National Enquirer Editor, Mike Walker, takes Danny-Boy Rather to task in his new book, "Rather Dumb". When the National Enquirer can thumb their nose at your journalistic integrity, then you sure are at the bottom of the barrel.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/walker200503090747.asp

"National Enquirer Editor, Mike Walker, takes Danny-Boy Rather to task in his new book, "Rather Dumb"

wow, show me someone who writes an entire book about how dumb someone else is and Ill show you someone with a bad case of jealousy .

I mean, thats incredible. "This guy is *so* stupid that I had to write an *entire book* to explain exactly *how* dumb he is"

...lets face it, if Dan was *really* dumb then there would be no need to write a book to convince people; everyone would already know.....so .
I suggest that we take the existance of this book as evidence that Dan is surprisingly intelligent really.

..either that or as evidence that Mike Walker is desperate for either publicity or money and willing to do *anything* to get it, except actually find a good story to write about.

Dan Rather? the man is just a teleprompt reader...I mean, who really cares about his IQ enough to read a book about it?

What's the BFD? I keep hearing about Dan Rather on this board. I understand he's a newscaster. Why is everyone so hot and bothered?

"Why is everyone so hot and bothered?"

I missed it myself, but apparently he made some information available from a source that eventually turned out to be a lie.

that is, his source lied, he never did....although he was reportedly surprisingly slow in realising that he'd been had.

...of course it was never *proven* that he had been had either.

<g> and now someone has written an entire book about him, he must have been more important than I realised.

---"...of course it was never *proven* that he had been had either."----
The documents were obviously forgeries. what is unclear is whether they were copies of originals that Bush had got destroyed, and also whether they came from opponents of Bush or from the Bush campaign itself with the intention of discrediting non-favourable news sources.

Had Rather been a right wing blogger, or worked for pro-Republican media there would have been no fallout since the truth is entirely irrelevant to their agenda.

"The documents were obviously forgeries. "

ah, ok.  sorry.

+++Had Rather been a right wing blogger, or worked for pro-Republican media there would have been no fallout since the truth is entirely irrelevant to their agenda.+++

This is VERY true.

Time will be much kinder to Rather than it will to Bush.

If we're all lucky enough, Steve-O will be around to see it.

What would be funny would be if Rather was re-hired and given a "fresh start" as soon as the Bush administration is out of power. It's all just partisan team sports, really. Whichever side comes up with enough of these "perceived" victories to fool all the sheep with the spin wins.

"what is unclear is whether they were copies of originals that Bush had got destroyed, and also whether they came from opponents of Bush or from the Bush campaign itself with the intention of discrediting non-favourable news sources."

It's also unclear whether the source is secret, Israeli monks living the high life in Amsterdam.

Or something.

"+++Had Rather been a right wing blogger, or worked for pro-Republican media there would have been no fallout since the truth is entirely irrelevant to their agenda.+++

This is VERY true."

Self parody at its finest!

A thread discussing a case of well known, undisputed untruth attacking a Republican reported by a major fund raiser for the Democratic Party, and the obvious conclusion is that the "pro-Republican media" are the ones having a problem with the truth.

muppet, you have outdone yourself! (I did not thing it possible.)

Jim,

Your post sounds pretty triumphant but makes little sense. I did not make any value judgement on Rather's guilt or innocence, or any statement on the validity of the documents he reported on. What I DID say, or rather agree with, was that had this been a lie perpetrated by a right-leaning, republican-supporting sort of public figure, it would have been glossed RIGHT OVER by the Bush-supporting portion of the US population.

There is plenty of prior evidence of such a thing.

---"and the obvious conclusion is that the "pro-Republican media" are the ones having a problem with the truth.
"----

err, Swift Boats, WMD, Iran Contra, Bologna raliway station massacre?

muppet,

Isn't the obvious conclusion, then, that no media source, liberal or conservative, should be trusted at face value? Why the special emphasis on conservative media, when we're discussing an instance of clear untruth from a liberal source?

The point, Jim, as you are aware but are deliberately avoiding, is that despite being confronted with clear untruths again AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, "the Right" never EVER concedes ANY point EVER. The fact that they're now howling for Rather's blood like infatuated bloodhounds is at the very least pretty amusing.

---"Why the special emphasis on conservative media, when we're discussing an instance of clear untruth from a liberal source?"----

Because there is never any discussion about untruths from right wing sources. Veraciy isn't part of the ball game.

The point is not that the right wing media is lying or deceitful, though it has been and can be both of those things. The point is that the current US admininstration, and much of the current UK administration, doesn't care whether what is says is true or not.This view is best summed up in a 1986 article by Harry Frankfurt "On Bullshit", now published in book form by Princetown University Press:

"Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for telling the truth in the same way that bullshitting tends to. ...The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

Even if he lied and knew it etc... Rather has had a long career and done a great deal in the field of journalism.

The details of Dan Rather's document fraud is told here:

What Blogs Have Wrought http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227530/posts

Animation of the forgery
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6vxcr/
What a dumb s**t to try to pawn this off.

Shockwave re-enactment of the document being forged
http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf

The mainstream media will never be the same. Their choke hold on information dissemination is broken because hundred of folks on the Net are fact checking. It's a 24 x 7 peer review baby-and Danny boy never woke up.

OPEN LETTER TO THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA: We are NOT Amateurs and we are going to kick your butts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213567/posts

Reminds me of the words at the end of the movie Matrix.

Don't be so sure that bloggers will win the day. Politicians from all sides frequently have an interest in shutting down the net, and many in the mainstream press wouldn't mind that one bit.
http://news.com.com/The+coming+crackdown+on+blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html

Former CIA chief Tenet had a meeting (in which the national press was excluded) where he claimed the "free and open society" of the net "must give way to governance and control."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041201-114750-6381r

" "the Right" never EVER concedes ANY point EVER."

...unlike the left, who have finally cheerfully admitted that yes, Clinton lied under oath about a material issue in a case at bar, so committed perjury, and therefore was properly impeached.

Philo

I'm still waiting for that admission from the libs...
Oh, but clinton's lies didn't harm anyone.

A recent tribute to Danny boy by those who helped him leave sums it up:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1359494/posts

Philo -

There are reasons not to concede that point. Not least of which being that the questions were immaterial and inappropriate.

The "left" concedes things regularly, or at least the liberal folks I know and read do. I've never, EVER seen any right-wing republican issue a retraction on ANYTHING, except sarcastically.

++...unlike the left, who have finally cheerfully admitted that yes, Clinton lied under oath about a material issue in a case at bar, so committed perjury, and therefore was properly impeached.

Yes, Clinton fans everywhere bow down and congratulate those that have wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on investigating someone's sex life. It was such a very important issue and deserved all the attention. It's so much more important than motives to war or direct conflicts of interest in our highest political offices.

I think I will go puke now.

"I think Americans really show their ignorance when they say they want their politicians to be honest. What are these fucking cretins talking about? If honesty were suddenly introduced into American life, the whole system would collapse! No-one would know what to do; honesty would fuck this country up!

"And I think Americans know that. That's why they elected and re-elected Bill Clinton. Because the American people like their bullshit right out front where they can get a good strong whiff of it. Clinton might be full of shit, but at least he lets you know it. Dole tried to hide it, didn't he? Dole kept saying 'I'm a plain and honest man.' Bullshit. We don't believe that. Clinton said 'Hi, folks, I'm completely full of shit, and how do you like that?'" -- George Carlin

http://www.lansingsucks.com/article.php?story=20040121205613886
"And the people said, 'You know what? At least he's honest. At least he's honest about being completely full of shit.'"

Jack

very well put.

See what I mean about the left being just as capable of denying things?

"There are reasons not to concede that point. Not least of which being that the questions were immaterial and inappropriate."

He was on trial for sexual harassment - that he demanded sexual favors for a job opportunity. Part of the evidence would be that he commingles sex and work, like having sex with interns in the office during working hours. The questions were absolutely relevant and admissible, and he lied.

That makes it perjury.

Let's turn it around - you're applying for a great IT position and being interviewed by George Bush, who drops his pants and asks you to get on your knees and get busy if you want the job. You'd just walk away and do nothing? Even if he got elected President?

Philo