Comments on: Dan Rather: Journalism has 'lost its guts'

In South by Southwest speech, the renowned broadcaster says his profession is in a "perilous state," despite Internet's ability to illuminate.
Photos: Rather speaks to SXSW crowd

[melwelch]

Rather, Rather Disguises The Drop in Press Faith

Rather does not truly believe faith has been lost in Journalism because they have "lost [their] guts;" rather he covers for the true impetus for the Press' perceived lost integrity.

Patriotism, shmatriotism - Americans have at their fingers the daily ability to match what the Press says against what is actually occuring. Whether it be the forged documents that Rather attempted to pass off as truth, the faux-photographs Reuters does the same with, or the AP's constantly revised - but unacknowledged - stories of massacre in Iraq; Americans can compare what is passed on to us with what is actually occuring.

The press' zealous safeguarding of their position as the conduit of "truth" and information has placed them in a fiduciary position to the purveyors of that information - that of truthful trustees. But they have abused their position in an attempt to mold and direct the sensibilities of the American people.

While the Press' role was protected and obfuscated from perception when only the 3 big-networks existed up to the 90s, it is no longer possible. Thus, you have the movement of "activism journalism," a movement that really began in the 70s, but now seeks earnest recognition as a bona fide role of modern-day journalism. That's why you see Rolling Stone articles calling Keith Olbermann the "Most Honest Journalist ever," or the USA Today and CNN articles talking about the honorable undertaking by activist journalists and their different pet projects.

The problem is that when a journalist takes a position on an item of contention, what is "truth" or "right" is being translated to the consumer rather than the contention itself. Thus, the "global warming" controversy is no controversy at all, despite the continuing quarrelsome disagreement between "experts," and not just oil-company apologists and socialist agendists.

Americans, despite my sometimes distaste for their choices, tend to be an educated and thoughtful people. The principles underlying this great experiment in self-governance are intertwined deeply into the American consciousness and subconsciousness, and inform and direct our choices. When we realize that we have been hoodwinked and lied to by those who are supposed to give us the food that informs our decisions (read: Journalists), we LOSE OUR FAITH IN THEM. The idea that we lost faith in them because they "won't ask the tough questions," is bullsh*t. They don't ask any questions, and refuse to give us the 4-1-1 on what's going on - Rather, Rather, give us "the scoop," and save the shovel for your personal perusal on your own time.

[RandyLado]

Rather & cBS = Lies and Forgeries

thank god that old liar Rather is off the mainstream news, he
was nothing but a rotten old liar

[rockstarstatus]

Facts? Where are they?

I love how blow-hards throw accusations around like this with nothing behind it. It's such a strong, hot wind it dries my hair in the morning.

[ArMilani]

And now, the REST of the story

?Rather left CBS last year in the wake of a scandal surrounding questionable documentation for a story accusing President George Bush of being absent without leave during his military service.?
No, the scandal was that Dan Rather created false documents intended to attack and discredit President Bush and was caught in the act. Dan knows what he did but he does not possess the integrity to admit it.

?One reason for that, Rather said, is that a sense has developed that questioning power, especially at a time of war, is perceived as unpatriotic or unsupportive of America's fighting troops.?
That's "a very serious charge in this country," Rather said.?
"We've brought it on ourselves," he added, "partly because we've lost the sense that patriotic journalists will be on his or her feet asking the tough questions. My role as a member of the press is to be sometimes a check and balance on power."
No, again Dan mis-characterizes his role due to his feelings of arrogance and his obvious leaning to a Leninist philosophy. The issue is not one of ?questioning power? or being ?perceived as unpatriotic? (which he is) or ?asking tough questions.? The issue is that the sole job of a ?journalist? is to report what actually is happening. The truth. Period. First of all, Dan would not recognize the truth if it fell on him, as he is too busy attempting to spread his Leninist philosophy. Secondly, everything he does and says is filtered through that philosophy. What ultimately happens? A flood of misdirection printed in the mainstream (left wing) press.
?Rather reiterated the journalist's role as a watchdog.?
"Not as an attack dog...But what does the lapdog do, he just crawls into someone's lap," he said. "A good watchdog barks at everything that's suspicious. I submit to you, the American press' role is to be a watchdog."
No, again Dan, the American press? role should be ONLY to tell the truth. And that is not happening. The press these days is relegated to being nothing more than a socialist propaganda outlet that lives by the idea that if you print enough lies frequently enough, that ordinary citizens will soon be unable to recognize the truth. It is working with a great number of people in the Democratic party, whose leadership has been hijacked by the Socialist left. However, there are still millions of Americans that recognize truth, which is the reason that the left wing news media is experiencing decreased viewers and readers all over America.

[sjaaksken]

where have you learned your philosophy

You keep accusing Rather of being a Leninist philosopher. Quite frankly you describe anything that's considered 'leftist' as the same as 'communist'. You seem to have developped a serious left-o-phobia. You have all political parties, philosophies and history so mixed up in your primal fear for everything that is not part of your pretty narrow minded view on the whole matter.

First of all, a democracy normally consists of dozens of political tastes, most of them leaning to "the center"= a mix of left and right wing. You have "left" (socialist), right (conservative/liberal), far left(communist) and far right(fascist). In between center/left and center/right is the base of a democracy, you'll find the biggest part of the population in that area. In your view a democracy exists of one party (yours) which is in reality the definition of dictatorship.

You must be far gone estimating Rather as far left. Makes me think you have no clue what so ever what Leninist philosophy might even be, or even having read a book about politics at all. You also clearly put the word 'left' always near a negative word

eg.: ["misdirection printed in the mainstream (left wing) press"/press is nothing more than a socialist propaganda outlet that only prints lies/leadership hijacked by Socialist left/people recognise the truth that's why left wing media is experiencing decreased viewers and readers= left wing only lies]

I mean if you really wanted to flaw your position as a neutral, objective, unprejudiced commentator than you have done an excellent job.

By no means I'm implying you have to agree with what Rather says. But if you don't at least get your facts right, political history and make some well constructed logical arguments. Telling people left wings are liars because they're leftists is not an argument, it's a dogma. Leave out the dogma's and there's not much left of your rhetorics.

I do much agree on the fact that journalists must tell the truth and nothing but the truth. But demanding the truth and than calling everyone that doesn't agree with you liars is quite a contradiction and dogmatic.

[rapier1]

What passes for debate in this country

Is really sad. Instead of actually addressing anything Rather
actually said regarding the role journalists in a healthy
democracy, the benefits of competition, and the dangers of too
much corporate control in the newsroom most people decide to
take pot shots at Rather.

Can any of you tell me how that undermines anything he is
actually saying? While I'm sure all of you are paragons of moral
virtue and have never done anything wrong (like speeding) or
fraudulent (like fudging your taxes) and as such can be seen as
true and pure purveyors of wisdom you never really said what
was wrong with what he's saying. Essentially what many of you
are arguing is that you don't even need to address his comments
because of who he is. It doesn't matter what he might happen to
say because it *must* be wrong because he said it.

Which is sad because it really shows that people don't really care
about the issues - they just want to yell at each other. Yes,
character counts, but character doesn't necessarily correlate to
insight or fact. Sometimes bad people have very good ideas and
sometimes good people have very bad ideas. This is why you
examine the *idea* and not the person.

Yes, I fully expect someone to prove my point by yelling at me
personally rather than dissecting what I'm saying. I thank you in
advance for this service.

[baldguy61]

The Debate Debate

Like Rapier1, I, too, prefer objectivity in debate to character asassination. I cannot, however, see the advantage in listening to a thoroughly discredited, proven liar tell the rest of his "profession" how bad they are. Mr. Rather's morality is not the point, Rapier1. His credibility is. This fox is not one I would choose to guard my henhouse. Others are more deserving of a voice in this very public forum. What's next? A Bill Clinton lecture series on morality in public office?

[sideswiper]

What debate?

I am at a loss here as to what you must see every day that you turn on the news? Journalists afraid to ask the tough questions out of fear of being unpatriotic? That's all I hear is tough questions followed by a story with a negative spin on things. The roadmap to success as a journalist has already been printed and they all know what they need to do to get the anchor job thanks to Dan and others. It is in the best interest of a journalist to ask the tough questions because it has been proven by people like Dan Rather that asking tough questions and not fearing being seen as unpatriotic is a good way to get to the big desk. All I hear from journalists when a conservative is being questioned are "tough questions" usually with a spin on it to to make a statement at the same time. What journalist in their right mind is going to ask tough questions of liberals and risk being labeled as a homophobe or a bigot or anti-environmental? What journalist wants to be labeled as a lapdog for big business? What journalist wants to be perceived as a religious nutcase or sexist? None of them do. So naturally, you ask the tough accusatory questions to the Republicans who have already been successfully labeled as all of the above and you ask the fluff questions in an agreeable manner to the Democrats. The never ending cycle continues. Joe blow who can't tell you who Nancy Pelosi is or what Congress does gets his 10 second anti Republican anti war news clip or headline and he's on to the sports page. He likes this journalist because the journalist used a quote "another tax break for the rich", and Joe says to himself underneath his breath, "damn republicans, always doin for the rich", and all is well again. Good night America.

[rwhitaker26]

The story

OK. The Story.
A lie based on a lie told by a liar which then written by a liar and then "reported" by a liar - with much gusto, by the way. Face it, the vast unwashed is at least a little more informed now than 30 years ago. We tend to be more sceptical and don't trust anyone, including the ones who are supposed to be after the truth.

[fcekuahd]

About Dan Rather's generation of reporters

The whole pack of them were liars and sensationalists. They regularly lied to contributors about what they were presenting and how they'd present it and always emphasized the dangers of any situation. They didn't lose their objectiveness, they never had any in the first place.

I know, I've been in a place (outside the US) where they were banging the drum about how unsafe it was for Americans to be and while I never worried for a minute about my safety there, they were playing reports in the US that made it sound extremely unsafe. They interviewed some people I knew and out of a long interview where they were told repeatedly that the people felt quite safe and comfortable with the situation they only part of the interview they aired was the small bits where the person being interviewed expressed a small concern because the truth wasn't sensational enough.

Ratings drove that bunch and ratings was their objective so if the truth didn't bring good ratings then the truth wasn't told.

[hador_nyc]

It's always been the "bad way"

Check out your history books. Dan's wearing rose colored glasses. They used to call it Yellow Journalism; sensationalism for the sake of selling more papers. We had a war in 1898 against Spain that was based on a lie; the USS Maine was not hit by a torpedo(sea mines were called that in those days), but blew up because of a coal bunker fire.

Nevertheless, the papers, lead by Hearst, hyped it up until the public was screaming for war. They got their war.

Look at great reporters from the past like H. L. Mencken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken) and you'll see one of the best at that crap. Sorry Dan, it's always been a business, and it always will be. All you're doing is selling it in a different way.

[WeaselDriver]

Journalism and the Peter Principle

Mr Rather, journalists haven't "lost their guts" - they simply don't know any better. The majority of journalists do not have any practical training or experience in anything besides journalism. Most of them are not qualified to hold a job in any other field of endeavor. Consequently, they do not have the knowledge or skills to verify any of the facts they collect about any subject other than journalism. This is a predictable side-effect of the 24-hour news cycle and its insatiable appetite for content.

This is easily proven with a simple thought experiment: Each of you readers has certainly read or watched a news story recently about a subject or event for which you have personal knowledge of the subject or event being reported. What percentage of the statements in the news story were consistent with the actual facts of the case - and what percentage of the facts were omitted from the news story? Yet most people seem to trust journalists to get the story right when it is about subjects for which they have no firsthand knowledge.

[bigfeet123]

What a hypocrit

Rather was a lapdog for the democratic party. He sacrificed his career to affect a presidential election with falsifies documents. He should be in prison.

He will forever be an example of the radical marxist left wing journalism jihad. The internet squashed his agenda and showed the world how biased the media is.

What a piece of crap he is.

[francosr]

who cares ...

Who cares what Dan Rather says? He is an egotistical liar and has been an unethical journalist. Is that having "guts"?

[alfatone]

Dan Rather's lack of integrity is the problem

Journalists have stopped being journalists and have instead decided to be advocates for their own limited view of how the world should work and who should run it. Dan Rather has lost his credentials to lecture anyone about journalism as he stopped being one well before his actions to tell the story he wanted to tell blew up in his face last year. Journalism has not lost its guts, it has lost its integrity.

[Edgarthearmenian]

Dan Rather

This guy is a proven liar and has absolutely no credibility left with the American public. His hosts should be ashamed of themselves for besmirching themselves with his presence.

[Joe Koskovics]

Apparently, He is still a journalist and here's the proof...

Regardless of the reader's position about Rather or journalism, the mission was accomplished. His presentation sparked thought, discussion, and response.

Good, bad, left, or right, agreement with his point of view doesn't matter. What does matters is the fact the comment space following the report here at CNet wasn't empty.

And that's the real strength and "Spine" of a journalist.

[wilbs999]

Strength and Spine

You're saying, that it's better to be damned than not mentioned at all.

That doesn't make you a journalist.

[wilbs999]

Strength and Spine

You're saying, that it's better to be talked badly of than not mentioned at all.

(Note, even though that was not a personal attack, the real quotation could not be used.)

That doesn't make you a journalist.

[wilbs999]

Strength and Spine

You're saying, that it's better to be talked badly of than not mentioned at all.

That doesn't make you a journalist.

[bmmayhew]

I guess what Rather means is...

that everyone does so much fact-checking these days you can't make up out-and-out lies about people. So, um, yea, in that sense, journalism has lost its "guts."

[Hardrada]

Journalism never had any guts

The news media have been shills for corrupt politics and big business for more than fifty years. Nothing has changed.

[Joanna Connolly]

Dan Rather/ Spineless

Talk about falsehoods,
Dan Rather is such a fraud that it is amazing he is still called a journalist.
I was raised in the fifties and even back then I saw partisan reporting.I was young and believed what was being broadcast.Not until I was of voting age did I realize that our news reporters were left leaning.I remember Dan the Lying Man even then.
He is a disgrace to the profession of journalism but he is a true yellow journalist.

[dcbaker2005]

tough questions

Where were the tough questions when Dan Rather interviewed Hillary Clinton? "If we could only be half as great as you are..." Pathetic.

[tom2749]

Rather was the Main Stream Lacky

No one was a bigger lap dod than Rather. He never did news, he was always part of the propaganda wing of the anti-American Democrat party. He was a liar on the news and a liar on 60 minutes and he is a liar now.

[bob graham las vegas]

LIAR?

Sir, you really need to stick to supporting your favorite sports team, and I'd bet you do, even if it is a loser. I'd also bet that you cannot sit down to a good debate, and say anything of intelligence about Left, Right, Capitalism, Communism, Facism, or anything else governmental!

[ddesy]

Anti-American?

Somehow I think you are confused. Democrats are most certainly not anti-American. They support the rights and freedoms of the people! The Republicans, on the other hand....

[bob graham las vegas]

No Guts No Glory

Mr Rather, I am so glad to hear someone in the media has the same feelings as I have. News needs to be relentlessly sought out and aggressively published like it used to be. With our current leaders rewriting the laws, or having them interpreted by those who were appointed under this regime, there will be those who suffer the consequences for exercising freedom of the press. This still should not be cause for acting like a dog with his tail between his legs. Ghandi, Mandela, and others who suffered some of the most extreme abuses now have a place in history, a GOOD place. This should be the target of all who say they are in the business of news gathering and reporting, a job of GREAT importance. Now days though it isn't like writing the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is still very important to not only report news, but to document it so we can fix what's broken. Keep it up Sir.

[kkasey]

Dan Rather

Mr. Rather had guts as a journalist when he was hungry for the truth. I have a true story about the failure of our government to secure and protect property rights of priviate citizens and would love to find a real journalist that was interested in exposing the court system in Kentucky. It involves several attorneys and other officers of the court. We have the best judicial system money can buy.

Any takers?

[e-mail]