0
   

Dan Rather -- pseudo-intellectual?

 
 
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 01:56 pm
Dan's 'scoop' is
as shaky as his status

In this presidential campaign, John Kerry has raised $41,200 from employees of Princeton University. President Bush has received $250.

Last week, when a reporter for The Daily Princetonian asked various faculty members about the disparity, Prof. Andrew Appel answered with a rhetorical question: "Does it surprise me that smart people should be supporting Kerry? No."

Smart people support Kerry. And in this city, so must not-so-smart people who want to be considered smart. Guys like poor Dan Rather.

I don't know Rather personally, but I've always had a soft spot for him. He strikes me as an earnest man who has succeeded by overcoming a lot of limitations. I feel for him now. He's been caught red-handed trying to help the Smart People elect Kerry by peddling what appear tobe phony documents about Bush's National Guard service.

Rather has unintentionally hurt Kerry by miring the campaign in yet another week of Vietnam debate. But he has hurt himself even more.

Rather didn't go to Princeton. He is a graduate of Sam Houston State Teachers College. He came to New York knowing what the Prof. Appels of the world think of Sam Houston State Teachers College and its alumni.

This kind of snobbery is a problem not only in the Ivy League, but in Big Time journalism. where folks with Rather's accent and background are rare.

Most of the national media elite are Ivy Leaguers or reasonable facsimiles. They share prejudices, fashions - and political opinions.

According to a recent Pew poll, national journalists are six times more likely to call themselves "liberal" than "conservative." This is not quite a Princetonian level of intellectual superiority, but it comes close.

People who talk like Rather and come from Texas arouse suspicion no matter how long they are around. The burden is always on them to prove that they are smart enough to be considered liberal, or liberal enough to be considered smart.

Rather has tried throughout his career to overcome this form of Ivy poisoning and fit in. But unlike his fellow Texan, Bill Moyers, he never really has.

He may be the man on the set of the evening news, but his more citified colleagues have never stopped seeing him as a bumpkin from Sam Houston Teachers, a goofy guy who tries too hard.

This attitude has been painfully evident in the reaction to allegations that Rather's "scoop" about Bush's National Guard service was bogus. Rather had every right to expect that his colleagues would rush to his aid. But there has been very little solidarity, practically none of the "who do you think are?" indignation with which the elite media normally greet challenges from the right. The smart people have turned away, leaving Rather huffing and puffing about his unimpeachable credibility.

Poor Rather. Nearing the end of his career, he let himself get duped on a story he thought would make him a hero in Princeton. Instead, he will very likely be remembered as a goat. A Texas goat.

link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,514 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 01:58 pm
Ouch.

Dan is nuts.

Courage.

<anybody remember?...>
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 01:59 pm
He's like the Dan Quayle of the liberals.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 02:12 pm
Lash wrote:
Ouch.

Dan is nuts.

Courage.

<anybody remember?...>


I do remember that. People really started making fun of him just about that time. In fact, when Rather was called on it, didn't he say "courage" again, but in another language?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 02:23 pm
Send him off to do weather reports. He loves those assignments.

http://www.ems.psu.edu/WeatherWorld/features/witn/rather.gif
0 Replies
 
steveH
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 02:33 pm
Re: Dan Rather -- pseudo-intellectual?
McGentrix wrote:

Rather has unintentionally hurt Kerry by miring the campaign in yet another week of Vietnam debate. But he has hurt himself even more.

McGentrix:
This is the true beauty of this story.

1. Dan Rather, the consummate leftie is exposed for the political hack that he really is.
2. CBS is exposed for the left leaning liberal media source that they are.
3. The new media (internet, cable, talkradio, etc.) is taking control of the game plan and reporting FACTS, not opinions.
4. Kerry is mired down in 1970s Vietnam crap which is further hurting his campaign.
5. If the sources of these fake memos are found to be from the Kerry camp, he not only loses the election but the dems look like the frauds and liars that they really are.

I thank Dan Rather and CBS from the bottom of my heart. They helped make a close election turn into a Bush victory and helped assure that we would will not have a traitor as commander in chief.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 02:58 pm
True, SteveH--

This thing has really turned a very suspicious eye to the media. What Bernard Goldberg started, Dan has proven.

He WANTED the story out there, true or not. He raises funds for Democrats. He used his position MANY times to help Dem candidates and hurt Republicans. The news is not a Democrat commercial--or at least it shouldn't be.

I don't know what the charges may be; I think there are many-- Just desserts, on the menu.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 06:23 pm
While I have thought 60 Minutes frequently borders on yellow journalism based on what they omit from their pieces more than what they include in them, I never considered Dan Rather any better or worse than the others until now. For him, and CBS, to stick with their discredited story in the face of all the evidence of forgery is an ethical embarrassment.

They're in a tough spot though. If they admit they were duped now after so many denials, they look even worse. If they out their source and it's somebody connected to the Kerry campaign, they do themselves maybe irreparable damage and further sink Kerry's campaign. If the source is somebody from the Bush camp, they can't 'out' that person without admitting they didn't check out the facts.
0 Replies
 
massagatto
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 09:34 pm
"Yellow journalism?"

What a quaint term to discount a news organization that has been around for nearly 3 decades. But then again, one could say the very same thing about the sort of pieces one finds on, say, townhall.com, the Washington Times, or even <gasp> Fox News.

The difference is, while Foxfry thinks 60 Minutes engages in yellow journalism, many think and believe townhall.com, the Washington Times, and Fox News engages in a style of journalism that divides the nation along ideological lines, and celebrates making our once great nation a victim which implies weakness.

Just my opinion, though.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 11:56 pm
Of course, Massagatto, I think that those who hold such a dim view of Fox, Townhall, Washington Times, etc. probably think other publications less friendly to conservative ethics and causes are also less divisive, while those on the other side of the ideological spectrum might see the publications that you most favor as the very publications that most divide us. Thus, I find this kind of focus not helpful in any way in the national debate.

My definition of "yellow journalism" is any presentation that intentionally defames a person while intentionally leaving out pertinent facts that might encourage a different conclusion. What made this particular 60 minutes piece 'yellow journalism' is that the producers intentionally left out the information they already had that their documentary evidence was likely flawed.
0 Replies
 
massagatto
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2004 04:36 am
What made this particular 60 minutes piece 'yellow journalism' is that the producers intentionally left out the information they already had that their documentary evidence was likely flawed.

Intentionally?

Do you have proof of this? A source? A statement on the record from an insider?

Or is this merely your opinion or hope?

If there is proof that CBS intentionally left out information that proved their documentation was false, then it can hardly be called "yellow journalism," but sloppy journalism.

Perhaps, tabloid journalism is more apt.

Not unlike townhall.com, the Washington Times and Fox News beating the drum with articles suggesting former Rep. Gary Condit had something to do with the young intern's tragic disappearance and eventual murder (he did not and has recently reached a $$$ settlement with several so-called news organizations.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2004 05:50 am
Do I have proof? Only what witnesses and experts cited by Dan Rather and CBS are now saying on the record that they told CBS in advance of the story. Also there was a CNN news report just this morning saying one of the purported 'authentic' documents had Kinko's fax imprint on it. If CBS had reported in their story that their witnesses were questioning the authenticity of the documents then yes, it would not have been yellow journalism but would have been only sloppy. For them to have had that information and not mention it makes it 'yellow journalism'.

I didn't realize Townhall.com did any independent reporting. I wasn't watching Fox News during the Gary Condit scandal but was getting the bulk of my news from CNN and the other alphabet news sources as well as newspapers during that time, so it is rather specious to think only conservative news sources cast an unflattering light on him. Are you saying that he sued only conservative news organizations? As I recall he threatened to sue the Washington Post at one point, hardly a right-wing rag.

How about a little fairness here?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2004 05:59 am
Actually the current flap isn't Dan Rather's first embarrassment at faulty journalism skewed to fit his particular perspective. I went looking for another story awhile back that was exposed by a couple of brave news sources (I'm sorry I can't remember which ones) but never got legs with the mainstream media at that time. I found this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200409150552.asp

I don't know anything about this particular writer, but her piece rings true from what I remember of that incident.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dan Rather -- pseudo-intellectual?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 07:21:56