He’d Rather blog
Dave Winer interviews Dan Rather and reports that he may blog. He says CBS discourages that now.
This is a case for Public Eye: What’s the policy for journalists blogging at CBS? If Rather wants to blog, will you set one up for him?
I was told sometime ago that Rather was considering blogging in the midst of Rathergate. If he had — if he had faced the people who added information to his story — he might still be employed today. No, blogging is not a cure-all. But dealing directly with people who know more than you is.
: Dave also reports that Rather choked up when talking about Edward R. Murrow. Perhaps he just regrets that George Clooney won’t make a movie about him.
Tags: journalism, Weblogs
April 26th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Dan you are already setup at fastblogit and i certainly applaud your contribution to the blogosphere in whatever venue you choose.
April 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
“if he had faced the people who added information to his story — he might still be employed today”
You really think, Jeff, that Rather and his sidekick Mapes desired transparency? Input from the public at large on their big bombshell project? I think not.
Their suspiciously agenda-driven and hardly reliable sources for that hit piece would have made a person of integrity walk away or vett the story better. And, that’s before the MSFT Word snafu blew up. They admitted a need to rush the story to the airwaves before an election. Damning enough?
Too bad the arrogant fool didn’t choke up during a nationalized apology to the object of his duplicity, as well as the innocent audience he had planned to dupe.
Rather will never publically blog. It takes original talent, informality, honest inquiry and humility. His anchor career as a glorified weather announcer would hardly have given him those skills. He’s a nothing, as so many of his ilk are, after you scratch the surface.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Well, Lucy Ramirez is still “Out of Sight.”
April 26th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Dan Rather should have some interesting observations on his blog.
—————–
DRMPro.net: http://www.drmpro.net
—————–
April 26th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Rather lost all credibility with me long ago. Whether he blogs matters not a hoot.
Showing interest in him on any level just shows that the public does not learn its lessons well. His biases interfered with his job. This was not a singular instance. Some of us actually tuned him out. He has had longevity, but not integrity.
Why the hell should we care if he is still spewing?
April 26th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Five bucks says if he “blogs” he won’t allow reader comments or publish and respond to much reader email, or link much to other blogs other than MSM blogs.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Dave Winer provides insufficient evidence for his assertion.
Then again, if Rather did engage in mutual conversation, then we might know what Dan actually thinks of what Dave says he thinks of what Dan might have said….
April 27th, 2006 at 8:15 am
Dan Rather may not be able to maintain an ‘aura’ on a blog, and no, he pro’ly wouldn’t allow comments. I can’t see some one from his era of talking heads being able to enter into the conversation that blogs require. The blog’s functionality would be interesting to track. It would no doubt provide an outlet for the many who look for places to fling charges about.
April 27th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
[...] Illustrating the point that even the best blog can occasionally be pointlessly snarky, this post on Jeff Jarvis’s Buzzmachine takes a bit of a turn sideways when Jeff ends his thoughts on Dan Rather with this nicely constructed cheap shot: Dave also reports that Rather choked up when talking about Edward R. Murrow. Perhaps he just regrets that George Clooney won’t make a movie about him. Yeah, that wasn’t exactly what I would describe as an exactly nice and/or fair shot, but hey, it’s not as if there are a lot of people in the blogosphere lining up in the “Dan isn’t such a bad guy” camp. More… Posted by: Rick Ellis on Apr 27, 06 | 5:06 pm | Profile [0] comments (0 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks [...]
April 27th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Geez, Weblog, Rather and Mapes and their bogus “fake, but accurate” documents were the original pileroners and you really want us to step back and cut them some slack?
How about the cheap shot directed at Bush, the crux of this whole affair? Or are you one of those moonbat Neandertals still not getting the forged documents and the abuse of journalistic ethics?
Trying to rehabilitate Dan Rather is a fool’s chore.
Snark? Ever watch a Mapes interview since her dismissal?
April 28th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
If Rather had waited until the midst of Rathergate to start blogging he would have been more quickly exposed as unable to respond to his critics. He and Mapes live in a fantasy world and it would have shown.
And while Clooney may not make a movie glorifying Rather, some future Hollywood lib may well film some revisionist history. After all that’s what Good Night and Good Luck was.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Obviously my recent server move has caused some posting weirdness, but I’m “weblog.”
I wasn’t arguing that anyone should cut Rather, Mapes or anyone else “some slack.”
What I was arguing that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t complain that even if Rather blogged, he wouldn’t permit comments, while at the same time taking cheap shots at him or simply dismissing him as a liar or a fraud. That’s not exactly the way to conduct an online discussion.
I’m not a Rather apologist, and I’m not trying to “rehabilitate” him. But I am saying is that if you want someone to have a conversation about their opinions (and I’m taking people at their words that is what they would want in this case), then you have to actually be willing to listen. Especially if you think he’s full of crap.
Hey, if you’ve made up your mind, that’s fine. But it strikes me that’s the same closed mind behavior that irritates people about Rather.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
[...] Should Dan Rather blog? I like the idea. Why not get some journalists in the blogosphere? Maybe they can tell other journalists that it isn’t so bad, eh? [...]
June 20th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
I am an 80 year old veteran of WW2. I remember the days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite very well. They were men of integrity. To put Rather in the same category as these illustrious journalists is absolutely ridiculous. Good riddance to Dan Rather, a person with absolutely zero credibility or honesty.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Dan Rather is an arrogant, mean man who ruined thousands of careers. He inherited a number one news division and thew it into number three, where it remained throughout his “tenure.” I know of one correspondent who actually had a curse put on Rather in Haiti. Probably worked.