Bloody William: It was one mistake. Jesus, keep kicking a guy when he's down.

I'm a journalist, so I'm really getting a kick...

Never mind that. But I really am a journalist. And running a story with unverified evidence is not just a mistake--especially not for a seasoned pro like Rather.

If a 20-year veteran cop with a good record stole 50 pounds of coke from the evidence room and tried to sell it, no one would say "He just made one mistake."

The only stock-in-trade journalists have is credibility. If you lose it, it's gone. You can't just go buy more.

Rather destroyed the credibility of an entire news network by not only running this story, but defending it by saying no one could prove the documents were fake. Not the point Dan--the point was that YOU couldn't prove they were REAL.

And even when they pulled the story, he blamed everyone else for doing the homework he should have done and pointed out he still thought the story was true. And he's STILL complaining about how unfair the whole thing was without admitting any culpability.

Did Pete Rose "make a mistake" by betting on his own team and violating one of the most important rules in MLB?

Yes, it was a single incident. Yes, there were hundreds of other fabulous things Rather did. But he didn't just "make a mistake"--he pissed away his own career by trying to turn a story no one should ever have run into the next Watergate.

I don't really understand where all this love for Dan Rather came from. I consider myself left of center politically, but I have to ask the defenders of Rather on this thread: Did you have this high of an opinion of him before the memo stuff? Did he all of a sudden become a good journalist after that? Whether on not Bush lied or Karl Rove is evil has no bearing on the fact that Dan Rather was pretty much a hack.

The CraneMeister: Never mind that. But I really am a journalist. And running a story with unverified evidence is not just a mistake--especially not for a seasoned pro like Rather.


His story did have verified evidence. These documents were one small piece of the whole story which was verified. And non of these documents he was told were forged.

Was it bad judgment for him to include this in the story. Probably but to say the whole story is wrong just because a small potion is in question is mischaracterizing the whole situation.

Could we actually hold our President more or even as accountable than TV a news anchor?!??!

The CraneMeister

Rather destroyed the credibility of an entire news network by not only running this story, but defending it by saying no one could prove the documents were fake. Not the point Dan--the point was that YOU couldn't prove they were REAL.

And even when they pulled the story, he blamed everyone else for doing the homework he should have done and pointed out he still thought the story was true. And he's STILL complaining about how unfair the whole thing was without admitting any culpability.

It's like being in bizarro world agreeing with both t_g_o_t and The CraneMeister in the same thread, but this comment is spot on.

It should also be noted that, if you're a Democrat, you should be absolutely furious with Rather. That's why I'll never understand what those on the Left could possibly stand to gain by defending him. I think the fake memo flap probably cost the Dems more than a few votes in the election.

HotWingConspiracy

This is why I can't understand the glee people have about him leaving. They try to prop him up as some god of the left, but it just doesn't wash. Who the fark cares?

Well, the people defending him on this thread seem to care.

The Dan Rather Incident is always a good barometer for figuring out who are the rabid partisans on the left. He's like Tom DeLay for the Right. If you find yourself defending either, you're probably a partisan jerkoff.

Corvus: His story did have verified evidence.

Let's say somebody brings you faxes of a Xerox of some letters. You take them to three document experts. Here's what they say:

1. The first one gives it two thumbs down and says they're obvious forgeries.

2. The second declines to rule on them at all, saying he considers it impossible to comment meaningfully on something reproduced multiple times.

3. The third compares the signature on the documents to a verified signature and says the signature looks genuine, but in his opinion that's meaningless since he's doesn't have the original.

So you run with the story anyway--with documents faxed by an anonymous source, no less, documents you can't find anyone to verify for you.

But when the crit starts rolling in, nevertheless you claim the documents were verified, citing only your third document expert.

The next day, your third document expert angrily protests that you're misquoting him and the first two complain that their input was ignored entirely.

So you stand your ground and insist the story has to be true because no one can prove the documents are fake.

You call that "verified"?

Did you know Woodward and Bernstein started working on the Watergate story BEFORE Nixon's re-election? If they had handled the Watergate story the way Rather handled this cluster fark, they would have talked Bradlee into running it just before the election, then protested the story was true because no one could prove Deep Throat didn't exist.

I don't know if Rather wanted to take down Bush out of personal animosity, if he was shooting for a killer, world-shaking story or if he was just stupid and stubborn.

Doesn't matter. The fact remains that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Rather simply didn't have it. It does not matter what the story was about at all, much less that it was about Bush. I wouldn't be any happier if he'd tried to do this to Kerry--it was totally unprofessional and it hurt everyone in my line of work when the public already has a deep and abiding mistrust of the media.

Woodward and Bernstein took down Nixon because they took their time, did their homework and had rock-solid proof for everything they wrote. Rather, OTOH, made mistakes in this story a first-semester journalism student wouldn't.

MonkeyAngst

How do you figure? I don't see how someone forging evidence of Bush going AWOL reflects badly on the Democrats, unless it was John Kerry or someone associated with his campaign who did the forging.

I think you meant to direct that at me.

I just think some people probably reacted negatively to what was seen as someone trying to affect the outcome of an election with what turned out to be an act of terrible journalism.

I'm not saying the Dems deserved to be punished for Rather's mistake, but as Clint Eastwood says in "Unforgiven", deserve's got nothin' to do with it.