Thursday, September 20, 2007
courage
dan would rather not go gentle into that good night. he's suing cbs over his demotion and ultimate dismissal after the awol national guard story fiasco. nytimes:
we do know that the hardly-ever-right wing blogs are frothing at the mouth about it.
mr. rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on “60 minutes” after forcing him to step down as anchor of the “cbs evening news” in march 2005. he also contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” and incomplete investigation of the flawed guard broadcast and, in the process, “seriously damaged his reputation.”
the suit, which seeks $70 million in damages, names as defendants cbs and its chief executive, leslie moonves; viacom and its executive chairman, sumner redstone; and andrew heyward, the former president of cbs news.
in the suit, filed this afternoon in state supreme court in manhattan, mr. rather charges that cbs and its executives made him “a scapegoat” in an attempt “to pacify the white house,” though the formal complaint presents virtually no direct evidence to that effect. to buttress this claim, mr. rather quotes the executive who oversaw his regular segment on cbs radio, telling mr. rather in november 2004 that he was losing that slot, effective immediately, because of “pressure from ‘the right wing.’ ”
he also continues to take vehement issue with the appointment by cbs of richard thornburgh, an attorney general in the administration of the elder president bush, as one of the two outside panelists given the job of reviewing how the disputed broadcast had been prepared.
we'd love it if dan prevails; however, considering it's been 3 years after the fact, we don't know how much teeth his complaint will have.the suit, which seeks $70 million in damages, names as defendants cbs and its chief executive, leslie moonves; viacom and its executive chairman, sumner redstone; and andrew heyward, the former president of cbs news.
in the suit, filed this afternoon in state supreme court in manhattan, mr. rather charges that cbs and its executives made him “a scapegoat” in an attempt “to pacify the white house,” though the formal complaint presents virtually no direct evidence to that effect. to buttress this claim, mr. rather quotes the executive who oversaw his regular segment on cbs radio, telling mr. rather in november 2004 that he was losing that slot, effective immediately, because of “pressure from ‘the right wing.’ ”
he also continues to take vehement issue with the appointment by cbs of richard thornburgh, an attorney general in the administration of the elder president bush, as one of the two outside panelists given the job of reviewing how the disputed broadcast had been prepared.
we do know that the hardly-ever-right wing blogs are frothing at the mouth about it.
Labels: aWol, multi-millionaire media, national guard
posted by skippy at
12:28 AM |
4 Comments:
He probably has a snowball's chance in hell, as far as getting one cent, but good for him anyway.
commented by
pissed off patricia, 5:44 AM PDT
pissed off patricia, 5:44 AM PDT
As a "right winger" I couldn't be happier. Let Dan Rather keep forefront in the public eye the way he "manufactured" facts in an attempt to sway a presidential election. Thank God for the internet as somebody has to call the liberal MSM on the crap they have been selling the public for decades.
commented by , 7:18 AM PDT
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The only thing "manufactured, ManAper, was your outrage that you voted for a coward.
Face it, you love cowards, so long as they're YOUR kinda coward: a guy who ducks active duty, but has no qualms about sending men and women to their deaths.
The only thing "manufactured, ManAper, was your outrage that you voted for a coward.
Face it, you love cowards, so long as they're YOUR kinda coward: a guy who ducks active duty, but has no qualms about sending men and women to their deaths.
What isn't the right wing frothing at the mouth about? I thought that was a requirement to be allowed in the party.
As for Rather's case, it'll probably just boil down to contract law, remain pretty boring, and wind up settling with little fanfare.
As for Rather's case, it'll probably just boil down to contract law, remain pretty boring, and wind up settling with little fanfare.
commented by , 9:06 AM PDT












