Disgraced CBS Anchor Proposes "Rather's Rules" for Good Journalism

Posted by Rich Noyes on March 9, 2006 - 10:31.

Dan Rather spoke at a Cherry Hill, New Jersey high school last night (Wednesday), South Jersey's Courier-Post reports this morning, and reporter Jim Walsh noted (without irony) that the disgraced and replaced CBS Evening News anchor proposed “Rather’s Rules” for improving journalism.

Isn’t that a bit like “Dr. Kevorkian’s Rules” for better medicine?

In his speech, Rather repeated his recent chiding of the national media for being too soft, and in “need of a spine transplant.” But when it came to his own journalistic transgression, the 2004 60 Minutes hit piece on President Bush's National Guard service -- a report based on forged memos -- Rather crouched behind his Nixonian stone wall:

“‘I’ve said pretty much all I have to say about this subject,’ he said in response to a question. ‘The public wants to move on,’” the Courier-Post reported.

An excerpt of the article summarizing Rather’s lecture:

The newsman proposed “Rather's rules,” saying reporters should “ask more questions, especially the tough ones.” He said the media should offer less sensationalism and “more real analysis.” It should also pay more attention to international events, he said.

Rather said media improvement was needed for society’s well-being.
“American journalism at its best is a public trust and is deeply bound up in our system of checks and balances,” he said.
He anchored The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather for 24 years, but stepped down in March after a furor over a report on President Bush’s military service during the Vietnam War era.
The story, which aired on 60 Minutes Wednesday during the 2004 presidential campaign, was based on alleged memos from Bush’s commander in the Texas Air National Guard. However, CBS could not authenticate the documents.
Rather, who has said his departure from the anchor desk was unrelated to the National Guard story, did not mention the report in his speech.
“I’ve said pretty much all I have to say about this subject,” he said in response to a question. “The public wants to move on.”

Rather? Rather who?

Rather, who refused to allow the Gary Condit story to be mentioned on "his" news program for weeks until the night before his Imus interview.

Rather who said that "..the story is true though the documents are false" concerning the military service of a sitting president who was up for reelection?

Rather who was a bed wetter at Marine Basic Training and got himself thrown out of the Corps and from then on went out of his way to shine negative light on our military whenever possible?

Rather who came as close as possible to performing fellatio while on live TV with Clinton during a so called objective journalistic interview?

That Rather?

I saw a few minutes of Amy(?) of "Democracy Now" (Link TV) interviewing some left wing reporter the other day. I think the guy had a book out or something.

Anyway, he was giving a spiel about how the whole Dan Rather thing was actually a right wing conspiracy; basically a modern day lynching by the cabal of extremist right wing maniacs that actually control the MSM in this country...retaliation for attacking our right wing leader...

I got the impression that this line of thinking may actually be generally accepted amongst our "intellectual superiors."

I doubt that Dan even admits the truth to himself.

I don't think Dan knows he's "disgraced." He acts like what he has to say is still relevant.....somehow.

His arrogance and ego are utterly breathtaking, but not surprising. Another otherwise honorable person who had committed the crimes against his nation and his once-honorable profession as Dan has done would have written a note of sincere apology to all concerned, then taken his favorite Smith and Wesson down to a remote and desolate section of ocean beach at low tide and 'done the 'honorable thing'.

A less-honorable person would have instantly written that same note, dropped entirely out of his profession and the limelight, sold off all of his assets and immediately moved to an impoverished South American country to live out the remainder of his days in quiet obscurity and contemplation.

But Dan, being even less honorable, merely engages in damage control and pretends that nothing has happened.

A sick and disgusting piece of filth who should be an example to all prospective journalists of what NOT to become.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.