Talk:Dan Rather

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Houston This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Greater Houston area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project where you join the group and contribute to the discussion.
Portal:Houston
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Radio Portal
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Criticism vs. Career

I think this article, while purporting to be NPOV, instead presents Rather's career as mostly a few snips here and there with HUGE amounts of criticism. I have no problem with any of the content under criticism, and much of it is very informative. I do have a proposition, however: I think that the article should present a chronological record of his career (starting with field reporter) including his actions and criticisms of his actions. In this way, a reader can walk through his career, find the event they're interested in by era, and be informed in a whole and complete way. As it currently stands, a reader can very easily take criticism out of context without reading anything about what he was doing at the same time he was being criticized. In short, eliminate the "criticisms" section and merge all the material into a chronological article about his career. Clearly, I'd welcome some input or I'm going to see about getting that done. --ABQCat 03:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The wrong emphasis in this article is deeply troubling to me. I read through it every few days, and it bothers me in exactly the same way. It is deeply critical and far too negative to accurately hold an NPOV stance on Dan Rather. Now, I think the following phrase should be something for contributors to think about:

"Rather is one of the most awarded figures within the journalism community. He has received numerous Emmys, several Peabody awards and several honorary degrees from universities."

I propose renaming the criticisms section to Conservative political criticisms or something similar. Reading through each, it's obvious WHO has a problem with Dan Rather, and to remain NPOV I think the article should group them under a larger heading so it's more obvious he's not the most villified man on American television. Also, where necessary, I propose reducing some of the criticisms sections to easier-to-understand paragraphs without reducing any of the substance of WHY the criticisms are leveled or by whom. As this is a sensitive article at the moment (with Killian papers, etc), I wanted to get feedback before doing something that others might oppose. Also, I'd like some ideas for the over-arching criticisms header. --ABQCat 23:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What do his accolades have to do with it? Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize. And actually, I would like to axe substantially all of the quotes section and refer people to WikiQuote, instead. -Joseph (Talk) 04:31, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Is this article really any worse than Brit Hume's? And should Brit Hume have his critism section renamed "Liberal Political Criticism", since those are the only type I see in his article. --signed an Anon

The criticism/career discussion has been stuck in discussion for over two months now. Without further objection, I suggest the creation of a new heading similar to "Journalistic History and Consequences" that directly follows or precedes "Criticism", with the standard format to place it at the primary level of the table of contents. “Journalistic History and Consequences” will hold objective chronological information about Dan Rather’s participation as a journalist in world events as well as the record of audience reaction and consequences of his reporting

Much of the content formerly under “Criticism” is already objective, example:
Later on during the 1980s, Rather gained further renown to some for his forceful and skeptical reporting on the Iran-Contra Affair that eventually led to an on-air confrontation he had with then vice-president George H. W. Bush....This incident was widely believed to have been a notable event in Bush's campaign to win the presidency in the 1988 election.
Also, some material is obviously an element of the “Criticism” category: Example: Old Fashioned.

If nobody else does this in 24 hours. I will do it myself. Nevermind I’m working on it right now. There will be need for further rearranging, but I think this is the first step towards re-obtaining NPOV and people will need to see it to continue working on it. P.S. Please excuse that I was not logged in at the time of the heading edit.Raazer 09:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Thanks for the encouragement, ABQCat. In truth, Lexor and others have now done the majority of good editingRaazer 05:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what you can do with the article. It's going to be a lightning rod for criticism and reversions, though. Trust me - it was like pulling teeth to get SMALL changes made here. I wish you luck and look forward to helping you get this article more in line with the whole IDEA OF NPOV. --ABQCat 07:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

His biography doesn't mention his military service, which is often disputed by fans and pundits. Rather served in the Army reserves during his education at Sam Houston (and the Korean War) and then attempted to join the Marines, but was discharged less than four months later on May 11, 1954 for being medically unfit (for having rheumatic fever as a child.)

This is only significant to critics because Rather frequently criticized Dan Quayle for his lack of military service during Vietnam by joining the reserves. --Jkonrath 22:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton

I've removed the following text from the "Clinton" section of criticisms. "Rather has received criticism for addressing George W. Bush during his presidency as "Mr. Bush," while addressing Bill Clinton during his presidency as "President Clinton."" Is it a real issue that Clinton was addressed as president and Bush as "mr."? I recall many newscasters do use the terms interchangably to avoid repetition (watch the news tonight, it's not uncommon). MR. is a term of respect that can be applied to the man who holds the office of the presidency. Besides that, I'd really like to ascertain WHO has been criticizing Rather for this and on what occassions? Basically, any citation (except, perhaps, Drudge) would be beneficial if this particular "criticism" is to remain in place. --ABQCat 19:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since I requested citation, I'm providing some of my own. David Stout of the New York Times in an objective and NYT edited piece refers to both Mr. and President Bush throughout his article [1]. Just do a google news search for the phrase - it's not uncommon to see it written in objective journalism, why would it be any more unusual to hear on the nightly news? And so what? It's not a term of disrespect, but instead respect. --ABQCat 19:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Old fashioned"

I have restored my edits which were rv'd by Neutrality without discussion. For the record, here is the section as I have it Rex071404 14:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC):

As one of the last people from the era of network news primacy, Rather is highly regarded within his profession by many long-serving journalists. However, others who have since come into the field express dislike for Rather's methods, views and delivery. Some contend that Rather's methods are not traditional, but instead are biased towards a Liberal bent. [2] [3] [4]

Conflict along these lines most recently came to light when he refused to run stories about Chandra Levy, a former intern who went missing for several months before being found dead in a suburban Washington park. During most of the search for Levy, Rather refused to run any stories about the case and routinely condemned his colleagues for giving air time the search for her.

Shortly thereafter in 2002, the American press began focusing on kidnappings (especially of young white girls like Elizabeth Smart). This time, Rather followed suit in reporting the story. His defenders interpreted the move as an indication that Rather's power for traditionalism within CBS News had declined. His critics argued it was another proof of Rather's liberal bias because one of the prime figures in the Levy case was a Democratic congressman, Gary Condit.

Linking to three consecutive right-wing websites - http://www.ratherbiased.com, Newsmax, and MRC - is inappropriate for a factual encyclopedia. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Per your suggestion and our new found consensus, I will restore the text with only one or two links. Thank you Rex071404 14:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another piece of criticism he gets: for twelve years his was the only report publically available on the content of the Zapruder film, and it misled.[5] 142.177.171.175 17:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What basis is there for saying that his audiences either love him or hate him? If there's nothing to back this up, I think the section should be deleted. It doesn't contribute much in it's current form, and the sentiments it contains seem to be better described in the controversy section above it. --Abqwildcat 02:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CBS, Dan Rather and the Bush National Guard papers

I intend to post links and comments about this. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 22:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page as a whole is entirely too kind to Dan Rather. We need to note his persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence. -Joseph 00:40, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't understand the whole concept of NPOV? Yes, Dan Rather has critics, as does George W. Bush and John F. Kerry. The point of a biographical article such as this, however, is not to mount a polemic on the character or actions of the individual. Rather, the point is to present the criticisms others have already made in a way which balances the criticisms with some perhaps better-liked actions. If you don't like Rather, go find some sources which address the reasons for your dislike (or write from your own recollection with sources for citation) about the reasons for your dislike. As an aside, I feel that this article is by far much more negative than most other biographical article I read on Wikipedia - see my previous comments on how I proposed dealing with this. --ABQCat 20:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How about not editing my text on the Talk page? That's extremely rude. Anyhow, I have been adding to the content, though mostly in other related articles. -Joseph 21:16, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
My apologies, I sincerely thought that the superscript was simply a weird little rendering error or a glitch. I meant no disrespect, and do understand. Just curious, why is the th superscripted? It seems like a question you want people to ask, so I'm asking. Again, my sincere apologies. --ABQCat 00:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The superscript is in reference to the controversy that Rather is now embroiled in. On lots of blogs and in some newspapers, he is referred to in that form as a reference to the superscripted "th" in the Killian memos. That was what first made people suspect that the documents might be forgeries. -Joseph 00:58, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
It is sad, however, that the main discussion of viewpoints about Dan Rather in this "60 Minutes/Bush case" begins with a simple case of name-calling. The proliferation of this misnomer only detracts from your statement.
By using a convolution of a term (instead of using the term that is accepted to be the standard) to refer to an object, the reference to the actual object in the world is not preserved. Instead, the convoluted term corresponds only to a fictional entity that is the construction of those who use the convoluted term. Your statement is weak because any of the characteristics you assign to this fictional entity in no way have to answer to reality.Raazer 08:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Additional question - do we have a source other than Drudge for the transcript from CNN, such as CNN itself? I'm wary taking at face value what Drudge publishes (or any other online source) without independant verification. Or has my head been in the sand and this is a widely known and verified transcipt that everyone is talking about? I also think the context of the statement by Rather needs to be put on the article page, such as the question, the answer, and the follow-up. It would underpin the statement very well if it's genuine. --ABQCat 01:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's pretty widely available. Drudge is behind the curve on this one. His main contribution was bringing it to the attention of the conventional media. -Joseph 01:03, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

You know, I'm suprised at the ferver of the attack that seems to be focused on this man. He's proven himself over the years to at the least be a decent reporter and a decent man. I'm wondering what political motivations there could be for this? It's kind of strange to me. None of the other major anchors are receiving this kind of attack, and not for the lack of doing equally stupid things as "withholding names of sources" or "reporting on important documents". Yeah, he'd better back off fast, but if the edits to this page don't start getting a little less ravenous, I think it's going to have to get included under POV problems as too far skewed to the negative to be considered NPOV. Let's get a little balance going, people! --ABQCat 05:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Point in case, check on Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings or even Walter Cronkite. I think this article needs a little more balance and to represent a biographical topic more like these others. --ABQCat 05:24, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps he shouldn't find himself in negative situations so often. -Joseph (Talk) 05:25, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
Look, negative situations? I mean, check Geraldo Rivera's page. The secion on his screw-up in the Iraq war gets half the venom that any individual screw-up or even just criticism gets on this page. I'm just saying, this page is far from NPOV and is skewing even farther to the negative. I don't care if it describes what some people don't like about the man, but right now 1/2 of it is all about what some people don't like, while the rest is a short list of some of the things he did. Is he nothing else but a lightening rod for criticism? He at the least should receive a fair and balance article on Wikipedia.hi --ABQCat 05:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, you can't very well remove what is likely valid criticism, so the only choice would be to add positive information. If we can't find positive information on him to balance it out, then, well, not everyone leads a positive life. -Joseph (Talk) 05:32, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
Granted, not everyone leads a positive life. I think that in retrospect, that'll seem a strange statement about Mr. Rather. I think it's political criticism, and after the election when politics have settled down somewhat, I think we'll see this move more towards NPOV. In the meantime, I think we all need to watch this page to make sure that it doesn't get out of control. As it currently stands, for example, the section on the Bush national guard papers is pretty complete. As more info comes out, perhaps it would make more sense to briefly update it here? Wikipedia isn't all about current info, afterall. In fact it's not very well suited to that sort of information because people see many "truths" all around them and reflect that bias more in current events than other types of articles. Just remember, this article is about a man, not about whether or not Bush served in the National guard or whether republicans like Rather or not. --ABQCat 05:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree on that point. We should try to keep the info about the Bush paper to a minimum on this page, and shunt most information about his (very significant) role to the Killian memos page. -Joseph (Talk) 05:41, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
No denying his role - he broke what I think most people consider the cardinal rule of journalism: Don't make the story about YOU. I think this will all play out for quite a while. So, let's update briefly on significant portions of his role HERE (e.g. more interviews, etc) while putting current events about the papers on Killian memos page. --ABQCat 05:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Wall Within

The Wall Within section seems to have little to do with Rather other than the fact that he hosted the program. From previous edits, I gather there was some criticism of the program, but I don't know if he was personally criticised as a result. Was he even managing editor of CBS News at that time (1988)? I also think that it may fit better under not "Criticisms" but under a section about his history of reporting at CBS (the main biographical/career section, for example) if there's not going to be more written about WHY that event was a criticised event in his career. I don't want the article to be overly negative, but if it's criticism, it needs to actually criticise otherwise it's just biographical and is badly placed in the article. --ABQCat 21:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Move it to CBS News or CBS Evening News, and create a rant section like I did for 60 Minutes. -Joseph (Talk) 04:27, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

[edit] george bush

hasn't NBC now admitted that those documents were fake? time for an update, this alone is one of the biggest challenges of his career, if he wants to keep it.

Hey, anon, NBC admitted what? Rather works for CBS. And as for the documents, I don't know the newest info as it's not being put on this page. It's going on Killian memos page. Thanks for the question, though. --ABQCat 00:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I guess he was on top of it. I've added the quote from the Killian memos page and Rather's own quote from the CBSNews.com page. If some deletion is required (shortening the quotes, for example), I'd have no problem, but I felt that putting the entire context of his apology on the page was in order. Discussion and changes welcome, no problem by me with changes to the content as long as the apology remains a part of the resolution of the issue on the article page. --ABQCat 01:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Queen of the Space Unicorns

That's not vandalism. ;) They perhaps should have come up with a better way of mentioning it, but it is a popular joke: http://jimtreacher.com/archives/000958.html -Joseph (Talk) 20:51, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)


[edit] Neutrality Dispute

I previously knew nothing about Daniel Rather - I am a British person here for research purposes, and found this article to be highly critcal of the man... the heading 'Criticisms of Rather' is not matched by any positive comments - indeed, other sections seem to contain more criticisms. If he is so widely and unopposedly criticised, why has he been CBS news anchor for 24 years? It seems to me that there is a massive bias to the article and therefore I dispute the neutrality of it. As such, I added the appropriate tag. --Mysteronald 22:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please point out specifically what is biased and what should be added or deleted. Rather is a controversial figure and has received much praise as well as criticism. Many conservatives also wonder why he has been CBS news anchor for 24 years. Carrp 04:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not that there's any specifically erroneous piece of information. It's the sheer balance of it all. When a large portion of the article is negative/critical on a largely normal person, there's a neutrality problem. It's also criticism that comes FROM a specific point of view (POV) - the conservative right. --ABQCat 04:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll tell you what. You dig up some actual good the man has done and you can throw it in the article. Not that you need my permission—I'm just saying. -Joseph (Talk) 05:42, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
The neutrality problem here is not tied to whether or not I choose to further research Dan Rather and find some "actual good the man has done" - its that the article makes no effort to explore that at all. He's been a reporter for many many years, anchored the CBS evening news for a really long time - if he was bad at it or not accomplished, I think CBS would have pushed him out the door a long time ago. He HAS done actual good - the article just chooses to focus on the negative and controversy. Hence the POV dispute. --ABQCat 10:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You act as if merely the act of being an anchorman makes him a saint. Also, maybe CBS didn't push him out because they had a hand in his bias and ineptitude. -Joseph (Talk) 19:02, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
There is clearly a excessive conservative(republican) edit on this article. I have gone thru it and on article 2.6 there was a link to hipublics and how they were able to reproduce the edit. This is completely unnecessary. 1) there is more than enough information on the killian memos link. 2) a link to a clearly pro republican website goes against the "neutral point of view"
I thought I was clear - I am not judging that anything in the article is incorrect, and I don't personally know anything about Rather apart from what is listed here: I am British and I have never watched CBS. I am not in a position to remove or add anything from the article.
However, the article has a subheading "Criticisms of Rather" which suggests that there ought to be some of the opposite - "Praise of Rather" - although there is none or very little. --Mysteronald 19:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking

Isn't it a bit premature to consider Rather the second-most watched news anchor, behind only Jennings? I think there might be quite a few viewers loyal to Brokaw who will continue watching NBC Nightly News with Williams. I'm changing the text to "Rather was the third most highly watched anchor behind Jennings of ABC News and Brokaw of NBC News (before Brokaw's retirement on December 1, 2004)". At least until the ratings come out with all 3 of the anchors. --ABQCat 06:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the wording "third most". There are only three. He would be last. Mike H 06:25, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Third of the three major broadcast networks. You can't forget CNN, Fox (my local Fox - not Fox News - station carries a FOX News evening news feed), and all the other cable and perhaps future broadcast newscasts. It should be timeless and timely at the same time - so I support leaving reference to third, though we could certainly change the wording to "of the three broadcast networks". I oppose "last" because it has a decidedly slanted and NPOV meaning that accompanies it - and we're already working under an NPOV warning here. --ABQCat 06:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nah, looked it up. Jennings, Brokaw, and Rather are three highest watched - above any cable news broadcast anchor. Can specify broadcast anchor, but he's third most watched of both a) broadcast anchors and b) ALL television news anchors. --ABQCat 06:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

It would really be nice if someone can actually list all his emmies and "awards" and their categories.

[edit] Heroin?

Elsewhere in the 'pedia we claim that he requested to be injected with heroin for a story. Can anyone confirm this? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:29, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's all over the web. The claim is that he admitted it in an interview with Ladies' Home Journal in July 1980. The original interview does not appear to be digitalized on the web but there are enough secondary references [6], and no refutations, that I think it's well sourced enough to include, which I've done. - Sednar (talk · contribs)

[edit] Fox News Sunday with Trump

Donald Trump said Dan Rather once did a "kind of dishonest" report on him, when was that?--213.238.212.98 22:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In 1987 according to news item at yahoo.news today. Trump said he would have fired him then. Johnwhunt 19:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings Overrated

The sentence about declining ratings is repeated. The first instance should be removed. It would hardly be a fair summary statement of Mark Twain to comment on the waning sales of his later books. If it is not fair for Mark Twain, it is not fair for Dan Rather.

  • umm what??? That is a ridiculous argument. He was a consistent #3 since the late 80s!!!

[edit] B.G. Burkett and Bill Burkett

There was a reference to Bill Burkett under both The Wall Within and The Killian Incident, which indicates they are the same person. B.G. Burkett was not in the Texas National Guard. He served in Vietnam in the 199th Light Infantry Brigade and was decorated. He's a stockbroker from Dallas. Bill Burkett was in the Texas National Guard and the souce of Rather's documents on Bush/Killian. I changed the Wall Within section and added Glenna Whitley, B. G. Burkett's co-author not previously referred. She is neither B. G. Burkett nor Bill Burkett. Johnwhunt 15:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Killian Documents Scandal was a Scandal

Any attempt to whitewash the scandal and say it wasn't a scandal is an example of POV. A Google search of Killian Documents Scandal yields 16,000 results. A scandal is a scandal is a scandal. Sadly POV continues to rear its ugly head here. --Agiantman 15:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And if any source of information can be relied to prove neutrality based on a slightly related number, it's Google. Just because a point of view is popular doesn't mean it's neutral. Lord Bob 06:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oh sure! Everyone else on the planet (except Lord Bob & Gamaliel) maybe using the word "scandal" with "Killian documents" to reflect their bias. But then again, isn't it possible that Lord Bob and Gamaliel are simply POVer's who will rewrite history to salvage the image of disgraced liberal icons? Interestingly, Gamaliel also reverted one of my edits on the Bill Clinton article earlier this month. There he inserted a line to contend that there was "no corroborating evidence" to Juanita Broaddrick's rape claims. This despite five people have stated that Broaddrick told them about the rape shortly after it occurred. It should be pretty clear who is inserting POV here and who is not. --Agiantman 12:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is important to add that the word scandal is used in the body of the document, and Dan Rather is listed under the wikipedia article "List of Journalism scandals" Like it or not, it was a scandal. "if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."-Dan Rather. He used documents that had questionable origins, and it ultimately cost him his position at CBS. Hence, scandal. - Anon

Well, people saying that somebody told them about a rape isn't evidence. I could tell you that Bill Clinton just broke into my room and smashed up the place, that doesn't make it true. But that's neither here nor there. For one thing, I'm a Canadian, so Dan Rather isn't an icon to me. For another thing, I voted for the Conservative Party in the last election, and for another thing, considering that my number of edits of 'scandal -> controversy' in this article currently stand at zero, if I am revising history for the benefit of Mr. Rather I kinda suck at it. And, again, just because a lot of people repeat a POV doesn't make it not a POV. You could find billions of people who think that Stalin was a bad man, and in my opinion they'd be right, but that doesn't mean you put "Stalin was a bad man." at the top of the Wikipedia article. Lord Bob 18:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how i feel on the matter, but I do take issue with justifying a position through google results. I already posted this on Killian talk, but seeing as we're having the identical discussion, might as well post it here.

Ironically, Agiantman's justification of a google search leads:

By your google justification, controversy would be more appropriate. I'm not sure why you wouldn't look that up before you use google to justify. --kizzle 20:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you want it to say scandal, just find someone who called it such, source it, and put it in. Personally I don't care either way. -bro 172.136.12.145 23:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Definition of scandal: the disclosure and public indignation of inappropriate behaviour by a public figure. Definition of controversy : a dispute where there is strong disagreement There is no controversy. Documents were used that were not authenticated. Where is the controversy? No one is arguing that they are not fake documents; everyone seems to agree on that. Was it the disclosure and public indignation of inappropriate behaviour? Yes. Quite so. Scandal is clearly the proper word here. - Anon

The controversy, in the context of this article about Dan Rather, is not 'were the documents fake', but 'how much responsibility does Dan Rather bear?' That is a controversy. Lord Bob 21:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, there may be controversy, but the scandal is what is most relevant here. -Anon • Okay, we don't want an edit war here. Having the words scandal and controversy is a pretty good compromise, and it neither helpful nor constructive to have whitewashers constantly reverting away the scandal. - Anon

How on earth is such a loaded and overwrought section title like "Scandal and Controversy" a compromise of any sort? Gamaliel 17:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Loaded? Overwrought? Okay, we'll just have "Scandal" - Anon

There was a scandal, alright, but it's not quite what most people believe.... In any case, while I have little interest in this article overall, I do have some regarding the topic of the Killian Documents and have been tidying up some references to them in other wiki articles. The change I made on the main fixed some false wording regarding Word recreations -- only one of the three memos was recreated in Word at all well, and even then only to an untrained eye. I also added a reference to Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, who was the one responsible for the animated GIF of that one Word recreation that got widely circulated. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 15:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

The "car burglarized" section was copied and pasted from the website that is cited without re-writing into the person's own words.69.134.50.153 14:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ethnic backround?

Whats Dans ethinc backround? I heard somewhere that he is Jewish. Can this be confirmed?

JJstroker 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth

I removed the following

Many other theories existed about why Rather was attacked; one theory even linked the event to the KGB, the CIA, and Soviet television broadcasts. [7] New York authorities have never charged anyone in relation to the crime.

After asking for a source, the provided source is the REM internet FAQ. For one thing, it doesn't mention the KGB or CIA, just a TV technician who worked with Rather on broadcasts from the Soviet Union; second, even if it did mention the CIA and KGB its hardly a reliable source for that kind of speculation; thirdly, since Rather himself has identified an apparently mentally disturbed CBS stagehand as the attacker, this speculation seems highly pointless and un-encyclopedic in nature. Thatcher131 03:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment about ratings in introduction

The comment is directed to 65.80.23.138 (talk · contribs). The main reason I am reverting you is that the information you want to include ("CBS Evening News dropped from first to last in the network news ratings during his tenure") is already in the article in the biography section. Selecting that particular bit of information and no other to repeat in the introduction is unneccessary. It falls under POV, I believe, because one could just as easily write "Rather rose to national prominence during his coverage of the Kennedy assassination," (very positive), or "Rather embarrassed himself by walking off the set" (very negative) or "Rather was known for his peculiar folksy sayings, especially during election night coverage" (just plain silly). I don't believe that the introduction should single out any one aspect of his career, positive or negative. Thatcher131 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment to 68.217.162.29 (talk · contribs) I'm sorry, I don't understand the point of your edit to Dan Rather. You added "when the program was in last place in the network ratings" at the bottom of the paragraph. However, the top of the same paragraph it says,

At the end of Rather's career, the CBS Evening News had fallen to a distant third place in terms of viewership. Although still garnering some 7 million viewers each evening, the broadcast was behind NBC Nightly News and ABC World News Tonight.

Aside from any issues of point of view, it makes for a poorly written article to repeat the same thing twice in the paragraph. Do you want to remove the first two sentences and replace them with your version at the end? Thatcher131 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving CBS

Should the release (or parts of) by CBS news and Dan Rathers response be placed in the aritcle?

Dan Rather leaving CBS News, was announced by Sean McManus, President, CBS News and Sports.

"Of all the famous names associated with CBS News, the biggest and brightest on the marquee are Murrow, Cronkite and Rather," said McManus. "With the utmost respect, we mark the extraordinary and singular role Dan has played in writing the script of not only CBS News, but of broadcast journalism. There will always be a part of Dan Rather at CBS News. He is truly a 'reporter's reporter' and he has helped to train several generations of broadcast journalists. His legacy cannot be replicated."

"For more than four decades, Dan Rather has approached the job of broadcast journalist with a singular passion, dedication and, always, an unwavering desire to tell the story to the American public," said Leslie Moonves, President and Chief Executive Officer, CBS Corp. "The unique mark he has left on his craft is indelible."

"CBS News is currently finalizing plans for a primetime special on the newsman's legendary career at CBS News. It is scheduled to be broadcast sometime this fall. CBS News also will make a contribution to Rather's alma mater, now called Sam Houston State University."

Dan Rathers release:

"I appreciate the words and gestures contained in today's press release by CBS.

I leave CBS News with tremendous memories. But I leave now most of all with the desire to once again do regular, meaningful reporting. My departure before the term of my contract represents CBS's final acknowledgement, after a protracted struggle, that they had not lived up to their obligation to allow me to do substantive work there. As for their offers of a future with only an office but no assignments, it just isn't in me to sit around doing nothing. So I will do the work I love elsewhere, and I look forward to sharing details about that soon."

references


I added two items to the Retirement from CBS section. First, I changed the phrase "will work" with HDNet to "resumed" work with HDNet because Rather now officially works for them. Second, Rather, as a journalist for HDNet, has contributed to The Chris Matthews Show as a political commentator.

[edit] External Links

Someone keeps adding a Rotten.com bio for Dan Rather to the page, there's no point in it being there. It's just link clutter. Everything on that tiny bio is covered in the article. Rotten.com is hardly a site that meets the WP:EL standards, too. It has nothing to do with POV, I don't like Dan at all as a journalist, never did, never will. I just hate link clutter @ Wiki. --EmmSeeMusic 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything is not covered. Just glancing at the bio I spotted several items not covered in this article. Gamaliel 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can security officers make an arrest?

Yes, they can. They do it all the time. Anybody in the U.S. can make a citizens' arrest before calling the cops. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] marines?

there is no mention of rather in the marine corp. bernie goldberg mentions that rather claimed that he signed up with the marines twice. Keltik31 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Married?

It mentions a duaghter but was he, is he married? grandchilden?

[edit] Immigration Claim

I'm removing:

"Rather worked as the upkeeper of a immigration containment camp in southern Illinois. In 1952, after the famous mass murders of the immigrant children, Rather saw the err in his ways and destroyed the camp with flame and hate."

I looked a bit and couldn't find a citation. It seems very strange. Please add this to the article if you have a citation.--'oac' (old american century) | Talk 04:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Add Journalist infobox however more info needs to be filled in. -- DoingMyPart 07:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Current info looks... horrible. Jauerback 20:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Document content

Yesterday, I added a statement to the end of the Killian documents section, based on an article at Salon.com, by the highly respected journalist and former advisor to President Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal. I appropriately cited the article. I wrote: "It should also be noted that no one has stepped forward to contradict the actual content of the allegedly forged documents. The White House itself did not deny the veracity of the content of the documents. And the content has been extensively corroborated by other sources." These are simply statements of facts, relevant to the Killian documents themselves. Yet this statement was subsequently deleted. I do not understand why. It seems perfectly relevant to note that despite the widespread debate about the documents being forged, their actual content has not been contradicted and has been corroborated widely. If the Wikipedia article remains as it stands, just discussing the documents as a forgery, it contributes to the impression that the content itself of the documents is false, because they are forgeries. This makes the Wikipedia article not at all objective. Rather the article serves the clear agenda of one political faction in the U.S. to focus attention on the documents as forgeries as a way of discrediting the whole story about President Bush's service in the National Guard. In fact, it is an important and interesting element of the Killian documents, as noted in the Blumenthal article. If the documents are forgeries, why did somebody forge the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.242.145 (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The main articles about the documents are the two articles about the Killian documents. (SEWilco 04:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Notes on Killian documents section

I added "Citation Needed" markers for some some unverified statements and also in place of an inappropriate cite, a CBS panel report appendix on typewriters that was used as a cite for the term "Rathergate". -BC aka Callmebc 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that a Washington Post article was cited and included with the National Review and Little Green Footballs as having that "repeatedly claimed that the documents are forgeries that were created in Microsoft Word and then repeatedly photocopied or faxed to make them look aged"; however, the Post article cited makes no such claim, and apparently even also the National Review piece cited. Since it was really a Free Republic blog post and Little Green Footballs primarly making these claims, I used an appropriate Free Republic ref in place of the Post and National Review refs. -BC aka Callmebc 14:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete sourced material. (SEWilco 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that "sourced material" means that when a claim is made in a Wikipedia article, as in this case that The Washington Post was among those that "repeatedly claimed that the documents are forgeries that were created in Microsoft Word and then repeatedly photocopied or faxed to make them look aged," there should be an accompanying cite/ref showing that's what the Washington Post actually claimed. This cite is only a comparison between the Killian documents, actually technically "memorandums for record" to other types of documents (but not memos) from Bush's records at the DoD. The cite makes no mention of anything remotely along the lines of the documents being "forgeries that were created in Microsoft Word and then repeatedly photocopied or faxed to make them look aged". Hence, it's an invalid cite. If you can find a more applicable one, then of course that would allow for inclusion.
You may wish to review Wikipedia policies regarding all this at WP:PROVEIT, WP:BLP and here. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 15:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Rather's Photo

I'm not exactly a fan, but the prior photo was obviously chosen because it was unflattering, and it was getting on my nerves. I replaced it with a shot taken at his last day at CBS. Whatever you may feel, don't let politics make things cruel and tacky just for the sake of being cruel and tacky. -BC aka Callmebc 01:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous photo has a free license. You'll have to ask the contributors why they chose that photo. (SEWilco 03:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Dan Rather, Charlie Wilson, and the Soviet Afghanistan War

Should some mention be made of the impact of Dan Rather's reporting from Afghanistan, specifically in regards to Charlie Wilson and eventual US secret involvement? By all accounts, like this for example, it was Rather's televised reporting that moved Charlie Wilson to maneuver the US government to secretly arm the Afghan rebels, which apparently lead directly to the Soviet's eventual defeat. This seems not a small matter. The current article entry, "During the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Rather was on camera wearing a traditional Mujahadeen headdress and garments while reporting from near the front lines. These reports helped Rather gain prominence with the Evening News audience (and the nickname "Gunga Dan"; Rather's reports were also spoofed by the comic strip Doonesbury)," not only makes no reference to any of this, but seems to trivialize Rather's Afghanistan reports. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do the book Charlie Wilson's War, the movie, or historians consider Rather's report to be significantly influential? Or is a Pakistani refugee camp considered a significant influence? -- SEWilco (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Apparently Charlie Wilson first became aware of the plight of the Afghan rebels when he saw one of Dan Rather's reports, and that was what got him motivated to look into matters further. It would appear then that Afghanistan bit in the article needs to be updated a wee bit. Actually the entire article is a bit of mess, but I have too many things on my plate already to spend much time on it. I'll correct the Afghanistan stuff, though, in a couple of days if there is no substantial objection. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected, I added the Wilson bit, and I as well replaced the Citation Missing tag regarding him wearing sweater with an NY Times ref that refers to it. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The horseshoes and hand grenades remark is NOT a "Ratherism"

And it shouldn't be degraded as such by being associated with him. I'd bet it's older, but the GySgt. at Parris Island, as portrayed by (R.) Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket (1987).Steven (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a common phrase, not one notably by Rather. Removed. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King Features S.

Mabye there is more than one, but that is a newspaper comics outfit, somebody's idea of a joke, it needs to be deleted, Dan Rather likey is not writing for the funny papers. 71.114.181.145 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow the link to the Syndicate's article and read about what they do. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)