2007-09-20 03:24:35 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
It certainly seemed that way to me too.
2007-09-20 03:27:08 · answer #1 · answered by ♪ Pamela ♫ 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Without a doubt,the Bush and big money people wanted someone in the spotlight on the networks that went along with the far right and Bush way of thinking.
CBS has a general rule of thumb,has always been labeled a little "left" by political pundits. This was a step in a different direction by the network executives to help with their ratings to try and sell the American public with the idea that CBS is not a leftist news bureau.
Unfortunately,Dan Rather was liked by many people ,and we was and still is a very objective news journalist.
He deserves more than the 70 million he is asking for.
2007-09-20 10:31:21 · answer #2 · answered by Dfirefox 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Somewhat...But I also think that he being the man that he is that he would have faced this problem when it occurred. I think I might have mixed thoughts about this subject. I love Dan Rather but this is a matter than has long been, so why now? Idk...maybe I need more info before I really make a decision either way.
2007-09-20 20:04:18 · answer #3 · answered by Lea 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dan Rather was a notorious left winger and made appearances at Democratic fundraisers. Even when he was plainly told the story was incorrect, he pushed it.
He reaped what he sowed and now he tastes the bitter wine of incompetency and unprofessional journalism. He is a sad reminder that both sides of the aisle have a whole lot of partisan reporters.
The difference is Dan Rather pretended he wasn't biased.
2007-09-20 10:32:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't be surprised. He was the anchor and read the stories presented. How many of those did he actually do the legwork on?
With the turnover of old anchors on the other networks it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they tried to get Rather out of there intentionally to bring in new blood. Then again... if that is the case, see how good that worked out.
Sad thing is, Bob Schieffer is better than both of 'em, IMO.
2007-09-20 10:34:31 · answer #5 · answered by RoscoeLaw 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, yes and no.
I believe he was set up as the fall guy when the flagrant anti-Bush campaign of the network went awry. However, I also believe that he gleefully presented a story that he knew to be ill researched because he was a very willing participant in the great Bush witch hunt.
2007-09-20 10:33:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. I think Dan Rather is a 75 year-old crybaby that got his rattle taken away.
Bold and smart move by CBS to can him, in my opinion.
2007-09-20 10:29:34 · answer #7 · answered by Oklahoman 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes i do, if CBS didn't think the story had any merit they could have pulled the plug on it, but now when the forces that be don't like it and want satisfaction, guess who's going to get f' ed, the producer and anchorman.
2007-09-20 10:35:01 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He had a hand in his demise. He has editing rights prior to filing a story to report. He didn't edit or edited poorly for the sensation aspect of the report.
2007-09-20 10:31:44 · answer #9 · answered by My Final Answer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. It is one of the many examples of pressure being applied by the current administration to "spin" the nefarious goings on. More and more of this type of information will be revealed between now and the next presidential election in 2008.
2007-09-20 10:29:52 · answer #10 · answered by Superman at 71 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
possibly, but not 70 million dollars scapegoated.
2007-09-20 10:27:36 · answer #11 · answered by Britt 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋