Dan Rather : 'Somebody's got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive... with government interference in news'
Friday, September 21, 2007
Former CBS anchor Dan Rather recently filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS, saying they made him a "scapegoat" when he was fired for a September 2004 story on 60 Minutes about President Bush's unsatisfactory service in the Texas Air National Guard.
When Rather appeared on Larry King's program Thursday, King began by showing him a 2005 clip of himself saying, "I'm not a victim of anything except my own shortcomings."
But he added, "Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news."
"I've learned a good deal since that time," said Rather. "It's reported that Sumner Redstone [president of Viacom] ... was described as being enraged that the news division, this story, had cost Viacom and CBS in Washington, and he wanted Dan Rather and everybody connected with it out."
"They sacrificed support for independent journalism for corporate financial gain, and in so doing, I think they undermined a lot at CBS News," he said.
Rather said he still believes the 60 Minutes report was correct. "[CBS] sacrificed support for independent journalism for corporate financial gain," he stated, "and in so doing I think they undermined a lot at CBS News."
"Nobody to this day has shown that these documents were fraudulent," continued Rather, referring to the disputed memos featured in the 60 Minutes story. "Nobody has proved that they were fraudulent, much less a forgery. ... The truth of this story stands up to this day." Rather added that he believed somebody with subpoena power could get to the bottom of the matter pretty quickly.
I'm sorry, Rather, but if you want to take a stand against big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news than don't sue the big corporation CBS for 70 million dollars and line your pockets with their filthy money.
How is that taking a stand?
You say THEY made you a "scapegoat" when you reported about President Bush's unsatisfactory service in the Texas Air National Guard.
In order to be a "scapegoat," that implies that you were handed this story to report.
So, your reference to independent journalism in this respect is not truthful.
The "powers that be" control the media and you're trying to tell us that you independently researched President Bush's unsatisfactory service in the Texas Air National Guard and without approval from your superiors decided to report it?
I don't think so!
Is this the BIG PAY OFF?
How did the story you reported cost Viacom and CBS in Washington???
Cost them what???
What does CBS in Washington refer to?
You're saying you were used as a "scapegoat" and that THEY sacrificed a lot at CBS for independent journalism.
They don't have an interest in independent journalism and you know that.
What did THEY sacrifice?
They sacrificed you as a "scapegoat."
You said, at the time, that you weren't a victim of anything except your shortcomings.
And, now, you're saying you were used as a "scapegoat."
A "scapegoat" is a victim.
What are your shortcomings?
Unable to ascertain when you're being used as a scapegoat?
You say that the story stands up until this day and that somebody with subpoena power could get to the bottom of it.
You have plenty of money.
Why don't you spend your money; hire an attorney with subpoena power and get to the bottom of it.
Instead of taking the filthy money you say you want to take a stand against, maybe you should FINISH THE STORY as an independent journalist.