Rather is gone. Thoughts?

I always liked the guy, and I think it is dangerous precedent that he can be run out of town on a greased rail for a few mistakes. Maybe it is time, maybe the era of "big news" is over, but it seems to me that more and more all you have to do is wig out over someone casting an askance (sp?) glance at L'il Georgey Boy or his minions, and you can bring down anyone.

Kind of like the professor at Colorado. I may not agree with what he says, I may hate what he says, mai, comme Voltaire, I will fight to the ends of the earth his right to say it.

Free Speech is under attack in this country...Where's Lenny Bruce when you need him?

This may have happened elsewhere, but what Rather did was not a small mistake. His lead story for several days was based on, essentially, spam. He probably should have quit back when he knew how to spot a credible source. When you're trusted above almost anyone else to remain unbiased in your delivery of the news, you deserve what you get if you fail that badly.

A few mistakes? The guy used the news as a bully pulpit to foist his personal agenda on the nation. Good riddance.

Edit: And it's not just because of King George, Rather's been shamelessly biased for years. The least objective "news guy" out there. The only way his exit could have pleased me more if he did a Philly and blew his brains out on live TV.

Wow...that seems a little, uh, harsh .


As for the above accusations, I hear a lot of this kind of stuff - but I never see direct info about how he "used the news as a bully pulpit to foist his personal agenda on the nation" . Could you give me some examples?

Seriously - not trying to be a smart-ass here. It just seems like those who tend to lean to the right really HATED this guy for some reason. I know a little bit about his history & why they wouldn't neccessarily LOVE the guy, but I never understood the blanket hatred. He always seemed like just another talking head to me. A little goofy, but that's it.

Rather as an individual has the right to say whatever he wants, but in the context of journalism, you've got to be objective and just report the news. You can't run with a story because you want it to be true.

I don't see this as being a free speech issue at all.

Steve

Agreed, and that puts Rather's dismissal into perspective. Is there anyone who really reports objectively, though? Lehrer (sp?) maybe? There's always going to be a slant on things even if it's just to increase ratings/circulation.

He managed to put personality into news, which was nice but dangerous. That brow-beating he gave Nixon was priceless, though. Biased, perhaps, but priceless.

In his haste to run a story, he was duped by a source. How mant times have we been duped by the President? One thing about the guy..he didn't blame his producer, who is the one who really should have done the leg work.

I think it's a shame that he had to go out this way. Some of it was self induced, but I still think it sets a precedent. A dangerous one at that.

Also, there is no liberal media bias..but that's another argument.

We probably agree here, but...

He can say it all he wants, but that does not guarantee him his position within the University, nor does it guarantee him prestige and audience, etc. He can say it. That's all. We aren't throwing him in jail for saying it.

Now, to those who defend Ward Churchill's claim to his teaching position at CU (he's already relinquished his dept. chair), do you also defend Lawrence Summers at Harvard, despite his comments that some women on the faculty oppose?

My problem with Churchill is he's got no real credibility with me, and I have serious doubts to his effectiveness as an instructor. I did not attend CU, so I may be wrong.

I don't really have a problem with Rather personally, but the Guard story was a stupid move, and only hastened his retirement rather than actually causing his head to roll. I actually kinda like Rather's in-your-face attributes and doofus colloquialisms.

The thing is, "60 Minutes", "20/20", "Dateline"...all these shows aren't news or journalism any more than Reader's Digest is literature. It's sensationalist crap.

I'm probably biased in my newspaper affinity, but I can't quickly think of anyone who sat in the makeup chair before sharing their story as someone I'd consider a real journalist. They are actors. Just like the people on the Weather Channel.

More Kool-Aid Senator? Your glass must be running low at this point.

Haste? More like "zeal".

Funny how the self-professed "independent" Dan was the keynote speaker at a Democratic party fundraiser.

The footage of him clinging to hope on election night is precious. "While the other networks are calling the election, we note that there's still a chance for Bush to be unseated, this election is not over, we're not going to call it. I mean, hell could freeze over in the next half hour, it could happen. We're not going to call it."

As I said before, good riddance.

I was always a Brokaw man myself- but respected Rather. I think most networks used the same amount of caution in not calling the election due to the 2000 fiasco. CNN was making the same types of comments, mostly due to the fact that Fox News had called the thing closed at around 8 PM Pacific Time.

The Senator is right- the producer should have taken the hit for this one, & I don't believe in a liberal media bias- look at their coverage of Clinton's "controversies" over the years- no sugar coating there.

It doesn't guarantee him his position, but the uproar will basically force the Regents' hand. If we drown out voices in academia (right or left, hell, right or wrong) it sets the wrong tone (I would use precedent, but Haq will chide me for using the same word too many times). Same with Summers.

Rather's colloquialisms are doofus when he does 'em, but endearing when Shrub does em...you gotta love that "liberal bias"

As for newspaper journalists being less biased, or less of actors...compare and contrast the working styles, sourcing and legacies James "Scotty" Reston with Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. I know Reston was a columnist, but he was a city columnist who did major reportage within that context, and if you think about that, maybe you can draw a conclusion about why news anchors are like they are.

Billzebubb(a) I think it is you who needs to put down the Kool-Aid. Like NEal Boortz before you, you have slipped from Libertarian idealist to Republican shill, and it is not pretty.

I, I, I. The, the, the.

Re: Churchill and Summers, the point of tenure is that you can say shit that upsets people. It's reasonable for Churchill to lose his chair, it's reasonable for Summers to be sacked as president of Harvard, it would be over the line to remove either of them from the faculty alltogether and still claim to be in favor of academic freedom.

As for the tv news, sure, Rather screwed up. I don't know what the standards are, but it seems like relative to his years of solid work it wouldn't normally be a firing offense, but that's me.

But it's his job to not get duped, first of all.

Secondly, to compare this to Presidential misdeed isn't really applicable, especially since it doesn't negate Rather's mistake.

As for precedent, he fucked up pretty good, which damaged the credibility of the company which employed him, so he was escorted into retiring earlier than planned. I don't see the danger in that.

Whoa tiger. I think Rather is amusing in his creativity. Bush's are dumb and abrasive.

For your first half, I can agree with that, except that I believe Churchill willingly stepped down from the chair. I have no problem with inflammatory or controversial writings, but something about this guy bugs me. I have little confidence in his abilities, what little I've picked up about him. Something self-aggrandizing that gets under my skin.

For the second half, I think if Rather were 20 years younger it might be a different situation. He wasn't exactly thrown out on his ass, but CBS has been pulling up the rear for some time now, and this gives them an opportunity to try and re-evaluate the news broadcast strategy without having to take on Rather on equal footing.

it's delicious.

free speech is a fairy tale. all hail MiniTru!

Huh? How does pointing out Rather's transgressions equate to being a Republican shill?

I've got no problem with Rather spouting off whatever he wants. My problem is that it was broadcast as "news" and not "Op-Ed". If Rather had broadcast an opinion piece/editorial comment, and identified as such, I would have no problem with it.

I don't think we disagree that the news ought to be objective. There's a reason "The Press" is its own estate. There's a reason "The Press" is granted access and protections. But with these priveleges comes responsibility. They have been enTRUSTed with this role.

Rather has been one of the more egregious tand transparent transgressors, so I have no problem revelling in his gettting his come-uppance in the public eye.

You've got a lot to learn about Bud Dwyer, my friend.

The one-hour Rather career retrospective that aired last night on CBS was one of the most fascinating things I've watched in a long time. Love him or hate him, that guy had one helluva career, all of which thrust him right in the middle of just about every significant historical event of the past 45 years. It should be required viewing for all Journalism students.

i think that rather lead a really amazing career and made a terrible mistake toward the end of it. he asked difficult questions to important people, even to the point of tiffs on air (a la george the first, contra arms). i can't remember any fluff pieces he's ever done, although i could be mistaken.

Ain't it strange how the folks who have actually BEEN to school for joiurnalism seem to have his back...we must just be bleeding heart liberals, blinded to the facts of reality