Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Video: Serious newsman tackles serious news issue

posted at 9:32 am on October 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

We start the day with “hard news” of the sort Document Dan always prided himself on delivering. This 20-minute dreamscape explains why it took him 44 years to start railing against the stranglehold of monied corporate interests on journalism: until recently, he had more important things to worry about. Someday someone at MSNBC will leak a tape of Olbermann asking for more of that day-glo George Hamilton tan to be pancaked on moments before taking to the air to save democracy yet again with one of his special comments. Score one more for the Murrow disciples.

There’s something about this clip that reminds me of this one but I can’t quite put my finger on it.


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:

Past tense.

Rode Werk on October 5, 2007 at 9:44 AM

Cubs suck.

Jaibones on October 5, 2007 at 9:45 AM

Good lord . . . the epitome of narcissism and utter idiocy. Way to go Dan, you never let us down.

rplat on October 5, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Do all anchors spend as much time worrying about their mouths and sucking their teeth?

rivlax on October 5, 2007 at 9:51 AM

As much as I don’t care for Dan Rather, I see nothing wrong here, I suppose. I mean, he wants to look good. He’s a reporter. Part of the job is to look convincingly good.

mboprey on October 5, 2007 at 9:53 AM

That was painful to watch. Someone needs to count the number of times he says the word “coat”. Douchebag.

Jaibones on October 5, 2007 at 9:53 AM

Douchebag.

Why lob personal attacks?

mboprey on October 5, 2007 at 9:54 AM

“Dan’s got one thing on his mind.”

I thought I smelled something burning.

saint kansas on October 5, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Thanks AP. I watched the whole thing. Now if you will excuse me, I need to go slam my head against the door.

mojowire on October 5, 2007 at 9:56 AM

He had a bunch of “yes men” working for him. No one told quit with the jacket already.

terryannonline on October 5, 2007 at 10:04 AM

What a Nancy!

TheSitRep on October 5, 2007 at 10:04 AM

mboprey on October 5, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Why not, douche?

Jaibones on October 5, 2007 at 10:08 AM

That was painful to watch. Someone needs to count the number of times he says the word “coat”. Douchebag.

Jaibones on October 5, 2007 at 9:53 AM

Excruciatingly so I think he said it 7,900,456 times

Texyank on October 5, 2007 at 10:09 AM

I’m curious – what year was this? Maybe all that indecision about a coat was inspired by Ronald Reagan, when he didn’t wear one when first meeting Gorbachev.

From Jim Kuhn book about Reagan:

I had this intense fear of the world perception of this first encounter if Reagan were seen as old and weak. It would be a bad start to the summit, a setback that would be very difficult to overcome. I took a deep breath and tried again.

“Mr. President, I know you’ve got a lot on your mind, but I need to talk to you again,” I said. “We both heard what Schultz, McFarlane and Reagan said. But they don’t have any idea what’s going on with the coats. None of us focused on this until now, but it could become a major thing when you step outside for the first greeting.”

Reagan dismissed my concern.

“Well, don’t worry about it, Jim,” he said. “I’m fine, and we’re ready to go.”

“Mr. President, this is the last thing I’m going to say.”

The president, who rarely got angry, was getting irritated.

“What is it now?” he said. “It’s not the coat again, is it?”

“Yes, sir. But let me ask you one final question,” I said.

“What?” Now the president was definitely irritated.

“Suppose I’m right about the coat,” I said. “And Mr. Gorbachev gets out of the car with just his business suit on, looking strong and ready to go. And you’re all covered up the way you are as if you can’t be outside for a few minutes without this heavy wrap on. If that’s the case, then who’s going to look stupid before the whole world? You or Gorbachev?”

The president gave in.

“All right, dammit, Jim,” he said. “Have it your way.” And he ripped off the scarf, pulled off his coat and tossed it into my arms.

“There, is that what you want?” he said.

“Yes, sir,” I said. ” Now, you’re ready to go.”

Gorbachev wore a dark overcoat. A scarf was tightly wrapped around his neck.

At the top of the stairs, they stopped and turned for photographers. And that was the photo that ran on the front page of every newspaper and newsmagazine, and in every news telecast. Ronald Reagan, dressed in his finely tailored blue suit, towering over the stocky Gorbachev, who looked like something out of central casting-a stodgy Russian who has just arrived from snowy Moscow.

We had ended up rolling the Soviets big-time. Without intending to, we had hit them hard. We got off to a great start.

That day, the coat incident bothered the Soviets so much that as we broke for lunch at the end of the first session, to head back to our respective venues, Gorbachev’s last words to Reagan were “When we meet again, will it be coats on or coats off?” And at every point over the next three days, whenever there was an upcoming departure, Gorbachev invariably asked the president the same question. “The next time we meet, will it be coats on or coats off?”

Brat on October 5, 2007 at 10:30 AM

That’s why Dan made the big bucks: the ability to make quick high-level decisions, and stand by them.

Does anyone know if he wound up wearing the coat in the broadcast?

stonemeister on October 5, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Typical of a lib. Style over substance. Maintain the proper appearance and the results won’t matter.

Thank you Harry Shearer! He brought us this one 4 years ago, too.

Anyone know Harry’s political preference? At this point I assume he’s just fond of bringing the ridiculous to light.

Wingo on October 5, 2007 at 11:04 AM

As much as I would like bash Dan, I’ve worked in TV and have seen longer and nastier discussions over far more inane things in setting up a shot.

Drew on October 5, 2007 at 11:09 AM

This 20-minute dreamscape explains why it took him 44 years to start railing against the stranglehold of monied corporate interests on journalism

Just who the hell did Dan Rather think was paying his excessive salary for those 44 years? Love offerings from his viewers?

There has always been a tension between corporate interests and commercial news operations with countless instances where money talked louder than the news operation’s story. The only difference is that Dan Rather found himself on the other side of the equation for a change. I guess he should have thought about that before he presented fake documents as the real deal.

highhopes on October 5, 2007 at 11:12 AM

As much as I would like bash Dan, I’ve worked in TV and have seen longer and nastier discussions over far more inane things in setting up a shot.

I can only imagine the tension as brother Craig sets up the camera on Geraldo while reporting from Afghanistan. The lighting that has to be just so, the hiring of locals to randomly fire weapons in the background, etc.

highhopes on October 5, 2007 at 11:16 AM

What the hell is the big deal here? I know we at hotair.com don’t have a whole lot of respect for Dan Rather, but come on: if this were video of a conservative journalist who was making sure he looked good before going on TV, nobody here would have a problem with it. It’s not like he was being rude to the director or the cameraman or anything.

If I had a job where I was on TV a lot, I’d want to look good as well. Seriously, some of you guys really need to do a better job of controlling your biases.

2Brave2Bscared on October 5, 2007 at 11:30 AM

As much as I would like bash Dan, I’ve worked in TV and have seen longer and nastier discussions over far more inane things in setting up a shot.

Thank you. Finally someone with a little perspective.

2Brave2Bscared on October 5, 2007 at 11:31 AM

There’s something about this clip that reminds me of this one but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

Actually, it much more reminds me of the classic “Silky gettin’ his hair did” video… You know what I’m talking about.

RightWinged on October 5, 2007 at 11:36 AM

What’s the frequency, Kenneth?

bloggless on October 5, 2007 at 11:43 AM

If style over substance, then it is entertainment and not information.

T J Green on October 5, 2007 at 11:47 AM

“I’ve never worn a trenchcoat with the collar down.”

The moron had the collar down at the beginning. All arrogance and BS, sums up his entire career.

What I’ve always been curious about, was Rather with Dick Button when he got beat up in New York.

peacenprosperity on October 5, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Oh how the might fall.

Give it up Dan, you’re just pathetic. It a tragically sad way.

Lawrence on October 5, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Brat on October 5, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Excellent.

AtomicAmish on October 5, 2007 at 12:20 PM

PATHETIC is too mild of a term…Don’t old lib newsmen ‘just fade away’…no class…he has nothing and should apologize to his family…

areseaoh on October 5, 2007 at 12:21 PM

This 20-minute dreamscape explains why it took him 44 years to start railing against the stranglehold of monied corporate interests on journalism: until recently, he had more important things to worry about.

…like filling his coat’s pockets with mega-millions. Idealistic indeed. Drink the water sheep, I’ll sip the fine champagne, and preach about the absolute values of water in my final days…

Entelechy on October 5, 2007 at 1:41 PM

When you choose to see sausage getting made, you shouldn’t be shocked to see bloody intestines all over the place. Considering how anchors are mouthpieces who needn’t be seen – and are thus judged on what they look like – why is it so horrible to see one dither about his looks? Rather’s other actions deserve a lot more attention than the type of concern for looks the vast majority of people on television have.

By the way, the “collector” who introduces the clip is Harry Shearer, an outspoken left-winger, and (surprise, surprise) blogger for HuffPo, though he’s likely best known as the voice of evil capitalist Mr. Burns. As seen here, he takes glee in making fun of newsmakers of all political viewpoints, even those close to his own. Google a bit and you’ll find Dan’s not the only newscaster dithering about looks.

calbear on October 5, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Not quite as hilarious and pathetic as the Breck Girl and his hair spray, but that’s a very high bar indeed. Good try, Danny boy.

Splashman on October 5, 2007 at 3:19 PM

OMG…if I had to work as producer on that show I’d be secretly stabbing the side of my leg with a ballpoint pen.

Another reason why I *hate* working with talent on location.

The Ugly American on October 5, 2007 at 5:12 PM

As much as I would like bash Dan, I’ve worked in TV and have seen longer and nastier discussions over far more inane things in setting up a shot.

Yeah, but this was a primetime newscast…not CSI.

The Ugly American on October 5, 2007 at 5:19 PM

H/T??????????

pjcomix on October 5, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.