clevershark:

Well, if you assume that Bush started the war maybe. You aren't one of those 9/11 conspiracy spinners are you?

You've all rather missed the point. Remember this is CBS reporting here - he's probably not only not stepping down, but not even aware this story has been aired. They probably made it up, just like they make everything up. Remember CBS = Competent Bullshiatters.

Odd The Viking:

Guess what, just because they get a new guy doesn't mean they are actually going to start do real journalism again

That is sad... we Americans like entertainment way too much to handle real journalism...

AHEM

***courage***

can't believe until now I had left Rather out of my image of his heros and friends:

Weaver95
Fox is actually pretty moderate.

,

Man, some of you have no idea what media is for. It's not to stand there and blindly cheer on whatever conservatives do. That's what this so-called liberal media did right after 9/11 and leading up to the Iraq war. Now we have them all coming out saying they didn't do their jobs, but some of you are more upset about a fake document that STILL supported a true story..?

Stop with the false indignation, it's SOOOOO pathetic and transparent.

2004-11-23 01:01:11 PM boohiss

I'm about as conservative as they come and I've stopped whining about the liberal media bias long ago. It still exists, of course, but it is very evenly offset by the emergence of the internet as a news source (Drudge, Townhall, etc), Fox News, Clear Channel, talk radio, etc.


See, I wouldn't call the media liberally biased. I would call them sensationalist. If you are lying in the middle of Pennsylvania Ave, bleeding to death, they don't give a shiat what your political beliefs are, you can bet you'll be on every newscast in the nation. If you go nuts and shoot up your work or something equally stupid, yep, you'll be headline news. They also like victims. People like to watch the victims or the underdogs. Look at how popular Springer was--his entire show was based on losers and victims. Kerry got such positive coverage because he was helping the "victims" and he was the "underdog." The media and especially the media owners probably didn't give a fark what he really stood for--they just wanted the lowest common denominator watching their show and buying the products their sponsors advertised.

The problem with the "new" news sources is that they feature only one voice. When you only have one voice speaking, you tend to get more and more polarized. You need to hear both sides to get an accurate picture of where you really want to be.


However, the most important thing to realize is that no single source is completely fair & balanced (even those that claim to be), and as long as humans report the news, no source ever will be.

This, however is very, very true. It's sad that we force our leaders, newscasters, etc to be held up to standards that even an robot would have trouble meeting.

(what? you smoked weed in college? Criminal!!!)
(what? you didn't smoke weed in college? Loser!!!)

Congratulations, rabair, you are your own cliche.

Should have said "approve of" instead. or something

Weaver95: Fox is actually pretty moderate.

Yeah, it's really "fair and balanced", in the same way that the Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic.

Hint: the Democratic Republic of Korea is the one in the North.

SpoogeMaGoo

Aw man, at least use "Ihr Fuhrer" or "Der Fuhrer"!

Who ?

I'd RATHER not waste my time reading about this sh*t.

/Sorry

Maybe they will hire some hot chick to tell us what to think, now that rather is moving on.


/hopes all the bush commenters get banned for threadjacking...

Might I suggest to all that you pick up a copy of Jon Stewart's book America and review the chapter on the news media.

hehe

Man, I love that book.

Hilary saw a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

The New Right™ sees a "liberal media" conspiracy.

Maybe both sides just love to look like martyrs?

Have a flag. Wrap yourself up. I'll be back later...enjoy your political kitten-killing.

Oops... I was thinking East Germany in my previous comment, not North Korea (whose name is actually "People's Republic of Korea"). My bad.

This is totally off topic but can I just ask why people hate Michael Moore so much?

What did you guys think about 'Roger and Me' and 'Bowling for Columbine'? Just curious.

(speaking of which, just read about that Laotian guy killing those 6 people in Minnesota. Semi-automatic rifles dont' kill people. People with semi-automatic rifles kill people.)

2004-11-23 01:06:21 PM Stone1313

Thank you. Carry on.

The guy had the gift of metaphor.

He also still has incredible drive and ambition for his age; delivering the news matters to him, as did the direction of this country.

At his age, most old folks are more selfish with their time, wanting to relax and enjoy their golden years. (I don't entirely blame them.) So Dan and his organization was taken in by one story that was almost a little too good to be true during election time. Big deal. He admitted his mistake and acknowledged it. Compare this to someone like Rush (who excuses himself about drug abuse) or O'Reilly (who settled his sex harassment case).

All the stories Dan reported: Viet Nam, the investigative journalism of 60 minutes, and his final stint as anchor man for CBS have helped our nation understand the events of our times. He also liked country music. And he never presented himself as an elitist, but as just one person among the whole of this nation. He does believe in "We the people."

I consider myself a tolerant liberal.

longsmoke: Yeah--a story so true they had to forge memos to run it. Without the memos, they had nothing.

mryoop789
John Chuckman lives in Ontario on the shores of Lake Erie. He is a columnist for YellowTimes.

Nuff 'said.

I know y'all think I'm a mush headed lib, but I'm glad he's leaving too, I called for his resignation back when he sat on the Abu Gahraib story for a month, a month in which 24 detainees died at the hands of their US captors.

No one who lived through Nixon should trust any administration when it invokes national security as a reason for censorship.

All liberals think alike, and all Conservatives think for themselves (and arrive at the exact same conclusion). At least that's what I'm reading here... amusing.

You Americans are funny.

Disposable Rob
Congratulations, rabair, you are your own cliche.

That goes for most of them, Rob.

don't let the door hit ya in the ass, Dan!

Weaver95: Fox is actually pretty moderate


Why does the right keep shoveling this bullshiat? Moderate compared to what? FreeRepublic.com? If it makes you feel like you have the moral high ground to lie to yourself and point the finger at the "liberal media" go ahead, but as you do you lose your ability to question what you read. After, Fox News would *never* spin a story, they are moderate.

/agree with you 100% that CBS, NBC, ABC, etc are very left biased

Because the rabid people in this thread are the intolerant left...

MyrnaMinkoff

Have you seen that there's an IgnatiusJ farker running around here?

Then you're in the minority. Mind reigning in some of your more rabid buddies?

I can't control others, but I'll give it a shot if you wouldn't mind doing the same on your side.

Glad he's on his way out. Newscasters should be nuetral. Period. Let us draw our own conclusions about what's presented.

This just in, Terry McCallif will be taking Dan Rathers place.

By the way Mr. Rather, what are you running from?

sigdiamond2000
Anyone want to bet on who's going to be The Right's new scapegoat?

Well, intelligent dissenters... you know, people with glasses.

/rimshot

Courage...

/he's never going to live THAT one down!

you've got to be kidding me Lace Valentine... He was exposed for having a fraudulent Vietnam Vet series but was never forced to appologize then as there was not alternative media. He had a handfull of former "vets" telling horror stories, and they were never even there.

I understand Terry McAuliffe is going to be needing a job soon. And could there be a more perfect fit?

People comparing the National Guard forgery incident to the Iraq intelligence incident should keep these things in mind:

1. Bush is not SUPPOSED to express political neutrality - the anchor of a network news program should.

2. Bush's actions were designed to save your life from murder by terrorists, whereas Rather's actions were designed to throw the country into chaos by having it be taken over by a bunch of stinky hippies.

linewalker

"Things might not be that bad, but you've got to admit some concern is understandable: What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later."

No, no I don't think it is understandable. What minority/political extremists rights has the President decided to eliminate?

Weaver95

I guess it depends on how fast the local prosecutor can bend the law to squeeze something past the grand jury.

ITS A FRAME UP! THE LIBERALS CONTROL THE COURTS TOO!

Have you seen that there's an IgnatiusJ farker running around here?

Yeah...There's an IgnatiusR and an IgnatiusJReilly, too.

What happened to Fark. I have watched it become overwhelmed with conservative lackeys. Leave Rather alone. He is a good man who pushed a real story with bad documents... he is not the first. Your President did the same... WMD's & Yellow Cake... Osama and Saddam are buddies..RIGHT! Rather is a great journalist, he became a national figure for his reporting... a profound moments letting the world know that Pres. John F. Kennedy had been assisinated. He did it with grace, humility and he was there for the nation. What have you done? Push right wing ideologies... Since the election, there is has been a huge surge in reckless conservatism on this site. I like it here; quit farking around!