I was really impressed with the outpouring of responses to Dan Rather's op-ed asking for President Obama to establish a Presidential Commission to figure out how to save journalism. I wanted to try and distill some of the key points here and highlight a few specific suggestions (but by no means all of the good ones!).
Despite what happens journalism will always be around. CNN, and Fox have issues... along with the other big names, but you have companies like Current that are taking up the slack. Really truly and honestly, the companies need to adapt.. just as they did for the Radio to TV transition. If they fail, others will rise up and take there places as the leaders of the media world. If we do run around bailing out all of the failed companies because we are feeling nostalgic that day, well, we will end up with the socialism being screamed about by the right... which honestly... is neither a good nor bad thing, progress is stagnant in a socialist state, and progressive in a capitalist state... there on the other hand is pain torment and struggle in a capitalist state and that is absorbed in a socialist one... the question is, in what areas do you require to continually reform them selves? I personally feel that journalism should fend for its own and give to the people what the people want... not become comfortable and stagnant... I feel the opposite for health care... where are your lines and what do you require in a society and its outlets?
Nice op-ed... regardless of positioning or incident of the past - the article taken in context is absolutely on target and should be considered on it's own merits. Dan Rather's past and the state of his career hardly matter when we consider what the editorial was really about.
On a side note, everyone should read this speech - delivered nearly 51 years ago by Edward R. Murrow to the Radio-Television News Directors Association Convention in Chicago... enlightening, frightening, and quite the forewarning.
The way to "save" journalism is to make it not matter who owns what. The company that owns a news media outlet may reap benefits from it but they have NO SAY WHATSOEVER what this news media writes stories on or reports on....NONE. They do as they want as independent entities no matter who is the "owner".
If people get fired they have to be fired for a real reason nothing trivial and it certainly cannot be linked to a story they wrote about the 'owners' of the news outlet.
If worse comes to worse then news media should be independent period and they should be funded by grants and donations and commercials....
But at the same time there are obnoxious reporters that borderline those who are paparazzi like stalking.
No one should be barred from reporting on a legit story even if it is about Time Warner and they are owned by them.
Dan was fed a faked document about a true story to ruin his career. Just like they sent anthrax to Tom Brokaw to stop him from reporting that the Twin Towers were brought down as a controlled demolition. And poor Peter Jennings got so sick with his cancer for all the secrets he had to keep.
According to Former CIA Chief Colby RIP, "The CIA owns every important person in Media." If they refuse to be part of the "TEAM" they get eliminated. Dan, Tom and Peter all became dubious of the government as a result of their coverage of 9/11 and the subsequent threats to their person from covert CIA operatives.
Despite it being a conspiracy theory the facts are actually there for that one, walk into any engineering department in this country and ask them about that... it will alarm you. The turbines of the jet that crashed into the pentagon melting is not feasible either. There are things that happened that the government does not deem they need to explain... we will never know, and quite frankly it is inconsequential, but I would not rip on jubal to hard for those... the anthrax bit... that is probably a stretch.
@MilchMann: OK. I'll be the first to admit I'm not up on all the various conspiracy theories out there concerning 9-11, nor do I intend to study them in depth. No matter how much I've thought about 9-11 I simply cannot, with good conscience, believe that our government would have intentionally killed 3000 people so....... what? So George Bush could become king? So we could blame it on someone else and get to go to war?
People who believe anything along these lines are so filled with hate as to astonish me. It would take dozens, if not hundreds, of people working in tandem to orchastrate this and carry it out, hundreds of folks who had such little regard for the lives of Americans that they blindly followed along with the plan. Not a leak or a whisper from anyone who might have just heard about it or been involved and changed his mind and tried to stop it. I'm astounded that folks disliked Bush so much that they would accuse him and dozens/hundreds of his administration of such horrendous dealings. I'm sickened that some people hated Bush so much they would believe he is the monster it would have taken to carry out this plan. If 9-11 hadn't been so serious this kind of thinking would be laughable.
Personally I do not care if it was Bush, Satan or the tooth fairy who did it... the fact is the explanation given is not physically feasible... and I do not think we will ever know, I believe it happened and it now is completely inconsequential. My only point was that they do have reasonable evidence, let them postulate all they want, it will change nothing, especially now... and honestly it will never be conclusive no matter what they unearth. Who cares... let them have their fun and paranoia.
Actually it wouldn't take an astonishing number of civilians to pull off the 9/11 demolition. Only a crew of about 20 working over a two year period to set the charges.
The buildings were designed to take multiple hits by 707 jets. It was a requirement of the City of New York Port Authority building department engineers. So that fact that they were each brought down with one jet each was laughable, especially when our government new about the plot years before it happened.
People who laugh at the 9/11 conspiracy probably also believe in the invisible man in the sky who is going to reward or punish you for your deeds on earth. Comparing the invisible man story to the 9/11 conspiracy, I would choose the later as more plausible.
As for links to Dan Rather being fed a faked document, I can only point to blogs and opinion pieces, nothing that most of the people who would deny that this happened, would accept as credible. Sorry, but I don't have the smoking gun. But what I do have is my years of keen observation and logic that tells me when I smell a rat. This whole campaign against Rather was fabricated to destroy his career because he was refusing to continue to be in the pocket of the corrupt CIA.
What I have been learning about recently is the history of the CIA and the information about how they have been in the business of subverting governments all over the world. What makes you think that they aren't capable of subverting our government. And moreover than that, the CIA has been infiltrated since the 60's and continues to be heavily influenced and controlled by Israeli intelligence.
At this link are many videos, stories, and questions being raised. I am part of the 9/11 truth movement because I support their efforts. There are many lies and cover ups about what happened and we as citizens need to know the truth.
But you can go ahead and be little hampsters in a treadmil, go ahead, sleep in your own excrement.
Here is the funny thing about the whole Dan Rather thing and how he was almost destroyed. Most of the yahoos that don't like Dan probably don't remember how the right wing went after Dan about the story of W. Bush and his desertion from the Air National Guard. It really did happen and there are too many witnesses still alive to collaborate the traitor Bush's actions as a member of the armed forces. Now here is the funny part, Glenn Beck is getting your karma now. Nots so funny to right wingers but hilarious to me.
No joke kenny, I especially despise the Pete Rose analogy, how can the otherwise immaculate record of someone be shat upon for one mistake? I would take Dan Rather over everyone in the main stream tele-journalism industry with the possible exception of Rachel Maddow... and where do any of you get off saying that someone needs to die? Golden Rule people... or if you can not fathom that one, try karma.. same freakin thing.
I'm all for saving the Free Press in the USA, so long as that preservation means the death of TV "news". If I wanted to act like a retard and watch some God damned suit recite Fascist Corpoate doublespeak propaganda misrepresented as "news", I may as well have my brain sucked out. They're so infernaly boring as it is, that it would take someone who believes watching grass grow or paint dry is interesting to sit through it. Bullwinkle the moose maybe. Bullshit anyway. Because whether it's anyway or any other way, TV "news" is still bullshit. Read and open your mind. If you're bright, you already know that. Don't be read to unless you're some child who needs to be told a fairy tale to tuck you in bed.
Dan Rather is the pinup boy for the partisan destruction of journalism. HE IS the reason there is a Fox News with the largest audience of all. If we have to listen to news with a partisan spin we might as well listen to those we agree with.