Report: Dan Rather wanted anti-war reporter shot
posted at 5:03 pm on June 5, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
And just like that, he’s back in conservative bloggers’ good graces. Redemption, baby!
Just kidding.
In “Lone Star,” an unauthorized bio of Rather out this September, Alan Weisman writes that [Morley] Safer “has not been a friend of Rather’s for years, since their days in Vietnam.” The final straw came when Rather took over for Safer not long after Safer’s jolting report about the burning of a Vietnam village by a platoon of U.S. Marines.
“When Rather replaced me . . . he went to a group of Marines and said, ‘If I were you guys, I would have shot him.’ Or words to that effect,” Safer tells Weisman. “And that my report should never have gone on the air.” Asked whether Rather had ripped his fellow newsman to cozy up with the troops, Safer bristles, “Who the hell knows why? Have I ever confronted him about it? No. Now we just have a polite relationship.”
Follow the link for some choice quotes from CBS execs about Rather’s reputation after Memogate. Follow this one, too. Does the word “radioactive” mean anything to you?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Dan was jealous because Morley Safer got to interview Col. Kurtz first.
pjcomix on June 5, 2006 at 5:31 PM
Even if this is innacurrate, it’s true, of course.
BirdEye on June 5, 2006 at 5:54 PM
And yet, he’s still pulling a paycheck from CBS.
Pablo on June 5, 2006 at 6:27 PM
My favorite Rather moment…from Fox-O’Reilly:
. talking about Bill Clinton in 2001-
O’Reilly: “How can you say he’s an honest guy then?”
Rather: “Well, because I think he is. I think at core he’s an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so, but I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.”
(OBVIOUSLY , YOU STUPID SCHMUCK -mine)
— above Exchange on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor, May 15, 2001.
shooter on June 5, 2006 at 6:58 PM
Dan Rathers’ “flawed” reporting of the President’s Air National Guard service????? Oh, my.
In an aside, the Depends generation that watches the CBS Evening News will need to double up come September.
calnevari on June 5, 2006 at 10:47 PM
To paraphrase Chevy Chase on the original SNL: “Hi, I’m Dan Rather, and you’re not.”
inmanjh on June 6, 2006 at 12:30 AM
At least Safer’s story turned out to be true.
dman on June 6, 2006 at 8:08 AM
Blessed with the opportunities to be a great journalist, bestowed with the power and responsibility, Dan Rather chose the path of self destruction when he thought he can fool the world with anything. For a brief moment in history he thought whatever lies he utters will become truth.
Reality told him that he is just a mortal like all of us. Infinitely small are we. But he learnt it through his own karma.
I hope those manipulators that are behind both parties learn the truth now and stop their manipulations. The power of influence is given to them to serve, not to manipulate the public for personal gain. With the rapid growth in internet and blogging, the news media will soon lose its choke hold on the information to the public.
This is indeed the new age, but not the kind of new age the flower children thought of. This is the new age that we have become knowledgeable. We shall never be made blind by the powerful few.
May be the “All Seeing Eye” on the one dollar bill actually signifies the coming of this new age of information.
easy87us on June 6, 2006 at 9:07 AM
Dan Rather is an ass.
Abigail Adams on June 6, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Dan Rather, as we all know, has been on a different frequency for years.
dbdiva on June 7, 2006 at 1:57 PM
Comment pages: