home

Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off'

Dan Rather gave his last CBS evening news broadcast tonight. Crooks and Liars has the video. Here's the text of what he said:

We have shared a lot in the 24 years we've been meeting here each evening. And before I say good night this night, I need to say thank you. Thank you to the thousands of wonderful professionals at CBS News, past and present, with whom it has been my honor to work over these years.

"And a deeply felt thank you to all of you, who have let us in to your homes night after night. It has been a privilege and one never taken lightly.

"Not long after I first came to the anchor chair I briefly signed off using the word 'courage.' I want to return to it now, in a different way, to a nation still nursing a broken heart for what happened here in 2001, and especially to those who found themselves closest to the events of September 11th.

"To our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in dangerous places. To those who have endured the tsunami, and to all who have suffered natural disasters and who must now find the will to rebuild.

"To the oppressed and to those whose lot it is to struggle in financial hardship and failing health. To my fellow journalists in places where reporting the truth means risking all.

"And, to each of you, courage.

"For the 'CBS Evening News,' Dan Rather reporting. Good night."

Update: The New York Times reports:

At the close of his final broadcast, Mr. Rather was given a standing ovation by dozens of CBS employees gathered around his desk, a show of solidarity that clashed with the peevish mutterings of newsmen and executives higher up in the network chain of command. The network's grumpy old men, from Mike Wallace to Don Hewitt, took potshots at Mr. Rather at his most vulnerable moment, undermining any lingering claim they had to being the Wise Men of the Tiffany Network. Walter Cronkite was the worst, emerging from his twilight to tell CNN that he wished Bob Schieffer had replaced Mr. Rather years ago.

And makes this observation:

He was a riveting figure in the field. On the anchor desk, his combative, often emotive personality and florid way with homespun metaphors could grate. But his sincerity was never in doubt, not even by the right-wing critics who lambasted Mr. Rather as the poster child of liberal bias in the mainstream media.

< More Charges Against Milwaukee Police | Michael Jackson Trial: Accuser Begins Testimony >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 08:02:21 PM EST
    Balthezar, I appear on Fox News frequently as a legal analyst. I like the people who work there and the anchors. Their producers work very hard. The network brass and anchors may be biased, but if they were truly as you describe, they wouldn't have defense lawyers or Democrats on at all. The news readers facial expressions are no different than those of readers at other networks. And most of them are quite attractive. The Fox reporters work very hard as well and are professionals. Fox News has a bureau here and I've spent the equivalent of many hours with them over the years. They take their jobs seriously and work their a**s off. I agree with your comments about Rather. But Fox News didn't bring him down. A combination of the National Guard story and sinking ratings the past several years did. The viewers are responsible for his sinking ratings, they didn't want to watch him. I don't know what your problem is with Fox, but it goes beyond mere criticism and disssolves into trash talk, and I wish you wouldn't spew it here.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 08:31:36 PM EST
    balthazar - Then don't watch them for heaven's sake. I mean, no one is holding a gun on you. And you have to have paid a cable company to get it, it isn't free like CBS, ABC and NBC.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 09:16:28 PM EST
    It's amusing to listen to the yacking about Dan Rather on places like Fox News...... Rather was soooooo.....unfair. So liberal. So, whatever Fox is not! but how dare they criticize anyone for being bias! The day will come when the American people will wish they had the likes of Dan Rather reporting news again.....Not this pitiful propaganda machine that is Fox News..... Fox News is to "news" what WWF Smackdown "wrestling" is to NCAA wrestling. A pathetic parody of the real thing..... Fox is almost hard for most reasonably intelligent persons to watch.....with the odd way their sentences are formed? The comical raised eye-brows.... The strange facial expressions of the news readers say as much as their actual words. [remainder deleted for length and repetitiveness, plus, it's a duplicate of what was posted on Balthazar's site, he's given you the link, you can read it there.]

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 10:07:13 PM EST
    The people at Fox may work "hard", but lets not forget what they worked "hard" at last year. Convincing the country that Swift Boaters were right about Kerry, the war in Iraq was about "liberation", liberals are a bunch of elitists that don't really care about this country.... I could go on and on. Nobody said the Fox anchors are not attractive. They do get funny looks on their faces though when they talk about liberals. Frankly I don't understand why a liberal would get upset that another liberal is using "trash talk" about Fox. Maybe the people who work there are nice- but I don't think it is too much to say that they have declared war on liberals. They are pushing- and succeeding at establishing a very scary political situation in this country. I am sure Karl Rove works his a#$ off- that does not mean I have to respect him.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 10:23:51 PM EST
    Yeah, c'mon Jeralyn, I understand you know the Fox people - but the entire network is the digital personification of Pravda.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 10:58:28 PM EST
    I am glad that Rather is no longer CBS Anchor. I am tired of the bashing. He had kahuna's. Nixon, Dan gave him what he got. Bush, Dan did not back down. Bush 43, I wish he had taken him on more. There is one thing that I do not understand - Why does everyone sit by quietly while Network news is bashed. Why is everyone afraid of Fox? They lash out all the time and no one takes them on, why? My opinion: The testosterone has gone, you can never say Rather was witout it. MSNBC lashes out at NBC, what is to be gained by doing this? Fox says everyone is Liberial and biased - Fox confesses they are conservative and biased and this is OK. Fox saying it does not make it so. Fox says they are fair and balanced. OK, Hume is fair and balanced having so called "The Allstars" 100% right - where is the fair and balanced in that? Look at the ratings, what Cable channel comes close the the third in Network news? Please tell me that O'Reilly at 2.5MM comes close to CBS at 7.5MM. Oh, CBS is number three and falling - OK, still there is a lot of distance between 2.5 and 7.5.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 11:37:04 PM EST
    All 3 cable news networks run conservative, in my opinion. If Fox had ever told me what I could say or not say, or edited me or cut my mike, or told me to say something I didn't believe in, I'd be all over them. It's never happened in years of appearances. To be clear, though, neither has MSNBC or CNN ever done that. Liberals may be wasting their time going on Fox. But maybe they reach one or two viewers or ten viewers who tuned in by accident and actually listen and find themselves agreeing. We tend to think in terms of viewers at home who choose a channel. But what about airports, hospitals, the car dealer's repair department waiting lounge, and all the other places people find themselves watching pre-determined channels? I watched 20 minutes of Judge Judy waiting to get into the jail the other day. Or hotel rooms where people tend to channel surf more than usual. So while I don't disagree that there is a conservative bias to tv news, and Fox in particular, I think it's up to liberals to figure out how to work it to their advantage if and when they can. It's never hopeless.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 01:14:36 AM EST
    No I would disagree with that. It is pretty hopeless at this point. The Republicans have lied, cheated,beat the wars drums,stolen the election,overrun the MSM and all 3 branches of government and half the American people let it happen. The country is definently out of touch with the rest of the world and on the decline. Clinton was the peak. Things will continue to get worse now. Gas prices will keep rising, the wars will keep coming, the scandals will unfold and the little man will either have to conform and become an a**hole or be run over by the religious right. It sounds bleak because it is. One good thing has emerged from all this though. The world now clearly sees America for what it always has been. We can thank Bush and Co. for that. I'm sure Republicans don't mind though. They are all praying for the rapture. That and another tax cut. If there is a god he will rapture them alright.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 01:15:00 AM EST
    Faux news is nowhere near the league of Dan Rather. They actually think they took him down. The reason that Faux's ratings stay high is due to sensationalism. They are the Republican party and they have taken advantage of 911 to push thier right wing agenda on America. They should be ashamed. Democrats that go on thier network are wasting thier time trying to appeal to fat lazy Walmart shoppers who from what I gather would love for us to still be in Vietnam. Faux is why the rest of the world thinks we're idiots. We are what we consume. And quite frankly....Faux is s**t.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 03:08:53 AM EST
    From my off-shore vantage point it seems very clear that Fox News is incredibly biased in favour of the Neocon Right. Their reporting, no matter how hard they might work, lacks objectivity and it editorializes. They present opinion as news and misrepresent issues in favour of the Whitehouse point of view. Outside of the US, Fox News is seen as a propoaganda arm of the Bush administration. Fox is in the entertainment business and I am sure that their staff work hard to assure the bottom line. Their attack-dogs are very popular as they pillory the Dems and the left. The bloggers rail against Fox in frustration because the MSM, concerned for their own profitability and ratings, have let the public down. Objective news shouldn't be about what people want to hear, it should be about the facts and the truth that people need to hear. It's easier to listen to someone rail against liberals and commies, and nod your head approvingly, than it is to face the issues.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 06:10:49 AM EST
    Misleading or just ignorant? Citing Pelley's report, O'Reilly also attributed Bush's rendition policy to Clinton on the March 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor: O'REILLY: Some in the liberal print media consistently spotlight every mistake by U.S. forces and question just about every proactive measure taken against terrorists. Two recent examples. U.S. forces killed an Italian security agent at an Iraq roadblock. The woman he was guarding, a journalist for a communist newspaper in Italy, says American forces might have done this intentionally. Does that make any sense? Of course not. An investigation is needed, but these foolish allegations are being displayed all over the media. Two, 60 Minutes last night runs a story about the rendition policy instituted by President Clinton, whereby the CIA flies suspected terrorists to their home countries and sometimes to U.S. bases for interrogation. Now, I like the rendition program, but obviously some disagree. O'Reilly did the same earlier that day on a broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly: Let's get back here. Last night on 60 Minutes, they run a quasi-investigation about this rendition policy that was signed into law by Bill Clinton. And, it's basically -- if the United States gets information from a foreign intelligence agency that, there's an Al Qaeda [operative] around. The U.S. picks up the Al Qaeda, in a private jet -- and whisks the Al Qaeda away to his home country -- his or her home country. By contrast, The New York Times reported on March 6 that the Clinton administration enforced much greater oversight and tighter restrictions on renditions and generally used the practice to allow suspects to face criminal prosecutions, rather than solely to undergo interrogation: Before Sept. 11, the C.I.A. had been authorized by presidential directives to carry out renditions, but under much more restrictive rules. In most instances in the past, the transfers of individual prisoners required review and approval by interagency groups led by the White House, and were usually authorized to bring prisoners to the United States or to other countries to face criminal charges. As part of its broad new latitude, current and former government officials say, the C.I.A. has been authorized to transfer prisoners to other countries solely for the purpose of detention and interrogation.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 06:29:37 AM EST
    You realize that O'Reilly and Hannity/Combs are opinion shows, right? O'Reilly is anti death penalty, pro choice, pro union. So hardly a neo con. Combs is the liberal half of the show. Van Sustern is a democrat. So, where's the huge bias. Brit Hume is the news anchor. The all-stars are usually Fred Barnes (Conservative), Mort Kondrake (Democrat) and one other who is either Krauthammer (conservative), Liasson (Liberal), Juan (liberal), or others. Hardly a right wing cabal. While I believe there is a bias, I don't think it's any greater than the biases of the other networks. When I was in "j" school a reporter from the L.A. Times came in to speak. He said they weren't biased. They just always wanted to protect the little guy. He didn't understand why we all laughed at him.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 07:45:29 AM EST
    Good heavens, left wingers! Do none of you know the difference between "news" and "opinion?" Did you think of "Crossfire" on CNN, or "Hardball" on MSNBC as "news?"

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 08:34:08 AM EST
    O'Reilly is the news anchor, and Hume is an anchor. Perhaps reading is tough for you Boca where I clearly state that Hannity has nothing to do with the news.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 08:43:25 AM EST
    No and no Jim, I just felt like posting the Hannity piece because I think colmes is a putz and hardly a "factor" on that show, but I guess you are right that he is the "left" on that show....

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 08:48:05 AM EST
    More O'Reilly: From the March 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor: [text deleted, this space is for comments, not reprinting transcripts or articles.]

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 08:50:01 AM EST
    Bill O'Reilly is no Dan Rather. Brit Hume is no Dan Rather. Hannity is no Dan Rather. I realize that Hannity has nothing to do with Fox News but I felt comfortable lumping him in anyway. Read Mediamatters.org every day there is a story that has been fabricated or deliberately misleading. Discussing an amateur video that has recently surfaced showing a New Jersey high school teacher "screaming at his class and pulling the chair from underneath a student who refused to stand for the national anthem," criminal defense attorney and nationally syndicated Clear Channel radio host Bill Cunningham said that "we need more teachers beating people [students] about the face and head, especially on the derriere." After listening to Cunningham's remarks on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity greeted Cunningham as a "great American" and defended the teacher's actions: "[W]hat this teacher did would pale in comparison to what would have happened to me at home. ... No wonder why kids aren't learning anymore." As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Cunningham told Hannity in November 2004 that the presidential election was over "because Elizabeth Edwards has now sung." Elizabeth Edwards is the wife of former senator and vice-presidential candidate John Edwards. From the March 3 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: [text of transcript deleted. This space is limited to comments.]

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    I don't think of FOX News as "news" but spin. I don't think of the O'Reilly factor as "opining" but spewing crap in the most sensationalist, pandering and entertaining sense. However, I'll bet a good part of the country sees Fox as giving them the "real" story that the "liberally biased" (HA!) media obfuscates. Media is a supply and demand industry like most, and if a bunch of undereducated, sadly misled and manipulated people with no critical thinking skills finds FOX a good source of news, shame on them. BocaJeff, I actually had a good laugh here reading YOU saying that FOX isn't anymore biased than anyone else. (For the effect, imagine ME saying that Ted Kennedy isn't biased!) Jeralyn, I do honor your continuity of dialog with a station like Fox, who has mirrored the political right in alienating most reasonable voices and bringing sensible debate to a standstill. Now, regarding Dan Rather. Seeing a retrospective on his career put his conclusions about the GW Nat'l. Guard report in perspective. This is a guy who uncovered some of the biggest scandals and abuses of power in the 20th century. Perhaps he wanted to go out with one more "bang" and sadly, (like a lot of pro athletes) misjudged when it was "time to go". However, re: his liberal bias, he earned that title from the Nixon White House when he broke the Watergate story, and he has worn the bias badge proudly ever since. Seeing him question a squirming Clinton about his legacy - I realized that Rather is no lobber of softballs. After all, is it his fault that many of the most disturbing abuses of power and commissions of crime of his career (Watergate, Iran Contra among others) were perpetrated by Republicans (who, I hear are trying to get Guckert/Gannon the replacement job)!

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#19)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 10:42:27 AM EST
    “Bill O'Reilly is no Dan Rather. Brit Hume is no Dan Rather. Hannity is no Dan Rather.” Bill O’Reilly is the anchor of the O’Reilly factor, an analysis program. Brit Hume is the anchor of Special report, a show FOX describes as “covering major political stories and contributing news analysis to FOX News Channel”, again analysis. Sean Hannity is co-anchor of Hannity and Colmes again analysis. FOX has predominantly conservative anchors of its analysis programs, but the news, in my estimation, is relatively unbiased; bias usually of omission, I challenge anyone here to show me evidence FOX knowingly reported false information. If you cannot tell the difference between analysis and reporting, what can I say, you are a straight up idiot. Would anyone here consider Sheilds and Brooks reporting, and not analysis? Perhaps we could legislate a warning for those incapable of intelligently consuming news and analysis. “Attention, this broadcast contains news and opinions; opinions are appraisals, judgments, and impressions, whereas facts are a statement of positive knowledge, i.e. a reiteration of events complete with participants and timelines.”

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 10:48:06 AM EST
    It's amusing to listen to the yacking about Dan Rather on places like Fox News...... Rather was soooooo.....unfair. So liberal. So, whatever Fox is not! but how dare they criticize anyone for being bias! Yeah, but the nightly network news is supposed to be just a newscast. It should not have any slant, right? Just tell us the news Dan. Fox, CNN, Air America, sure, let's hear some opinion, go ahead and slant. That's why Rather (who was certainly biased and almost fraudlently changed the last election outcome) had to go. If he worked for Air America, then fine... My two cents.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 12:27:16 PM EST
    Pig: Idiot? Read my post which says "hannity has nothing to do with news". As far as O'Reilly is concerned, Fox News calls him a news anchor and his show is sold as a Fox News show. Entertainment or not, it is billed as a "news program" and Fox lists O'Reilly as a News Anchor. If it were Jennings or Rather doing it, I would criticize them also. Pig, it is unfortunate that your posts lack any sense of modicum or class because you sometimes make sound fundamental arguments. But mostly I skip them because you all too often slip into silly name calling and cheap rhetoric. Fox bills it as a News Program thus I view it in teh same standard with which the nightly news is judged. Rightly or wrongly on my part if Fox News wants to call it a news program, I am going to hold it to the standards of a news program.....

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 12:29:23 PM EST
    About the Show "Other interview news shows are guest-driven," says Emmy award-winning broadcast journalist Bill O'Reilly. "'The O'Reilly Factor' is driven by me. I will not stand for 'spin.' I look for guests who will stand up and verbally battle for what they believe in." "The O'Reilly Factor" uncovers news items from the established wisdom and goes against the grain of the more traditional interview-style programs. O'Reilly's signature "No Spin Zone" cuts through the rhetoric as he interviews the players who make the story newsworthy. Pushing beyond just the headlines, "The O'Reilly Factor" also features issues from local markets that do not find the national spotlight on other newscasts. According to O'Reilly, "Just because a story originates from somewhere the networks typically avoid, doesn't mean it contains less challenging issues, or compelling ideas." Is it a newscast or not??????????

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 12:30:04 PM EST
    In case you missed it last paragraph: "The O'Reilly Factor" also features issues from local markets that do not find the national spotlight on other newscasts.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 12:48:27 PM EST
    So MB you are insinuating that Dan rather was under cover for the liberals eh? So what about Armstrong williams or Jeff Guckert/Gannon? These people are operating covertly and getting kickbacks and promotions. Dan Rather told the news professionally without spinning lies. CBS's storylines have been consistent in the past to professional worldwide journalism standards as set by the BBC. PiggWiggle your point is apparently that people are stupid if they cant see the difference between opinion and news reporting at Faux. We'll do you seriously think Faux doesn't intentionally try to blur those lines. They make thier editoials seem like news and thier "news" paints stories from a decidedly right angle. They have been using administration catch phrases in the stories such as "homicide bombers" instead of suicide bombers. They are making the news up and attempting to shape the debate to benefit thier right wing cronies. Bill O'Reilly is not moderate as suggested. Its a front. He is full of BS just doing his part for the Republican party. America loves Faux right now because we have become a nation of dumbed down hate lovers. We profess to be Christians and love war at the same time. These are sad days.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 12:58:13 PM EST
    “Our readers absolutely know him,” says Fuller of O'Reilly, the most popular cable news anchor in America and the driving force behind Fox's ratings supremacy. “He's known for news..." If they call Dan Rather a "news anchor" and O'Reilly a "news anchor" which one is not really a news anchor?

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 01:19:28 PM EST
    I've thought on this subject for some time, how can the MSM be biased both to the left if your rightie and to the right if your leftie? The obvious answer is they do a poor job at simply reporting and have taken to politicizing news either for ratings or for ideaology. TL, With all do respect, CNN is not conservative..... Of course since it's a spectrum issue and not a one or the other issue, that may be where the dispute arises. "One man's garbage is another's treasure"

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    Finally something P and I can agree on.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#29)
    by roy on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    I've thought on this subject for some time, how can the MSM be biased both to the left if your rightie and to the right if your leftie? The obvious answer is they do a poor job at simply reporting and have taken to politicizing news either for ratings or for ideaology.
    My unjustified hunch is that it's usually not the media people's fault, it's the audience's. Media Outlet X may sometimes report stories that support my beliefs. I see these stories as unbiased because they seem to be simple facts. X may also sometimes report stories that undermine my beliefs. I will tend to see these stories as biased, because they contradict something that I think it true. Why else would they report something untrue, if not bias? So I never see bias favoring my side, because it doesn't look like bias. I might see a perfect lack of bias, if X always supports my beliefs. Probably I'll see at least a slight bias toward the Other Side, since not every story is going to support my beliefs. So, as rule, the MSM is biased toward the other side, regardless of which side that is. (Personally, I'm kind of apathetic, so I think the MSM is unfairly biased towards giving a darn)

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 02:13:59 PM EST
    Finally something P and I can agree on.
    concur; had an insightful back-N-forth with "P" on another thread, some well made points, it felt constructive.
    So, as rule, the MSM is biased toward the other side, regardless of which side that is.
    in a nutshell!

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#31)
    by demohypocrates on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    jlvngstn, Hint. Dan Rather is the one that reports the news. Where in his show does O'Reilly purport to do that? He gives his opinion. Over and over and over he gives it. Wtf is an anchor? I have never understood the term or its meaning. The guy never pretends to hide his opinion for fact. And he certainly doesnt toe the conservative line. Most on the right think he's an arse. His following is populist - right and left, but I'll agree predominantly right.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 03:22:45 PM EST
    Demo: I agree with your point and understand the differences in the shows formats. The premise of the argument goes to it being sold as "Fox Newscast" and O'Reilly being billed as a news anchor: News Anchor: In U.S. television the chief news presenter(s) for network, local, cable and satellite news programming is known as the Anchor. The term distinguishes the presenter-journalist at the newsdesk in the television studio (or above the convention floor, etc.) from the reporter in the field. All news stories in a program are funneled through the anchor as he or she mediates between the public, the network or and other news reporters. Ergo, if he is a news anchor and not a COMMENTATOR (which is of course what he is) then Fox News should title him as such. News Anchor implies seniority and mediation, not commentary and opinion dispensation.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 03:25:01 PM EST
    One more if it helps: Moreover, an anchor represents the public and its need to know whenever he or she interrogates and listens to the subject of an interview. National news anchors represent their respective networks and are held accountable for the ratings success of their respective news programs in attracting viewers. In keeping with this serious representational function, the anchor's style of delivery is reserved and his or her appearance is designed to convey credibility. In other words, the anchor is a television host at the top of a hierarchial chain of command with special reportorial credentials and responsibilities centered around "hard" or serious news of the day; celebrity interview and tabloid news shows have hosts, not anchors, even when they are organized similarly in format to network evening news. Journalists in other television news formats without a similar division of labor between studio and field are not anchors strictly speaking.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 03:31:50 PM EST
    Dan Rather told the news professionally without spinning lies. Simply not true. Rather was partisan hack (and pretending to be otherwise in the highest of news jobs), and he got what he deserved. Also, Amstrong Williams and Gannon are totally in the wrong.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 03:38:56 PM EST
    It´s impossible for the news to be entirely unbiased. The reporting is either pro or critical. Hence as Roy pointed out, the public will either perceive it as informative or biased depending on their point of view. Having that said, CBS and Fox is like comparing fast food with healthy meals. One is into showbiz, the other into professional journalism.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    Rather was a late 20th c. journalist following in the footsteps of Murrow and the CBS radio greats of the "greatest generation". While Fox "news" has always been about sensationalization and entertainment, it seems that the quarterly-profit driven networks owned by one of five media conglomorates makes the notion of Murrow type journalism and service to the public interest seem quaint.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#37)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 05:22:01 PM EST
    Jlvngstn- “Pig, it is unfortunate that your posts lack any sense of modicum or class because you sometimes make sound fundamental arguments. But mostly I skip them because you all too often slip into silly name calling and cheap rhetoric.” Two points. First; good arguments, framed in what you may or may not consider class, have equal merit. If you chose to ignore the content simply for the façade you have done yourself a disservice. However, feel free to skip; I strive for a consistent ideology, and to that end I come here to read your posts (and others) not simply to have mine read. And rhetoric? Well, rhetoric in the sense of language as a means of persuasion. However, I think you intended to imply talking points or canned arguments. I challenge you to dig one example from the archives. Second; I take exceptional issue with your accusations of name-calling. I make special effort, even when frustrated, to save insults and argue merit. I would refer you to any of a number of long winded exchanges with soccerdad wherein he has repeatedly attacked me ad homonym, and I have refrained. When I write idiot, I mean just that; I posted “If you cannot tell the difference between analysis and reporting, what can I say, you are a straight up idiot.”, and I meant idiot literally, an ignorant person. And really, anyone who cannot distinguish fact from opinion is ignorant, simpleminded, whatever. Although after rereading that sentence it does seem I was calling you in particular an idiot. I meant you as in one; I’m confident you specifically can tell the difference between opinion and fact. “if Fox News wants to call it a news program, I am going to hold it to the standards of a news program.....” I submit that analysis is a complement to news in which many news outlets justifiably indulge, i.e. editorials in print, local news stations. My favorite news show, (one I’m watching as a write) the news hour with Jim Lehrer, compliments almost every story with punditry and analysis from interested parties on all opposing sides. This, in my estimation, makes for a great news show. “Ergo, if he is a news anchor and not a COMMENTATOR (which is of course what he is) then Fox News should title him as such.” This is simply splitting hairs; let FOX call them anchor/commentator, it would be pointless. The first opinion an anchor slips into the newscast the listener knows they are commenting, not simply reporting. Again; “opinions are appraisals, judgments, and impressions, whereas facts are a statement of positive knowledge, i.e. a reiteration of events complete with participants and timelines.” Opinions sound nothing like facts, something a grade school child can distinguish. Where is the problem?

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 05:46:09 PM EST
    Sorry Talk Left, I completely disagree with your statement in the comments above. Fox News is blatantly biased and Democrats only strengthen their draw by adding plausible deniability to the claim of bias. What does it matter if individuals appearing in brief soundbytes give truncated voices of dissent when the topic and weighting of the discussions themselves are subject to editorial bias? However, I will say that I believe that the Republican Party and the FCC bullied Viacom into settling their action contingent on the firing of Rather and (probably) many other concessions (meaning they're more responsible than News Corp.) Listening to Rather's last broadcast felt like watching the last sign off just prior to the start of the movie "The Running Man". It was chilling. "Courage" in the face of "Hopelessness". Orwell-esque. Having said that, I wasn't overly impressed with CBS News nor their coverage of the immoral War in Iraq. BBC World News is about all I can stand anymore.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 06:23:06 PM EST
    Pig: Great response, I read it all. I appreciate your turn of phrase and love of the english language. As far as "splitting hairs" I do find it interesting that your commitment to strict definition and clarity regarding the usage of rhetoric and idiocy is in direct contrast to your view of "anchor" defined. Many americans, rightly or wrongly watch O'Reilly as their primary source of news. Fox bills him as a News Anchor and under the definition of anchor he does not meet the public service requirement as instructed under the strict definition. Many of his viewers take his commentary and apply it as fact, not opinion thereby formulating opinions that are inconsistent with the facts and entire story. As an example, a Publicist and a Lobbyist are responsible for speaking and forming opinion to support their industry and or company. They are both responsible for communicating a message to promote a positive influence for their constituency. Publicists however, have an obligation to report things accurately and with regard to the negatives relative to their product or industry practice omission as opposed to denial or fabrication. Lobbyists are under no such constraint. They are compensated to orchestrate through rhetoric an overwhelming sense urgency and importance to their particular cause and are not held to any strict code of ethics by a corporation or public trust. I view the news stations to have the same obligations relegated to the publicists as opposed to the lobbyists. Fox News calling the O"reilly show a newscast and calling O'Reilly a news anchor obligates them to adhere to the standards of the true sense of the job description. O'Reilly is billed as a news program and what he provides are "facts" as he asserts on a nightly basis irrespective of their veracity. To say "this is a fact" and conclude with "hey its only my opinion" is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst. My comparison was that Dan Rather was a news anchor and O'Reilly is a news anchor and O'REilly is no Dan Rather. That said, I have never been a fan of Rather, I, like you prefer Lehrer and also the BBC. In the interest of fairness I stopped reading Soccerdad a while ago also, as I don't care for his debate style altho I am closer to manyof his opinions than most here.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 07:51:18 PM EST
    And you have to have paid a cable company to get it, it isn't free like CBS, ABC and NBC. That's right. You absolutely do not have to watch Fox. Just ask your cable provider to remove the channel for you. Ask that provider (the local monopoly) to break out and remove the cost for all Fox channels from your monthly bill. Express to them that you don't want any of your monthly bill to be delivered as a revenue sources to them in any form whatsoever. I'm sure they will be happy to oblige. Yeah right. Its more likely that you'll have a chance to obtain a public school voucher in the near future than have the local cable monopoly allow you to direct your money to only the sources that you desire it to go. Even still, you have options. Why use the local cable monopoly when you can use satellite television! You can always subscribe to Direct TV. Whoops! Rupert Murdoch is the Chairman of the Board! Oh that liberal media.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 08:16:21 PM EST
    Dan Rather got what he deserved. Let that be a lesson to all news agencies that the American people (or at least most of us)will not tolerate BS being reported as fact.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 09:47:17 PM EST
    A couple of points to ponder for the long run. Whats better for America? Edward R. Murrow style journalism? The underdog fighting against the mainstream to incite change because he has a noble heart or a chameleon like O'Reilly who will do whatever he can to make a buck or boost his pathetic ego? Whats amazing about O'Reillys and Limbaughs is that they really don't give a damn about the right wing fools who watch thier shows. They are completely self serving individuals and its so obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Look at home O'Reilly acted in regards to George Clooney and The Tsunami benefit. People have had thier lives shattered and this despicable man tries to boost his ratings by picking apart the people who want to help. How he can look at himself in the mirror I don't know. The debate about what is an anchor or a commentator is a waste of time. In the modern day things are meshing together in all areas at an incredibly fast rate. Whats important is that there are people in these positions who are truly devoted to bringing injustice to light and helping people have better lives by exposing flaws in government. Even during wartime.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 09:58:12 PM EST
    TS - If you were capable of forcing a individual menu cost on your local cable company, it would cost you more to NOT have FNC, than to have it. But my question is more basic. Why do you fear for an opposing viewpoint to be broadcast? What is it? Freedom of speech for only those who agree with you? IM - Professional? I mean, if you followed the TANG fraud, pursued and pushed by CBS, how can you use the world "professional?" That's a joke. Like, they are frauds, but accurate. JL - Who is this guy Fuller, and by what right does he get to define O'Reilly. I think Bret Hume is recognized as head of network, an anchorman. O'Reilly is opinion.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 06:51:14 AM EST
    Fuller is a writer for the NY Daily News, fair question. PPJ: O'Reilly is listed as a News Anchor on all Fox News websites, advertising etc. If he is going to be sold as an anchor, he should live up to the duties and responsibilities of an anchor. Try not to fixate on Fuller, try to focus on what how his employer defines him. 300 words of text and countless illustrations of how Fox identifies him and you jump on Fuller. I throw that crap out consistently on purpose to see if you are willing to judge the merits or the weakest link hte argument. It is funny to me that you would ignore the definition of anchor, ignore the title, ignore the verbiage from FoxNews' website which clearly defines O'Reilly's show as a newscast and jump on Fuller. If O'REilly is an ANCHOR he should be judged and held to the same standards of the other anchors in the industry.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 06:58:09 AM EST
    Right or left coverage? Let the FACTS decide: http://mediamatters.org/items/200503110001

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 09:06:05 AM EST
    TL writes: "Balthezar, I appear on Fox News frequently as a legal analyst. I like the people who work there and the anchors. Their producers work very hard. The network brass and anchors may be biased, but if they were truly as you describe, they wouldn't have defense lawyers or Democrats on at all." If you don't see that the Dem puntis and lawyers who appear on FOX are used, simply used, as foils for a governing agenda then we're just living in different worlds. It doesn't matter whether they;re nice to you, or whether they work hard: none of that changes the damage they have done to the national discourse in terms of framing. I wish Dems would resolve as a block to not appear on the network, would refuse to be used in the way they are. It is because they have contibutors like yourself that they get to perpetrate their myth of neutrality. "See, we let a Democrat on!" I suppose next you'll tell us that Colmes plays an equally aggressive role to Hannity on "their" show.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    Ah yes The TANG letters.. I expected more of CBS, something I would expect of Fox!

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    Glanton I completely agree. The dems that appear on Faux are wasting thier time. They are being used. They need to boycott the network and expose it as an arm of the Republican party. The sooner the better.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    Heads up on the OTHER resignation speech Rather gave, to the British: Greg Palast article Excerpt: "It’s an obscene comparison," Rather said, "but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people’s necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will ... have a flaming tire of 'lack of patriotism' put around your neck."

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 04:02:12 PM EST
    But my question is more basic. Why do you fear for an opposing viewpoint to be broadcast? What is it? Freedom of speech for only those who agree with you? Thanks for ignoring the point and then asking a question PPJ. And you complain about Soccerdad? The last sentence is your strawman, not my argument. But yes, I do fear that the average apolitical American isn't informed enough to interpret "the news". Especially since "The News" is now really nothing more than misinformation and opinion. I don't prefer Air America either. I'll be sure to remind you of your inability to respond intelligently to my point about having nothing more than an "either or" choice of whether to fund News Corporation or have no access to any media. It is a fact that I'll be sure to remind you of the next time you cry about public school vouchers.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:41:47 PM EST
    Sorry, a correction: apparently the Dan Rather quotes in the link were made last year.

    Re: Dan Rather's Final 'Sign-Off' (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 11:01:47 PM EST
    NRA wrote:
    Dan Rather got what he deserved. Let that be a lesson to all news agencies that the American people (or at least most of us)will not tolerate BS being reported as fact.
    In case you have missed it: the whole premise of our current administration is that BS=fact. Swift Boats, Bush's "service" and lets not for get the mother of all BS 9/11= Saddam's WMDs. And unlike Rather's mistake at CBS 1500 brave men and women are dead. Thousands of American kids are with out one of their parents. Hundreds of thousands of family members wake up terrified everyday that they are going to be the one to get the visit from men in uniform.