Dan Rather

kmhowe72 · Post by **kmhowe72** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:39 pm

Dan Rather said goodbye. I thought he was going to break out in tears. I thought I would break down in tears. I still think CBS is making a mistake. It's giving in probably to pressures from Bush's camp. But it was till sad. I was only a child when he came on the air. But still hard to see him go. I'll never forget the time he was on David Lettermen just after September 11th. he was in tears. We were all in tears that day. The leaving of Dan Rather is more profoundly felt in my house hold. Then when Tom Brokaw Left NBC, last Dec.

What you think, Did CBS just sign there tv rating death warrent or not. :-5

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:47 pm

I try to avoid crying in public but in all honesty I think it takes a stronger man to cry then not to cry.

As for ratings I have not followed those in a while.

Lotto

http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread ... ost1747323

MagicZ4941A

kmhowe72 · Post by **kmhowe72** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:57 pm

What is that some sacastic remark. I was speak metaforically. :-5

Post by **kensloft** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:03 am

Dan Rather will be missed and wil still be working in the broadcast media. He made a mistake. It was a big one. He has to pay the price because the anchor is not supposed to make mistakes. That is why he is the anchor.

Did CBS make the right decision? We will see.

kmhowe72 · Post by **kmhowe72** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:12 pm

I still believe that Dan paid for a mistake made not by him. I'll look forward to seeing him on the otheir shows.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:38 pm

I consider most journalist today to be more political activist that reporters.

Liberal, Conservative or claiming to be objective I simply don't trust what any of them say and don't care about their careers.

I respect your opinion of Rather but I just don't care what happens to his career or CBS. If they are not there someone else will fill the void and may or may not be better than them.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:53 pm

Dan Rather had a long interesting and colorful career and I think earned and deserved more of a positive exit than what he got. After serving for so long then having it end with a dark cloud is more than unfortunate. I'm not a fan of network news and I also dislike partisan anchors, and "news" like FOX. Though I consider myself further left than anyone in current American politics I believe news should be news. No hype or entertainment bunk; Just News. The Internet and 3rd Reich Radio (the AM band US talkshows) have taken over and anchors like Rather will be missed if for that reason alone.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:59 pm

dan rather is and was a twit. cbs evening news has been in third place for many years, so his leaving can only mean 'up' for the ratings. the problem with dan is that he is deeply biased to the left, but refuses to acknowledge it. even his peers at CBS acknowledge it, but he won't.

www.ratherbiased.com is rather interesting, frankly.

Post by **kensloft** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:09 pm

anastrophe wrote: dan rather is and was a twit. cbs evening news has been in third place for many years, so his leaving can only mean 'up' for the ratings. the problem with dan is that he is deeply biased to the left, but refuses to acknowledge it. even his peers at CBS acknowledge it, but he won't.

www.ratherbiased.com is rather interesting, frankly.
No fair. Keep reality out of it. Could there be a fourth place that CBS could claim if they get a bigger twit than Rather?

David813 · Post by **David813** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:18 pm

I've noticed it is perfectly hip to be a rightwing anchor/host but a supposed crime to be a liberal. An anchor shouldn't wave either flag but in the US if you aren't a Christian conservative Bush supporter you are a failure or a terrorist. Rather is neither, and certainly more principled than the likes of Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly!!!

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:31 pm

David813 wrote: I've noticed it is perfectly hip to be a rightwing anchor/host but a supposed crime to be a liberal. An anchor shouldn't wave either flag but in the US if you aren't a Christian conservative Bush supporter you are a failure or a terrorist. Rather is neither, and certainly more principled than the likes of Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly!!!

David I'm sorry but I must disagree with you. a liar is a liar is a liar. I would rather have an acknowledged right winger than a left winger who claims to be neither. Which to my thinking is what Rather did.

You know when you tune into Hannity or O'Reilly exactly what to expect and can place the proper relevance on what you hear.

Also I think you need to consider that men like Hannity and O'Reilly came into being because of the leftwing and actually false reporting of men like Rather who slanted news for decades before a backlash started that brought forth the right wing news outlets.

Sorry to dis your man but to me Rather is not principled at all but just a shill for a political view.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:38 pm

I can only agree with Jammaha that the US Left got what it deserved for allowing the fundamentalists to seize power twice. Rather was old school, perhaps stubborn and out of step with the 2005 world media. He didn't have to apologize for not being a conservative, or for targeting provocateurs from that wing. Neutral news is dead and it's sad.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:42 pm

David813 wrote: I've noticed it is perfectly hip to be a rightwing anchor/host but a supposed crime to be a liberal. An anchor shouldn't wave either flag but in the US if you aren't a Christian conservative Bush supporter you are a failure or a terrorist. Rather is neither, and certainly more principled than the likes of Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly!!!
actually, quite the opposite. hannity and oreilly make absolutely no bones about being on the right. at least they are honest about it. rather refuses to acknowledge his left-wing bias. that is not a principled stand.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:49 pm

David813 wrote: I can only agree with Jammaha that the US Left got what it deserved for allowing the fundamentalists to seize power twice.
ah, the visions of the annoited. it wasn't an election of a president by the voters, it was the evil republicans 'seizing power'.

Rather was old school, perhaps stubborn and out of step with the 2005 world media. He didn't have to apologize for not being a conservative, or for targeting provocateurs from that wing. Neutral news is dead and it's sad.
you're still not getting it. Rather is and was perfectly happy deceiving his audience that he's neutral. he is not. you really should have a look at www.ratherbiased.com . his own words are there, plain to see. people would be far less peeved with rather if he was honest. he's a lefty - fine. but his insistence that he's impartial and neutral is a lie. and it's that lie that rankles many, like me.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:52 pm

http://www.ratherbiased.com/compare.htm

if you still come away believing that Rather is impartial or unbiased, then i can only pray for you.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:54 pm

I'll check out the rightist Rather bashing site. Everyone is on that wagon and it's tiring. But I will look at it.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:56 pm

David813 wrote: I can only agree with Jammaha that the US Left got what it deserved for allowing the fundamentalists to seize power twice. Rather was old school, perhaps stubborn and out of step with the 2005 world media. He didn't have to apologize for not being a conservative, or for targeting provocateurs from that wing. Neutral news is dead and it's sad.

David you and I should start a thread on the Left and Right of politics.

Being a conservative doesn't make one evil or good just as being on the left is not a sign that you are a good person.

I'm more of a conservative myself with many friends on the left of the political spectrum. How, because my friends know that I like the conservative veiw because I think iti s the way that is best for everyone. My family and theirs and they feel the same way about their ideas. Not just best for them but best for everyone.

We dare not buy into the idea that the evil Christian conservatives want to own the nation ( though some do, it is a small minority)

and we dare not beleive that the nasty left wing tax and spent communist want to take all our money and redistribute according to their ideas, Although there probably is a tiny minority that wants just that.

If we start to beleive this nonsence we become tools for the people that propagate such beliefs.

In other words we become that 10% who vote Dem. or Rep. no matter who is running on that parties ticket. And that is just wrong

David813 · Post by **David813** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:03 pm

I don't think the Left has fought as hard and dirty as the Right. We need to. As a leftist it's sickening to see the US left melt into watered down centrism when a hard left agenda would be good for this country, in my view. Clinton a liberal? Please! I think Guiliani is left of Clinton! We're mad over on the left and we should come out swinging at the vocal minority that has stolen our democracy and killed 1500 US kids, not to mention thousands of Arabs.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:15 pm

Yes Anastrophe, to a conservative Rather would make the blood boil. Just as FOX makes me curdle like cottage cheese in the Sonoma Valley. I imagined the site to also feature Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson and Jerry Fawell but I was wrong. I plan to look at it closer but Rather's career being dissected and open to hunters is telling of the paranoia the critics of mainstream media are infected with. If he had announced he was a liberal would all the haters be solaced?? Then the real hunting season would begin! He'd be ousted immediately. Liberal=Bad/Conservative= God. This has to change. Not Rather. (in my opinion!)

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:21 pm

David813 wrote: I don't think the Left has fought as hard and dirty as the Right. We need to. As a leftist it's sickening to see the US left melt into watered down centrism when a hard left agenda would be good for this country, in my view. Clinton a liberal? Please! I think Guiliani is left of Clinton! We're mad over on the left and we should come out swinging at the vocal minority that has stolen our democracy and killed 1500 US kids, not to mention thousands of Arabs.with all due respect, you are living in a fantasy world. bush won the last election by a clear majority, both of the popular vote and the electoral vote. what 'vocal minority' stole our democracy? or is this leftist 'newsspeak' - 'majority' actually means 'minority'!

clinton is indeed a liberal, but not hard left. hard left sickens me. it is quite literally only a few steps away from socialism and communism. now, before we get into more fantastical yammering about how i'm bringing up the 'communist bogeyman', the fact is, communism is a *failed* ideology. it was tried, it failed. colossally. communism doesn't work. socialism is wolf in sheep's clothing heir to communism. they are both built on "redistribution of wealth", a fancy term for stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

taken to the logical extreme, if you take *all* the money from the rich to give to the poor, then you're left with a poor person who used to be rich. does that person then get wealth redistributed back to him?

hey, wait a minute. i'm rambling. go figure. all this from "Dan Rather", fancy that!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:23 pm

anastrophe wrote: http://www.ratherbiased.com/compare.htm

if you still come away believing that Rather is impartial or unbiased, then i can only pray for you.
i'm disappointed my bait wasn't taken, darnit.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:33 pm

anastrophe wrote: i'm disappointed my bait wasn't taken, darnit.

anastrophe, YOU were trolling???? :yh_shame :yh_rotfl

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:35 pm

koan wrote: anastrophe, YOU were trolling???? :yh_shame :yh_rotfl

i admit it, i love a good 'verbal' donneybrook.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:01 am

Thank goodness I live in a country where we have the BBC who have a duty to provide balance in their reports. Of course those on the right and the left can't understand that this means you must, if you keep to this, be constantly questioning the governemnt in all it does. Margaret Thatcher didn't like them neither does Tony Blair. Because they report what they see rather than what the govt would like them to report. Criticising government policy is not unpatriotic but the function of a free press. Rather than complaining you should worry if they don't. Who owns the media? In the UK Maggie Thatcher was foolish enough to let Murdoch get hold of satellite broadcasting. It's crap all reapeats and regurgitated maish mash the best of which comes from you can finish the sentence.

Calling the prime minister a liar is not only fun it is a duty. The other TV channels we have are relatively unbiased as well else the contrast would show up and people would stop watching. Those who want to see the BBC changed are those who would want to be in control themselves and be able to dictate what is reported. Thgose who criticise the media the most are those who want to control it.

Governments by their nature do not like a free press because having been elected on a massive majority they tend to think that means they own the country rather than having it on trust for a period.

Anastrophe, I haven't a clue what you mean by a donneybrook I assume you mean a debate. I love such things also which is the main appeal pf this forum. Talking to people you agree with is no fun, you can only sharpen your wits on someone you disagree with.

As an inhabitant of a country where social democracy is the prevailing attitude I suspect we would probably agree on a lot of things but describe them with different language.

posted by anastrophe

socialism is wolf in sheep's clothing heir to communism. they are both built on "redistribution of wealth", a fancy term for stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

Communism is the bastard son of socialism mutated in to a monster in the soviet union. Like capitalism it will never work without constant checks and balances in play

You obviously adhere to some socialist values-one of the earliest was universal suffrage and god forbid votes for women, no doubt you want to be free of oppression or being unfairly exploited.

So you prefer to live where the rich are free to exploit the poor to their hearts content and where corporate robber barons have replaced the feudal warlords of old? Where the rich are free to exploit the poor and live off the back of their labour withput paying a fair rate for it?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:37 am

gmc wrote: So you prefer to live where the rich are free to exploit the poor to their hearts content and where corporate robber barons have replaced the feudal warlords of old? Where the rich are free to exploit the poor and live off the back of their labour withput paying a fair rate for it?reductio ad absurdum. arguing the absurd extreme of an argument does not contradict my argument.

i prefer to live in a world where those who work hard can enjoy the fruits of their own labor, and not have them confiscated simply because they 'have more than others'. if i work hard, i deserve more. it works at all levels of social construct - the difference is, in primitive societies, someone tries to steal a hard won wild hog from someone else, they die on the spot. and if someone decides they'll just sit back and not work, they're not going to be supported by the rest of the tribe - they'll simply die of starvation. if someone is not *able* to work, the tribe will support them of their own accord.

in modern society, the government takes from those who work, and gives it to those who don't, regardless of justification.

this argument also applies to non-social program issues as well. the government builds massive freeways here from public monies, then sets up 'diamond lanes' where cars with 2 or more occupants can drive, bypassing the traffic jams. that extra lane cost tens/hundreds of millions of dollars. the diamond lane 'intent' is to encourage multiple occupant trips, to reduce emissions and reduce traffic jams. problem: the diamond lane gets a tiny fraction of the use the regular lanes get. by forcing cars into fewer lanes, the traffic jams are worsened, which increases emissions many orders of magnitude *higher* than they would be if all the lanes were used, which would allow traffic to flow at higher, more efficient speeds.

Dan Rather.

just wanted to toss that in there, since we're far afield.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:59 pm

anastrophe wrote: it works at all levels of social construct - the difference is, in primitive societies, someone tries to steal a hard won wild hog from someone else, they die on the spot. and if someone decides they'll just sit back and not work, they're not going to be supported by the rest of the tribe - they'll simply die of starvation. if someone is not *able* to work, the tribe will support them of their own accord.
i was just thinking about what a probably riposte might be to this - "well, we're NOT primitive people, we're not savages, and it's silly to suggest that we should act like them".

my point is, the savages have it right. work hard, earn reward for that work, share with those who contribute or are _unable_ to contribute, shun those who break the laws or _refuse_ to contribute.

it worked for tens of thousands of years before us.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:00 pm

anastrophe wrote: i was just thinking about what a probably riposte might be to this - "well, we're NOT primitive people, we're not savages, and it's silly to suggest that we should act like them".

my point is, the savages have it right. work hard, earn reward for that work, share with those who contribute or are _unable_ to contribute, shun those who break the laws or _refuse_ to contribute.

it worked for tens of thousands of years before us.
of course, now i'm carrying on both sides of the conversation all by my self. man i'm versatile.

:yh_silly

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:32 pm

anastrophe wrote: of course, now i'm carrying on both sides of the conversation all by my self. man i'm versatile.

:yh_silly

Talking to yourself could be a sign of insanity ------or it could be the only way to have an intelligent conversation----

Andy Capp circa 1970's :wah:

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:43 pm

anastrophe wrote: dan rather is and was a twit. cbs evening news has been in third place for many years, so his leaving can only mean 'up' for the ratings. the problem with dan is that he is deeply biased to the left, but refuses to acknowledge it. even his peers at CBS acknowledge it, but he won't.

www.ratherbiased.com is rather interesting, frankly.Well, anastrophe, I really have no problem with the things you are saying

(whether I agree with them or no!) except for calling Dan Rather a TWIT.

It just doesn't come off right, IMHO. If he's deeply biased and a liar,

okay. But calling him a twit seems unfair.

Respect the man at least for his years in the business, if nothing else?

Maybe?

I think more of him for his appearance on Letterman, which I unfortunately

didn't get to see in its' entirety. But showing that kind of emotion about

9/11, when all of us were so emotional, is telling. I seriously doubt he

"lied" about that.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:55 pm

valerie wrote: Well, anastrophe, I really have no problem with the things you are saying

(whether I agree with them or no!) except for calling Dan Rather a TWIT.

It just doesn't come off right, IMHO. If he's deeply biased and a liar,

okay. But calling him a twit seems unfair.

Respect the man at least for his years in the business, if nothing else?

Maybe?

I think more of him for his appearance on Letterman, which I unfortunately

didn't get to see in its' entirety. But showing that kind of emotion about

9/11, when all of us were so emotional, is telling. I seriously doubt he

"lied" about that.
yes, you're right, he noted begrudgingly. i saw the Rather appearance on letterman after 9/11, and it was very moving. 'twit' is harsh. i hate his bias. but not everything he's done has been painted in that biased light, and he's done a lot of good investigative journalism. so i'll give you - him - that.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:21 pm

posted by anastrophe

i prefer to live in a world where those who work hard can enjoy the fruits of their own labor, and not have them confiscated simply because they 'have more than others'. if i work hard, i deserve more. it works at all levels of social construct - the difference is, in primitive societies, someone tries to steal a hard won wild hog from someone else, they die on the spot. and if someone decides they'll just sit back and not work, they're not going to be supported by the rest of the tribe - they'll simply die of starvation. if someone is not *able* to work, the tribe will support them of their own accord.

How about a less primitive society where they have learned to grow crops and someone comes along, "this is my land you can grow your crops but must give me part of the crop and I will protect you from those who would steal the crop from you" After a while they convince everybody that they have the right to take as much they want and indeed that this is the natural order of things. Then another one comes along we must give thanks to god(s) for all this bounty and if you give me part of your crop i will spend all my time making sure the god(s) is/are happy and so before he knows it the poor peasant finds hinself working to feed the landlord and the priest and if he's very lucky he gets to keep just enough to feed his family. But why does he not tell them to get stuffed, well he his neighbour did that and came to a very sticky end and besides the priest keeps telling him that here is a natural order of things and he is at the bottom because that is god's will and questioning the natural order and bad things will happen to him.

After a while because it's cold they learn how to make warm clothes and the same one who takes part of his crop tell him to make more than he needs and takes them as well indeed he is so good at it that he gets to spend all his time making clothes but now to get food he has to trade something and now has to make clothes for himself, for his boss and to have enough to barter so to make things easier someone invents a thing called money and now the clothes he makes are worth so much money and so when he hands over the clothes he has made he gets money instead that he can now use to buy food from the farmer who also needs the money.

But sometimes harvests are bad and the farmet can't grow enough to feed himself and give some to the one now called king but much to his surprise he has no claim to the land and if he can't pay what is now called rent he gets kicked off the land that is no longer his. So he thinks for all these years I have worked and paid what are now called taxes and I need help can i not have some help. But he is told he is now a layabout and unproductive member of society and so cannot expect people to look after himself.

The one who makes clothes finds he can't sell to the farmer and so he asks for more for his clothes but now since there are fewer people to buy the ones with the money knew they are dealing with people who are desperate and so pay less for the clothes., and so the farmer and the clothes maker no matter how hard they work can't feed themselves and when they ask for help they are told they are unproductive people and don't deserve help and it is god's will that they are poor start thinking,

hang on a minute we work and have to take what you give us that is not right who are you to tell us what we are poor and shiftless and it is out fault we have made you wealthy and now we are going to take it back. Some of them can read and looking at all the religious texts for them selves theyrealise that it doesn't say you are born to be poor or rich it actually says all are equal in go's eyes, so why not on earth they cry.

Eventually they gang up on the king and his cronies and get rid of them but when some say we are all equal so all men should have a say in how things are run they are told no you are not men of property and therefore have no stake in society until you have some so they point out they have just risked their lives and it was not to put you in charge instead of the king, but there are not enough who think like this as many still think somebody needs to be in charge and that those with wealth and property must be of higher status and should be listened to. so while they are thinking about those that think all should have a say in what happens get put to the sword.

Later on the descendants of the farmer and the clothes maker work in factoiries making things like cars. They are productive people and take care of their families but then some feel that what they get for their labour is not a fair amount and ask for more money and get told no and so they decide to withhold their labour till they get a fairer deal and find that far from being free they get jailed for refusing to work and persuading others to do the same. They are enemies of society. Even later on when they see the money being made by their labours and think well you are becoming wealthy off what we do-this is OK but we want a greater share of the wealth we create and maybe taken care of in our old age after spending our lives in the factory.

But now they are told this is not against god but a dangerous philosophy whereby people who are rich should give back some of what they have earned on the labour of others. This has to be bad so they convince convince everybody that anyone who questions thimgs must be trying to destroy a society that makes everybody wealthy after all anyone can do it.

But hang on only the rich can afford education to improve their job prospects how about using some of the wealth to allow those who are poor to give their children an education so all may have an equal chance, but this too can bring down the fabric of society so those layabouts that are too poor to pay for it don't get it

How about those who say it is unfair only the wealthy can afford health care and in a ruich society surely everyone should be entitled to fair treatnment but no only those who have been hard working enough to have the money to pay for it should get it.

Even primitive societies take care of those who are weak and helpless even if they are not productive and they take care to protect the young and teach them as much as possible because that is how society survives. If times are good they have feasts and share the wild hog, what they don't do is gatehr all the wild pigs and tell everybody else to sod off and get their own.

Sometimes if you work hard you don't get more you get your wages cut and worry about losing your job, especially if it means you can no longer get treatment for a sick child. Sometimes no matter how hard you look there is no work to be had and you accept poor conditions because there is no choice even when you know the employer could pay more but just wont do so. If you complain and go on strike does that make you a danger to society?

If you work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labour good luck to you, if you help yourself to the lions share of the orchard don't complain when others turn round and tell you give back some of the fruit back.

Rampant capitalism is a bad thing it should not be a licence to exploit others. Same with rampant socialism. The one thing they have in common is that the ones who want to lay down all the rules are self seeking RY^YT a plague on both their houses.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:49 pm

I kinda liked Dan over the last 20 odd years. Good News presentation. You won't get many to replace him.

Post by **kensloft** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:32 pm

I entirely disagree with anastrophe's contention that "socialism is wolf in sheep's clothing heir to communism. they are both built on "redistribution of wealth", a fancy term for stealing from the rich to give to the poor". I know for a fact that the redistribution is not from the rich to the poor but the ousted children from the nest that didn't get enough from the parents when they left the nest. I got this on the word of the League for Socialist Action, Trotskyists before they became liberals in the conservative press.

So! There. (sticking my tongue out and looking .