Talk:Dan Rather - Definition and Overview

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)

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] (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/26CND-CAMPAIGN.html). 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)

"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] (http://www.ratherbiased.com/) [3] (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/18/140030.shtml) [4] (http://www.mediaresearch.org/videobias/dan_rather.asp)

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] (http://www.thebird.org/host/dcdave/article2/990515.html) 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)

CBS, Dan Rather and the Bush National Guard papers

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

This page as a whole is entirely too kind to Dan Ra^ther. 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. --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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Awards

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