is government regulated.

[AlphaXiGirl]

Yes.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
OK, and one more time, FOX is the network that has a president who ran Nixon's campaign.

While your point may be valid, it goes both ways. And, there's a difference between being a reporter and a commentator. The same as the difference between a reporter and editorial writer in the print media.

As for Snake's points, I disagree with one and agree with another. I think CBS's credibility has suffered substantial damage.

I agree, though, that this was not done on purpose. Again, they couldn't afford risking losing the licenses of their owned stations. Remember again that on-air TV is government regulated.

So what? How has Fox's president made things bad? It seems that since Fox is considered the least biased that this political involvement does not transfer to his new job or that he doesn't have the power to transfer those views.

As for CNN, well having people on a CURRENT campaign and being ranked with much more bias shows that the network is not willing to say "Hey guys since you're working for Kerry, you can't be an unbiased employee."

-Rudey