TAKING BACK AMERICA!

    Wednesday, March 09, 2005

    Good Riddance Rather

    UPDATE: Dan’s last two sentences when he signed off last night “To my fellow journalists in places where reporting the truth means risking all. And to each of you: 'Courage.'" Now Dan, what do you know about TRUTH? Even in your last sentences you still try to deceive.

    Tonight is Wacko Rather's last night as CBS (Crooked Broadcast System) evening news anchor - adios! Was Danny really even a writer? Every book he has ever written, including one about his childhood, was written with a co-author. I don't think this guy was able to come up with an accurate story on his own. A page on the Media Research site has a nice timeline of some Rather Ratherisms - here are just a couple condensed ones:

    2003: Dan's Distorted Poll Reporting: "The President calls the tax cut necessary. Democrats call it a campaign for the wealthy. So far, it's a problematic sell for the President. In a CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight, less than half the respondents thought the Bush tax cut would actually help the economy."
    - May 13, 2003 CBS Evening News. Rather failed to report that the poll he cited showed twice as many said tax cuts would help the economy (41 percent) than said new tax cuts would hurt (19 percent).
    2002: "Honest" Bill Revisited: "I think the fact that someone has told a lie, even a big lie or maybe several big lies over a lifetime, does not mean that they're an inherently dishonest person....I believe in redemption and that Bill Clinton - is he an honest person? I think he is an honest person. Did he lie? Yes, he lied, and on those occasions he was dishonest."
    - Appearing on the Feb. 7, 2002 Imus in the Morning radio show defending his comment from May 15, 2001 on FNC's The O'Reilly Factor that Clinton was "an honest man" and that "you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."
    1992: Reagan Years Unfair: "Everyone knows the rich got richer in the 1980s. Now, a new study shows how dramatic the change was."
    - Reporting on a study by the Economic Policy Institute, a group founded by Dukakis and Clinton advisors, October 29, 1992.

    Should media news be responsible for the validity of their reporting? We have Truth in Advertising laws to protect consumers from false claims by merchants. Is it too much to ask for truth from reporters? This would not be censorship but a requirement that reporters, anchors, news conglomerates be responsible for the accuracy of what they spew upon the hypnotized public. Think about it! (More Dan Doo here)

    2 comments:

    nonpcpundit said...

    According to Dan Rather, you are only dishonest when you lie. The rest of the time you are honest. Four other people got fired over the docu-gate, and unfortunately, not even Fox news pursued the issue back to all the people who put that in motion. Rather would not have been fired because that would have been the ultimate admission of guilt by CBS. This way, they have plausible deniability. I can't help but think that introducing forged documents into a campaign issue violated federal laws somehow, but nobody pursued that issue. After all, one of the provisos in the new campaign finance laws made it a crime to attempt to influence the outcome of an election. What difference does it make if influence comes from money or forged documents?

    Anonymous said...

    Good Riddance. I have adamantly refused to watch this guy for years.
    I recall maybe 10 years ago when Dan did an editorial at the end of the show whining about gun control. He proposed naming a gun Czar who will call all the shots. No debate, what he says goes. What country does he live in?
    From that day on, I would change the station even for a promo commercial for CBS news. I just hope tonight when the screen fades to black, it stays black. Something just tells me that he is not going to just fade away.
    Maybe he can do more democratic fund raisers. grrrrr

    TS