that it just was not verified?
There was no proof whatsoever that any of his information was wrong or incorrect!
2007-02-23 03:08:00 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
It was well known that Bu**sh** was a spineless chickenhawk even before Rather's broadcast, and what we've learnt since has only verified the fact that he was AWOL.
Rather had the facts, but he didn't get unquestionable verification. That was his mistake, and in a time of kneejerk reaction by political reactionaries, it ended his time on CBS.
If Rather had been in the chair for only 10 years instead of more than 25, he might have toughed it out and stayed. But given that it was an open secret that he planned to leave within two years, he bowed out early.
.
2007-02-23 03:51:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
In News reporting , the rule isn't whether or not proof of incorrectness can be established, it is whether or not the information is, in fact, verifiable. At least that used to be the rule, but nowadays I am not so sure there is a "code of ethics" anymore in news reporting, particularly by the drive by media.
2007-02-23 03:16:43 · answer #2 · answered by cappy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Former CBS anchor Dan Rather got a little too big for his breeches. He thought he could tackle the Bush candidacy with unverifiable documents about Bush's time spent with the Air National Guard. Not to defend Bush, but Rather thought he and his staff had a Watergate type scoop in the works. As you probably know, Rather and his staff got set up and duped. It was like a Texas showdown and Bush beat Rather to the draw. Thus the end of Rather's pompous, pretentious journalism as religion career.
2007-02-23 03:18:56 · answer #3 · answered by mac 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't think CBS should have gotten away with it. Just because they did fire Rather doesn't change the fact that the damage had already been done.
George Bush should have sued the pants off of them all and the FCC should have revoked CBS's broadcast license!
2007-02-23 04:22:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
When doing news, you must verify that all sources to be true, and factual.
2007-02-23 03:12:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What difference did it make The guy was biased. He essentially became a political hack for the Dems --- that in itself is a reason for him to have been discredited
2007-02-23 03:19:23 · answer #6 · answered by vincepram 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋