Good evening again, Lowell! Lowell C. Savage wrote to Frank Reichert...
> I can understand the emotional connection you might feel toward Dan Rather > if he was one of the few US faces for you in the Philippines. Balloney! That's not all I said. I've followed his news commentary since the 1960's, when he reported on the front lines in the Vietnam War! I only mentioned he was still around, reporting the news, as the anchor for CBS during the short 5 1/2 years that I was in the Phillipines. I don't know what your point was here, but I have a problem with this somehow. > At the same time, his career--particularly as anchor--is best characterized > as a slow slide toward mediocrity, partisanship, and finally, outright, > amateurish fabrication. He sold his journalistic soul for partisan > advantage. It is somewhat sad to see how he is going out, but at the same > time, appropriate when you consider some of the rest of his record. Look, Lowell. I've been around broadcast journalism for a long, long time. I remember NBC's "Huntley-Brinkley Report", and all the rest of it, long before Dan Rather or any of his so-called contemporaries entered the scene. To mention the former, I've also seen the annomosities of David Brikley with NBC's distaste for the format his was cast with -- which he showed distaste for! Did you bother to read the rest of what I wrote? From the tone of your post, I doubt it. > While many members on this list may not care much either way about the > issues that Dan was partisan in favor of or partisan against, the fact was > that he held himself up as a newsman and, in the end, showed that news from > him could not be trusted. Probably because the venue and content was orchastrated by the "professional" news spin doctors that were behind the scenes putting the programme together! Didn't I allude to that just earlier? > CBS News has a press release which is "rather" interesting--hardly what one > would expect as a farewell tribute to a loved and respected figure as > prominent as Dan Rather.. Won't comment on this until I read it. But I will stand behind what I wrote earlier, which by the way, is my personal feelings, and which was intended here only. > One nugget: > The triumvirate of Rather, Brokaw and ABC's Peter Jennings has ruled > network news for more than two decades. Rather dominated ratings after > taking over for Cronkite during the 1980s, but he was eclipsed first by > Jennings and then by Brokaw. His evening news broadcast generally runs a > distant third in the ratings each week. So what? So, what are you suggesting? CBS suggests that Rather's influence didn't represent them, or what? Was he a liability to CBS? Is this what YOU suggest CBS is saying about their own anchor? I hope you realize this was not my intent in writing about the turn of events in US news journalism and what that might indicate as the future of broadcast news media. At any rate, I suppose Dan Rather will be around on the CBS Evening News until March or so. My purpose here was only to point out that an important milestone is passing us by, for better or worse, that is, in terms of seasoned journalists with a long and honourable resume that probably surpasses contemporary news anchors. Please don't take this to places where I don't want to go. Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
