Dan Rather has a new home at HDNet. AP photo by Damain Dovarganes
by Mark Silva
Dan Rather is back on television, of course, and he has a warning about the electronic voting machines that have taken hold since the presidential election debacle of 2000. He has "conclusive evidence'' about the failure of touch-screen voting, we're told.
The former CBS News anchor will offer an HD Net show tonight with a theory about what went wrong in Florida in 2000: Bad paper used in the manufcature of punch-card ballots, which ended in hanging chads.
"We talked to people at the company that made the ballots -- some workers, some management,'' Rather says. ''They say they were making quality punch cards for a long while and proud of it. But starting around 1999, the cards were made from what they felt was inferior paper,'' Rather reports. "They raised concerns about it, but the company's management had them under pressure to get the ballots out.''
This is part of a broader Dan Rather Reports investigation of voting machines focusing on paperless voting machines that many states have turned to since the 2000 election. Workers at the plants that made the machines call their manufacture shoddy, quality control a joke.
The show starts at 8 pm EDT.
Rather, once king of the CBS Evening News, spoke about it on another network today.
And the once and former heir to Walter Cronkite, with Rather warning that his "crystal ball is permanently in the hop shop'' when it comes to making any predictions about the next presidential election, also had some things to say on CNN today about the "dumbing.. down'' of network TV news.
Here is a transcript of Rather's appearance today on CNN's The Situation Room, on one of the cable networks that helped drive CBS News' share of the television news market down -- if Rather himself didn't contribute to that.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: Dan Rather, thank you so much for joining us here in THE SITUATION ROOM. We watched your program. You talk about the voting machines, the fact that we are not ready for the primaries that are coming up here. The fact that there are touch screens that are not working. That there is improper maintenance of these machines. How did this happen?
DAN RATHER, FORMER CBS ANCHOR: Well, there are a lot of things that went into it. But among the things are that we have allowed the outsourcing of the manufacturing of these machines, and outsourced them overseas. That some of the touch screens have been in the Philippines with components that come from, among other places, Mainland China, and an overarching company that is rooted in Venezuela.
And that is -- you begin right there. The second thing, there has been transparency. There is too much secrecy about who makes these machines, where, by whom, why they make them, what the profits are. And there has been no accountability.
So we do move in to the 2008 election cycle with many of the same problems that we had going all the way back to 2000 and the fiasco in Florida.
MALVEAUX: And you have a demonstration in the program that actually shows when you touch the screen, you choose one selection, but there is another, a candidate's name that pops up, is that correct?
RATHER: That is correct. A very experienced elections official in Florida was pointing out -- was demonstrating for us what -- the problems he had seen. And that is, you take the stylus and you put it what you think is by your preferred candidate's name. But if you don't put it just exactly right, it may register the candidate below yours.
And other problems are, sometimes it doesn't -- it seems not to register at all and therefore you have these many thousands of votes in which people appear not to have voted for president or on the most important race in their precincts.
MALVEAUX: I want you to respond to the company that took a look at the program and our taking issue with the results there. This from the Election Systems and Software Inc. They go on to say, and they say that the -- your program, it specifically, said apparently includes a
demonstration of a voting terminal that was deliberately mis-calibrated solely for the purposes of a television story. Do you care to respond?
RATHER: Well, I haven't seen that response. And in a way I'm happy to see them respond at all. That we -- the program is as accurate as we could possibly make it. I suggest that people watch it and make up their minds themselves.
Let me point out to you for a moment that we have, for a very long time, been trying to get the companies, including ES&S, to provide an executive of the company, and/or preferably both, someone who has actually worked and made the machines.
They have absolutely stonewalled us. And then they wait until they haven't even seen the program, that naturally they attack us. As you know as a journalist, that goes with the territory. But my hope is that anyone who sees the program, they may or may or not like it.
But I think that they will come away saying to themselves, we need to make some changes in the way we have this voting process. Because we went from punch cards to touch screens. And now they are trying to go to something called in many places optical scan. And there are problems with all of these.
So we aren't picking on these companies. We are just saying, some of the equipment doesn't work according to the workers who built it, and according to the election officials who use it.
MALVEAUX: So what kind of confidence should voters have in the upcoming election here? Clearly you are pointing out the case that this equipment is faulty, that it doesn't work. What is the solution?
RATHER: Well, the solution is, first of all, to have some transparency about who makes the machines, where, by whom, why, what their profits are, how they put the machines together. The other is to have some accountability.
There is far too much secrecy in the buying and selling of these machines and the making of these machines. So you start with transparency and accountability. Look, it is not a partisan. It is not Democrat, Republican or independent or Mugwump. It is about the integrity of the very heart and soul of the democratic system.
And that is a free person voting with a secret ballot and the ballot gets counted. It is not an opinion. It is a fact. Not everywhere, but many votes don't get counted and some votes are counted wrong.
MALVEAUX: And obviously you have covered politics for a very long time. When you look at the field of candidates now, who has the best shot at the White House?
RATHER: Whew. You know, when it comes to making predictions, my crystal ball is permanently in the hop shop. I would only point out that overnight is a long time in politics. A week is forever. I don't have any idea whom the two major parties would put up this time.
Clearly, Senator Hillary Clinton has a substantial lead. As a Democrat, that could evaporate quickly. On the Republican side, on a national basis, Rudolph Giuliani clearly has the lead. But there are a lot of X-factors on the Republican side such as does Fred Thompson get in or not?
MALVEAUX: And I want to change the subject very quickly. You have been very outspoken about Katie Couric and here helm. Is the first female anchor of a major -- a nightly newscast on CBS. I want to quickly play what it is that you said prior.
RATHER: Well, I'm glad you asked. Actually I have never been critical of Ms. Couric. I did offer some criticism of the CBS program in the beginning of her tenure there. Les Moonves runs CBS. And that they decided that they wanted to bring portions of "The Today Show" to the
broadcast and it didn't work.
That is what I said. That is all I said. I did say that. But it is not true that I have ever been…
MALVEAUX: Dan, let's take a…
RATHER: I have never been critical of her.
MALVEAUX: Let's a take a quick listen to that bite.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RATHER: I feel the trend line continues of, as I say, dumbing it down, tarting it up. Going to celebrity coverage rather than war coverage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: Do you stand by that, the statement you made before, "dumbing it down, tarting it up"?
RATHER: Yes, absolutely. I have been saying it for 10 years. Long before Ms. Couric came to "The Evening News," I have been saying exactly the same thing about where we are in American journalism, particularly television journalism. And I do not exclude myself from that criticism.
MALVEAUX: Les Moonves says it is a sexist comment. Do you agree?
RATHER: No. And he knows that isn't true. But I understand that he was playing a mighty (ph) defense. And let me point out that after he said that, that he turned it over to some of his underlings to go on the attack. But we all understand that. And I think the public understands. I'm willing to live by their judgment.
MALVEAUX: Dan Rather, thank you so much for joining us here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
RATHER: Thank you very much, Suzanne. Thanks.
MALVEAUX: Thank you.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Dan Rather was right about the Yale Cheerleader in Chiefs National Guard record after all.
Considering that W.'s National Guard record is 3/4 blacked out, I'd say he has something to hide....again.
Posted by: John E | August 14, 2007 6:31 PM
Geez, the guy who admits that his great work includes "it's fake, but true" is hard to even listen to. This clown belongs out on the senile ranch. What a loser.
Posted by: jim | August 14, 2007 6:38 PM
Dan Rather has "conclusive evidence?"
Where have we heard that before? It takes Rather to make Katie Couric look good.
And for the Extreme Left, see what Bush hatred can lead to? In fact, hatred of any kind, especially the hate on blogs and in the media this past week.
Posted by: Elston | August 14, 2007 6:39 PM
Rather "tarted it up" when he began to wear cardigans to appear more avuncular following Uncle Walt.
The newest Diebolds are still hackable, and the next Rove will have to be an even bigger geek.
What's the frequency Kenneth?
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | August 14, 2007 7:34 PM
I should have been more kind. Dan has already paid his dues in Chicago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRUhIIt-HgE
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | August 14, 2007 7:44 PM
DAN RATHER: WASN'T HE THE GUY WHO SAID BUSH LOST IN 2000 BECAUSE HE CHANGED FROM THE FOX CHANNEL WHEN DADDY BUSH GOT THE CALL FROM JEB SAYING IT AIN'T OVER UNTIL KATHERINE HARRIS SAYS IT IS.
THEN IN RESPONSE, HE IS FIRED BECAUSE HE HAD PROOF THAT BIG POPPY, AGAIN BIG POPPY GEORGE BUSH NEVER ATTENDED DUTY IN ALABAMA.
CAN SOMEONE SHOW AMERICA ONE PICTURE WITH GEORGE BUSH AND A BUDDY, A CLERK, A PRIVATE, A COLONEL, NEXT TO A PLANE THAT HE THOUGHT HE FLEW IN HIS SLEEP. HOW ABOUT A GIRLFRIEND. SOMETHING. WE KNOW HE FOUND THAT "I DON'T RECALL" ORDERS FROM THE PENTAGON.
TO STRONGHOLD DAN RATHER WAS PUTTING A MUFFLE ON THE MEDIA AS A WHOLE.
IT WAS LIKE BRINGING DOWN THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
GO GET EM DAN. MAY THE TRUTH BE WITH YOU.
Posted by: Roger Morris | August 14, 2007 8:01 PM
Dan Rather has "conclusive evidence?"
Where have we heard that before?
Posted by: Elston | August 14, 2007 6:39 PM
I believe it was right before the invasion of Iraq. Had something to do with WMDs.
Posted by: bill r. | August 14, 2007 8:05 PM
As long as any of Rather's works appear in the FICTION section, it's okay.
Posted by: Sierra | August 14, 2007 8:13 PM
I guess this "world economy" thing isn't working out so well. Do you mean to tell me that crappy Chinese paper figured into the 2000 election fiasco? What next, deadly pet food and toxic toys for tots? Oh, wait...(insert loony left, John D. rant here).
Posted by: dt | August 14, 2007 8:19 PM
Dan Rather did much to help dumb down TV news (not that it was ever very substantial to begin with) so it's laughable hearing him criticize the trend.
As for the voting machines (which I don't doubt have glitches that we should worry about) this chowder head manages to take any credibility out of the the story. To wit: his story "includes a
demonstration of a voting terminal that was deliberately mis-calibrated..." (Rather's response, paraphrased: "Duh...")
He also seems to have a problem with electronics being manufactured in China and the Philipines. What? These greasy brown people are too dumb to make our electronics, Dan? What a bummer for you, cuz all electronics are from these places.
"Accountability"? "Transparancy"? Nice (vague) journalistic-sounding words from a pretend journalist. Apparantly it didn't occur to Rather that there should be security (another nice word) in the manufacture of voting machines.
Yeah, there might be problem to look into here, but Mr. Mic Monkey manages to turn it into a joke.
What a clown!
Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 8:36 PM
Regardless of what you think of Rather, all he is trying to tell you is that your vote is not going to be counted unless you vote the right way. bless america.
Posted by: Giraffe | August 14, 2007 8:42 PM
Elston - And for the Extreme Left, see what Bush hatred can lead to? In fact, hatred of any kind, especially the hate on blogs and in the media this past week.
Yep, I've been sickened by John D's hatred all week.
Posted by: kb | August 14, 2007 9:03 PM
Unfortunately, Rather lost street cred a long time ago.
But his thesis is generally correct.
I've been saying for a long time that FL in 2000 was the result of bad planning on the part of the Dems and great execution on the part of the Repubs. The problem, though, dear bible readers, is that we were long ago told that you cannot get good fruit from a bad tree.
The election of GW was based on manipulation. He could never have been a good president.
The same problem took place in OH when the number of referendums made the voter lines look like Chicago traffic at 4 p.m.
I don't care who is in the White House as long as they got there honestly. Even Clinton 1 never won with more than 50 percent of the vote. There's something wrong with that and we have to change that.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 8:28 AM
And Rathergate has the faked documents to prove it!
Posted by: Bruce | August 15, 2007 9:37 AM
And Dubya has the lack of anyone remembering him ever showing up at the Alabama Air National Guard to prove he was a deserter in a time of war.
As the son of a Republican Congressman/chair of the RNC everyone from the base commander on down would have known he showed up - if he had.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 15, 2007 10:54 AM
What a loser.
Posted by: jim | August 14, 2007 6:38 PM
"What a loser"?
Jim.. what have you done in your life that would make you think you are in a position to call a guy like Dan Rather a "loser"?
I'm guessing your sitting in your mom's basement in your underwear in the dark, calling one of the most tenured, successful, and revered TV journalists in the history of the medium a "loser".
funny.
Posted by: david k | August 15, 2007 10:57 AM
Even Clinton 1 never won with more than 50 percent of the vote. There's something wrong with that and we have to change that.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 8:28 AM
Anonymous.. someone shouldn't need more than 50% of the vote... And if you require that, you're often gonna have a real hard time electing a president at all. The only requirement should be that one wins the most votes. And the votes should be accountable in case a recount is needed (i.e. paper printout authentication). Let's not forget that Clinton ran with 3 candidates in the general election in '92 and beat Dole by over 8 million votes in '96.
Clinton's elections were in no way disputable as the margins were massive in both. It's not even an applicable discussion vs. the Bush 43 elections.
Posted by: david k | August 15, 2007 11:10 AM
Doug, there is documented proof that Bush did his time while in Alabama. Medical examinations and flight records show that.
Also, while in Alabama, it was at the tail end of his service in the National Guard, which began in 1968. Each year up till his short stint in Alabama he put in way more than the hours required of him. In Alabama, he did put in the minimum amount of hours required of him.
As states, there are records of Bush in Alabama. For the record, there is ample proof, including a CBS investigation, proving that Blather and Maples used fabricated "evidence" and Maples was working with the Kerry campaign and DNC on the Bush memogate story.
Posted by: John D | August 15, 2007 11:26 AM
david k wrote:
. . . one of the most tenured, successful, and revered TV journalists in the history of the medium . . ."
---------------------------
Are you being facetious? Rather is a disgraced hack who sacrificed his credibility and integrity by taking a cheap shot at Bush on the eve of an election. Once an anchor sacrifices his credibility, he becomes just another partisan talking head, and we have enough of those already.
Posted by: Herbie H. | August 15, 2007 11:36 AM
[quote]
Doug, there is documented proof that Bush did his time while in Alabama. Medical examinations and flight records show that.
Also, while in Alabama, it was at the tail end of his service in the National Guard, which began in 1968. Each year up till his short stint in Alabama he put in way more than the hours required of him. In Alabama, he did put in the minimum amount of hours required of him.
Posted by: John D | August 15, 2007 11:26 AM
[/quote]
Then tell us why, out of the over 500 men and women serving on base in Bush's last year of obligation, NO ONE has gone on record saying that they ACTUALLY SAW HIM ON BASE?
Tell us why Bush never showed up for a REQUIRED PHYSICAL to keep flying in his last year of National Guard obligation.
Remember, you can only use "credible sources" - no right wing blogs or web sites.
Posted by: BC | August 15, 2007 11:58 AM
david k wrote:
. . . one of the most tenured, successful, and revered TV journalists in the history of the medium . . ."
---------------------------
Are you being facetious? Rather is a disgraced hack who sacrificed his credibility and integrity by taking a cheap shot at Bush on the eve of an election. Once an anchor sacrifices his credibility, he becomes just another partisan talking head, and we have enough of those already.
Posted by: Herbie H. | August 15, 2007 11:36 AM
Herbie... I'm not being facetious. Your partisan rant doesn't change facts. Rather started his career in broadcast journalism in 1950. Read that again... 1950.
He was the first network journalist to report the John F. Kennedy had been shot and killed in Dallas.
He was millions of American's window into Vietnam, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Iran-Contra, Watergate, Iraq 1 and 2, etc., etc., etc.....
The bottom line is that he earned an anchor chair at CBS in 1964 and maintained an anchor position there at various well-respected shows for over 3 decades. The man is revered as a giant in his industry, whether you like it or not. And your cute little indignation over his recent editing error with regards to your favorite little president doesn't change 50+ years of facts.
Again. Dan Rather is, undisputably, one of the most tenured, successful, and revered TV journalists in the history of the medium.
Posted by: david k | August 15, 2007 12:58 PM
Johnny D,
So the son of the Head of the CIA, has signed documents saying he showed up for service. Why has no person so much as stood up and said, "I bumped into George W. Bush in the bathroom in the Alabama National Guard"?
Posted by: jethro | August 15, 2007 1:08 PM
Dan Rather is the poster child for proof that network news is simply a mouthpiece for the democrat national party.
The man lost all objectivity years ago and it was obvious to those were not busy cheering him on.
Compare the reporting on CBS/NBC/ABC to Fox. Fox truly is much more objective. At least they don't fabricate stories.
Posted by: Anon | August 15, 2007 1:39 PM
Anon at 1:39 pm: "Compare the reporting on CBS/NBC/ABC to Fox. Fox truly is much more objective. At least they don't fabricate stories."
HAHAHAHAHA.
Please, you're killing me here! What a hoot!
Posted by: Elanor C | August 15, 2007 2:54 PM
John D, This again? Who cares anymore that George got preferential treatment to get into the guard and then skipped out on his obligation? Why lie about flight records from Alabama when he didn't fly there because they didn't have the F-102 he was trained on? It isn't like Dubya is going to run again.
Posted by: Tom O | August 15, 2007 2:54 PM
Compare the reporting on CBS/NBC/ABC to Fox. Fox truly is much more objective. At least they don't fabricate stories.
Posted by: Anon | August 15, 2007 1:39 PM
This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. Are you related to Paulo.
Posted by: chimpymcflightsuit's navigator | August 15, 2007 2:55 PM
david k wrote:
. . . one of the most tenured, successful, and revered TV journalists in the history of the medium . . ."
---------------------------
Are you being facetious? Rather is a disgraced hack who sacrificed his credibility and integrity by taking a cheap shot at Bush on the eve of an election. Once an anchor sacrifices his credibility, he becomes just another partisan talking head, and we have enough of those already.
Posted by: Herbie H. | August 15, 2007 11:36 AM
No Herbie, I'm not being facetious.
I had posted a long, detailed account of Dan Rather's rediculously remarkable career, but long story short... The man's been in TV journalism since 1957. He was an anchor of several respected CBS news programs for 40 straight years spanning 5 decades. The man was THE source of information for tens of millions of Americans from the JFK assassination (which he was the first TV journalist to report), through Veitnam, Watergate, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Iran-Contra, Iraq 1 and 2, etc. etc. etc.
Despite your cute little indignation of the editing error he made in an investigative piece which happened to be of your favorite NeoCon politician, you can't change 50+ years of historical fact. Rather is a legend and his work has marked history... He's right up there with Morrow, Cronkite, Walters, and Brokaw...
The man has been awarded numerous Emmy's, Peabody's, and honorary degrees. You're opinion of him as a "hack" is cute in it's childish misappropriation of the term. Just as cute as the earlier poster's opinion of him as a "loser". LOL.
Dan Rather is, undoubtably, one of the most tenured, successful, and revered TV journalists in the history of the medium.
Posted by: david k | August 15, 2007 3:10 PM
John D.,
What you said is factually inaccurate.
No one, but no one, out of that detachment can remember meeting what would have been considered to be a high level VIP. When quizzed, Dubya couldn't remember the name of anyone he met there. Not his squadron commander, not his crew chief - nobody.
When I was in basic training out light bird commander pulled a enlisted basic trainee out of formation, stood him at ease and proceeded to kiss his ass in front of us and our non-coms. This is because the basic trainee was the son of a full bird commander of another base. Low and behold guess who becomes our "barracks-chief" who sailed right through basic telling the rest of us how to do KP?
Dubya was a no-call, no-show in a time of war which by definition after 30 days made him a deserter.
You can dress the chickenhawk up any way you want to but he still has feathers and clucks.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 15, 2007 3:20 PM
John D.,
What you said is factually inaccurate.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 15, 2007 3:20 PM
We should all just leave that in Control C for easy access.. it'd save a lot of people from developing Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
Posted by: david k | August 15, 2007 3:40 PM
BC and Jethro, Terry Killian, the commanding officer at the Alabama National Guard, and the person in which CBS News forged memos for, wrote about his visits with Bush, which his family provided to the media after the CBS lie came out.
BC, whether the National Review is a conservative outlet or not, Byron York is a respected reporter even by those in the mainstream media and the National Review is a respected and reputable outlet.
But here is a link to Columbia Journalism Review, an offshoot of Columbia University (Not Columbia College in Chicago), one of the better journalism schools and journals in the biz:
http://www.journalism.org/node/105
Posted by: John D | August 15, 2007 3:46 PM
david k., first of all, I am more than a little uncomfortable with you referring to me or anything I say as "cute".
Second, if I understand you correctly, you are asserting that Rather's past accomplishments should overshadow his disgraceful exit from CBS. While your argument has some merit to it, you can't simply ignore the giant elephant in the room that cost him his credibility and his job as an anchor. Unfortunately for Rather, his legacy will always be tied to this event whether you care to admit it or not.
Posted by: Herbie H. | August 15, 2007 4:28 PM
Second, if I understand you correctly, you are asserting that Rather's past accomplishments should overshadow his disgraceful exit from CBS.
Posted by: Herbie H. | August 15, 2007 4:28 PM
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Of course that incident will be part of his legacy, but it in no way detracts from the 5+ decades of investigative journalism he's performed.
I think his exit was more disgraceful to CBS than to Rather. There used to be a day when our media reveled in being an investigative thorn in the establishment's side. when the networks would support their Journalists through a mistake or two. Yes, mistakes were made (it's the nature of investigative journalism, where you're trying to uncover facts that some powerful interests are trying very hard to keep secret or mislead on), but the network would make a pubic retraction and move on without turning their back on their anchor.
Today's massive corporate "news" conglomerates are so hand in hand with government and vice-versa, that the "news" organizations today are scared crapless of doing their civic duty of being a check on Powerful interests and instead just give us endless "infotainment". Why investigate the President or Congress or Big Oil when you can just tell us what color Britney Spears' dookie is today and not worry about stepping on the wrong toes?
Posted by: david k | August 15, 2007 4:57 PM
Little Johnny D,
Any grunts see Georgie Boy on base? Couldn't find any could you? Only a commanding officer who wanted a promotion
Posted by: jethro | August 15, 2007 5:15 PM
And, Herbie, that's why you get this::::
(AFP)
More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.
And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.
More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.
More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America".
Among those who get their news from newspapers and television, criticism of the news organizations was up to 20 percentage points lower than among Internet news audiences, who tend to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole, according to Pew.
The poll indicates an across the board fall in the public's opinion on the news media since 1985, when a similar survey was conducted by Times Mirror, Pew Research said.
"Two decades ago, public attitudes about how news organizations do their job were less negative. Most people believed that news organizations stood up for America... a majority believed that news organizations got the facts straight," Pew said in a report.
The Washington-based Pew Research Center describes itself as a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.
Posted by: david k | August 15, 2007 5:42 PM
david k., I agree with you that the media should constantly be shedding light on government actions. I don't fault Rather for doing investigative journalism, or for going after this particular story in the first place. I fault him for taking documents that he had no proof were authentic, and trying to pass them off as so to the American public in the middle of a heated election. As you stated, this guy has 50+ years in the business. He knew better than to do that. What was his motive?
I don't buy the argumnets that he knew the documents were forgeries or that he was just losing it as a journalist. The only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that he did not have time to authenticate the documents and still make a big splash with the story prior to the election. So he went ahead and ran the story anyway, knowing full well it did not measure up to the standards of CBS, or his own journalistic standards, which to my knowledge, he had always adhered to. This is far from an innocent mistake. With the implication that their anchor had attempted to influence a presidential election with fraudulent documents hanging over them, I don't think CBS had any choice but to cut Rather loose, as hard as that must have been for them given Rather's years of service.
Posted by: Herbie H. | August 15, 2007 6:10 PM
david K,
He's been reading the news for a long time, so that makes him great? You're joking, right?
And your lumping Tom Brokaw and Barbara Walters (snicker) together with ER Murrow and Walter Cronkite... that was a joke too, right?
You're a riot, Dave!
Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 7:53 PM
david K,
He's been reading the news for a long time, so that makes him great? You're joking, right?
And your lumping Tom Brokaw and Barbara Walters (snicker) together with ER Murrow and Walter Cronkite... that was a joke too, right?
You're a riot, Dave!
Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 7:53 PM
Yes, I am.
Name someone who hasn't been retired for over 25 years who belongs in that group.
Unless your the type of crotchety old fart who thinks that the only things worth anything are those that ceased to function at least a generation ago, you have no argument against that statement.
Posted by: david k | August 16, 2007 8:48 AM
Posted by: Herbie H. | August 15, 2007 6:10 PM
Well said Herbie...I guess if them's the facts, then it was a disgrace (on Rather's part). It's really difficult for us to know for sure whether CBS fired him for breaking policy or to cover it's corporate arse. I guess it's which story you personally believe.
Posted by: David k | August 16, 2007 8:51 AM