• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dan Rather SUES!

Alareth

Philosopher
Alareth
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,682
Location
Jacksonville, FL
Dan Rather has filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS claiming that the Bush administration forced the network censor and cover up the Bush military record story that ended up causing Rather's resignation from the network.

The suit claims that his public apology was forced by CBS and led to the damage of his credibility and reputation.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/19/tv.ratherlawsuit.ap/index.html
 
Sounds about right. After all, Rather's report was factually accurate, IIRC.
 
General opinion seems to be against him.

I submitted the following in a response to:
http://www.spacetropic.com/2007/09/return-of-darth-rather.html

Let's see if they allow it.



On what basis do you say that Dan rather 'still thinks the story is true'?

It seems like the whole thrust of his lawsuit is that his statements were true, but the basis for the story was false and he was hung out to dry for it.

As for your assault on his dignity:

I don't recall Dan Rather ever claiming to be in charge of CBS or the news. Cronkite wasn't in charge of the news before him, so I don't know why you have the perception that people expect an anchorman to head the news program. Saying that he loses dignity by showing that he wasn't in charge of an organization that no one could reasonably expect him to be in charge of is asinine.

Further, why would showing 'CBS and company are easy foils' hurt <i>his </i>dignity at all? His point is that he was doing his job, CBS dropped the ball when they fed him bad facts, and then blamed him. The whole point is that CBS messed up. Proving that would vindicate him and <i>restore</i> dignity.
 
Actually, my understanding of the case is that the story was basically true, as confirmed by sources close to the situation. The actual document used was a "forgery", or at least that's what was said about it. The speed at which it was decried as a forgery points to the slightly CT idea that it was intentionally given to CBS to discredit them, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is that the document, forged or not, contained information that was factually accurate. Or, as I put it when the situation first started up: finding a counterfeit $100 bill doesn't mean that $100 bills aren't real.

Dan Rather was hung out to dry as the fall guy, when the reality is that he was just the mouthpiece for a news organization, and was hardly responsible for the situation. If your fact-checkers drop the ball, it doesn't mean you personally did anything wrong.
 
JoeEllison said:
Actually, my understanding of the case is that the story was basically true, as confirmed by sources close to the situation. The actual document used was a "forgery", or at least that's what was said about it. The speed at which it was decried as a forgery points to the slightly CT idea that it was intentionally given to CBS to discredit them, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is that the document, forged or not, contained information that was factually accurate. Or, as I put it when the situation first started up: finding a counterfeit $100 bill doesn't mean that $100 bills aren't real.
Click to expand...
And your evidence that the document contained information that was factually accurate is what?

JoeEllison said:
Dan Rather was hung out to dry as the fall guy, when the reality is that he was just the mouthpiece for a news organization, and was hardly responsible for the situation. If your fact-checkers drop the ball, it doesn't mean you personally did anything wrong.
Click to expand...
When every word processor expert in the world lined up to say the document was forged, Rather trotted out a former typewriter repairman to say it was not forged. Who do you think was right?
 
JoeEllison said:
The fact is that the document, forged or not, contained information that was factually accurate.
Click to expand...


This statement troubles me. Let's ignore, for a moment, any controversy over the "factually accurate" part; that still leaves the whole end justifies the means sentiment.
 
JoeEllison said:
I'm not saying that.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. I will point out, though, that at least one reader, the following post excerpt seemed to minimize the importance of whether the source document was a fake and emphasized the importance of the correctness of the conclusion drawn from it.

JoeEllison said:
Actually, my understanding of the case is that the story was basically true, as confirmed by sources close to the situation. The actual document used was a "forgery", or at least that's what was said about it. The speed at which it was decried as a forgery points to the slightly CT idea that it was intentionally given to CBS to discredit them, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is that the document, forged or not, contained information that was factually accurate. Or, as I put it when the situation first started up: finding a counterfeit $100 bill doesn't mean that $100 bills aren't real.
Click to expand...
 
Rodney said:
When every word processor expert in the world lined up to say the document was forged, Rather trotted out a former typewriter repairman to say it was not forged. Who do you think was right?
Click to expand...

You mean CBS had Rather trot out a typewriter repairman. This is the point of the lawsuit: Rather was not the author of these events, but was made responsible for them anyway.
 
The Painter said:
Reality and you are not friends. If it's true they wouldn't have fired Dan, or the 3 to 6 other people fired. Fake + Forged = Untrue. That's reality.
Click to expand...
Dan Rather is not entitled to a Job. CBS can hire or fire him at will, with the constraint being that any contractual deals on pay or severence package must legally be paid to him per the employment contract.

He is not the first, nor the only, person to lose a position as a scapegoat for an event that embarasses an organization.

For many years he reaped the benefit of being the face of CBS. It earned him more than money, it earned him fame and things like appearances on the Tonight Show.

Well, when you are the face, you also get to take the facial. The public apology, as I see it, was part of him being the face of CBS news. You get the goodies, and the baddies, when you are the big dog.

If Rather is suing over "a wrongful termination for cause," I have every confidence a court will find for him, or CBS, correctly based on the merits of the case.

The charge that the administration censored CBS is a curious one. Needs more meat.

DR
 
Last edited:
Joshua Korosi said:
You mean CBS had Rather trot out a typewriter repairman. This is the point of the lawsuit: Rather was not the author of these events, but was made responsible for them anyway.
Click to expand...
Hardly. As a USA Today story -- http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-09-19-rather_N.htm?csp=34 -- notes:

"Josh Howard, the former 60 Minutes II producer who lost his job as a result of the story, ridiculed Rather's lawsuit and his claim that he was merely a 'narrator' of the piece.

"'I think he's gone off the deep end, or should I say, deeper end,' said Howard, now a producer at CNBC. 'He was just the narrator? Please. He conducted every interview, including the so-called document expert. He worked the phones and talked to sources. He argued with us over every line of the script. Where does he think this story came from? I didn't assign it to him. He brought it to me. And he still insists that 'no public apology was needed.' So he's saying he's vigorously defending a story he knew nothing about? He wants it both ways. Courage indeed.'"
 
The Painter said:
Reality and you are not friends. If it's true they wouldn't have fired Dan, or the 3 to 6 other people fired. Fake + Forged = Untrue. That's reality.
Click to expand...

Um, Bush didn’t show up to complete his National Guard duty. I don’t know of anyone who seriously argues that he did. The media went into overdrive to hype the forgery angle, and bent over backwards to avoid the fact that Bush didn’t show up. It would have been funny if it was not so sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom