It’s Official: Dan Rather is OUT!
Posted on June 17, 2006
By way of The Drudge Report:
44 long years of pathological denial ended (quietly) this week — in denial. Dan Rather is officially out at CBS. While most suspected as such following the infamous 2004 Rathergate debacle, CBS and Rather joined together in one last round of stonewalling. For two years, both parties have maintained that Rather was not removed from the CBS Evening News in response to his failed attempt to affect a U.S. presidential election — but in order to spend more time with family.
Dan Rather had earned a reputation for his blatant bias and hostile approach to Conservatives. Conservatives everywhere are sad to see Rather go. With his lack to subtly, Dan had become more a friend than foe to liberal bias whistle-blowers. We hope that now Dan Rather will get the professional help he so desperately needs. Shine on you crazy diamond!
» NYT: Moving Ahead, Rather Throws Sad Look Back
» Jonah Goldberg has more…
» Tigerhawk: The disaggregation of Dan Rather
» The Moderate Voice: Dan Rather Reportedly Out At CBS
» Filed Under News
Trackback URL
Comments
9 Responses to “It’s Official: Dan Rather is OUT!”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I am certain that Jim has no idea how endlessly amusing it is to see anyone posting to this blog making an accusation of “blatent (sic) bias” against someone else…
Good call, meatbrain. was supposed to correct that. Blogs need spellcheck.
Yes, they do. Let me ’spell’ it out for you:
This blog is among the most blatantly biased on the net. For a contributor to this blog to accuse others of being blatantly biased as though it were a bad thing is the height of hypocrisy.
I’m not arguing against BIAS. I’m arguing against DISHONESTY.
Stop the ACLU has a point of view — obviously. We explain that. We argue our position everyday. There’s nothing wrong with anyone — professional media or otherwise — staking out a position…
…unless you tell the world on the evening newscast that you’re politically middle of the road — “objective.”
Example: For decades Walter Cronkite claimed that he was “objective.” While anchor of the CBS Evening News, he become known as “the most trusted man in America.”
Cronkite retired and became an outspoken left-wing political activist. Whether I agree or disagree with him is irrelevant. The fact is — Walter Cronkite is very left of center — and decades of anchoring (despite denials) clearly reflected that.
Likewise, Dan Rather spent decades denying his political leanings, but — whether you like Rather or not — a little bit of research reveals that Dan Rather probably never voted for a Republican in his life.
Whether I agree with one’s political leaning is not the issue. I enjoy debating in the free market of ideas. What I despise, however, is media figures who affecting people’s opinions by laying claim to that valuable, powerful space in the middle: “objective.”
You can read more of my thoughts on liberal bias…
“I’m not arguing against BIAS. I’m arguing against DISHONESTY.”
Strange, isn’t it… the instant I point out to you that, as a blatantly biased commentator, you’re hardly one to be accusing others of blatant bias, you switch to arguing about dishonesty — a topic that didn’t appear at all in your original post.
One would almost think you want the “blatant bias” argument that you made to be forgotten.
“For decades Walter Cronkite claimed that he was ‘objective.’”
Cite examples in which Cronkite claimed he was objective. And now that you are arguing about “dishonesty”, explain how Cronkite is relevant to your argument. Was he dishonest?
“Likewise, Dan Rather spent decades denying his political leanings, but — whether you like Rather or not — a little bit of research reveals that Dan Rather probably never voted for a Republican in his life.”
Show us the research. You did do some research before making that claim, didn’t you? You can explain how “never voted for a Republican in his life” somehow supports your insinuation that Rather was “dishonest”, can’t you?
What does a “media figure who affect[s] people’s opinions” have to do to earn the “objective” seal of approval, in your eyes? Never vote? Vote only for Republicans? Kindly explain your somewhat muddled thesis.
Someone does not know the difference between commentary which is often biased and news which is supposed to be unbiased. Commentary is speaking your opinion, hopefully in a reasonable and honest manner in attempt to persuade your reader while news is imparting information to your reader. This blog is commentary while what Dan Rather did was news.
Kerwin_brown said it better than I could.
Meathead - I wouldn’t accuse your blog writings of being bias. You’re expected to be biased. That’s what your audience comes to read — your partial perspective.
Bias is only negative when an non-biased perspective is expected or claimed. Good debate.
http://ratherbiased.com/compare.htm
Jim, the page you linked to answers none of my questions. Kerwin didn’t answer any of my questions for you, either.
Can you answer those questions, or are links to vaguely-related web pages the best you can do?