Talk:Dan Rather

Cold 45's
He was the first PA anouncer for the Houtston Colt 45's it needs to be in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.57.146 (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This article does not accurately represent those who theorize about conspiracies behind JFK's assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.36.76 (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dan Rather, Charlie Wilson, and the Soviet Afghanistan War
Should some mention be made of the impact of Dan Rather's reporting from Afghanistan, specifically in regards to Charlie Wilson and eventual US secret involvement? By all accounts, like this for example, it was Rather's televised reporting that moved Charlie Wilson to maneuver the US government to secretly arm the Afghan rebels, which apparently lead directly to the Soviet's eventual defeat. This seems not a small matter. The current article entry, "During the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Rather was on camera wearing a traditional Mujahadeen headdress and garments while reporting from near the front lines. These reports helped Rather gain prominence with the Evening News audience (and the nickname "Gunga Dan"; Rather's reports were also spoofed by the comic strip Doonesbury)," not only makes no reference to any of this, but seems to trivialize Rather's Afghanistan reports. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do the book Charlie Wilson's War, the movie, or historians consider Rather's report to be significantly influential? Or is a Pakistani refugee camp  considered a significant influence?  -- SEWilco (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Apparently Charlie Wilson first became aware of the plight of the Afghan rebels when he saw one of Dan Rather's reports, and that was what got him motivated to look into matters further. It would appear then that Afghanistan bit in the article needs to be updated a wee bit. Actually the entire article is a bit of mess, but I have too many things on my plate already to spend much time on it. I'll correct the Afghanistan stuff, though, in a couple of days if there is no substantial objection. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected, I added the Wilson bit, and I as well replaced the Citation Missing tag regarding him wearing sweater with an NY Times ref that refers to it. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The horseshoes and hand grenades remark is NOT a "Ratherism"
And it shouldn't be degraded as such by being associated with him. I'd bet it's older, but the GySgt. at Parris Island, as portrayed by (R.) Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket (1987).Steven (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a common phrase, not one notably by Rather. Removed.  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the "His chances are slim to none right now... ...Slim will have left town." comment is also not an original Ratherism. Can anyone confirm/deny? Sleepeh (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

King Features S.
Mabye there is more than one, but that is a newspaper comics outfit, somebody's idea of a joke, it needs to be deleted, Dan Rather likey is not writing for the funny papers. 71.114.181.145 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow the link to the Syndicate's article and read about what they do. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
This article states that Rather has been "accused of having a liberal bias" (my emphasis). How is the liberal perspective of an individual an accusation? Can this be written in a more NPOV way? This is the first time that I have heard of an American journalist being accused of having a liberal bias.Sumthingweird (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You've never heard of an American journalist being accused of having a liberal bias?  I find that very difficult to believe.


 * At any rate, turn it around: would you have complained had some other journalist - say, for example, Brit Hume - been accused of having a conservative bias?


 * It's my opinion that the NPOV tag should be removed. The act of having added it is in and of itself an expression of POV. Mark Shaw (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, as some time has now passed without response from anyone. Please discuss here before restoring the tag. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark, sorry I didn't reply earlier. Maybe I don't follow the American media culture wars very closely, and perhaps it is a common accusation in the US to accuse someone of having a certain political perspective. I don't know who Brit Hume is, but at any rate surely it would be less POV to say "Brit Hume is considered to have a conservative bias". The word "accused" carries a value judgement that it is wrong to have a liberal or conservative (or radical) bias. I have my own point of view, but Wikipedia shouldn't be passing value judgements.


 * Perhaps the argument is that certain people (for example journalists) should never reflect any kind of bias at all. (I'm sorry if I'm building a strawman argument here, I'm unclear as to what your objection is). The underlying assumption here is that it is possible to express oneself on political topics without expressing any kind of bias. However, this kind of reporting would either support the status quo (and therefore be conservative) or question the status quo (and therefore be liberal or radical) or not address the issue at all (and therefore be irrelevant). Any journalist who expresses herself or himself on a political topic will necessary be reflecting a certain bias - to say that they are "accused" of bias is to reflect a value judgement on the particular bias they hold.


 * I'm sorry if I'm responding to arguments you haven't put. I hope we can get to some consensus and improve the article together. Sumthingweird (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So "described as having a liberal bias" would be better. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sumthingweird, I checked your talk page so now I have some idea of your background. I agree that you would not be expected to know much about American news media, and although I don't hold that against you I must say I find it interesting that you would describe "supporting the status quo" as evidence of political conservatism.  And, yes, people in the news media (as opposed to their colleagues in the editorial office) are expected to be impartial, although of course it seldom works out that way.


 * This is a discussion for a different time and forum, of course.


 * I think SEWilco's suggestion makes sense, as the objection seems to be over the weight of the word "accused." I won't make the change right now, though; perhaps someone else wishes to comment. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree that SEWilco's suggestion makes sense, and I'm glad we've managed to come to some consensus (but I'll wait for further comments). I agree that it's a discussion for another time and place, but I would be interested to know what your definition of conservatism is, if it doesn't have something to do with the status quo. I'd also be interested to know what impartiality would look like in a report on, for example, sub-Saharan poverty, or on an al-Qaeda attack. Perhaps you can reply on my talk page.Sumthingweird (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that Sumthingweird has made the indicated edit. I'm not sure there's really consensus on that, so I invite other editors to weigh in.  I certainly won't object at this time, of course, as I'd previously expressed agreement to it (and my thoughts on this have not changed).  I still would like to hear from others, though. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reference (currently #56, #44, others) ratherbiased.com is just a website written by someone that hates Rather. Using it as a source brings bias into the article. If there are verfiable sources referenced from that webpage or others, please specify them directly. Many of the statements beginning with "Critics say..." seem to add more bias than information.

24.7.125.134 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Les

instead.

Pictures of Rather's childhood home
Could those two pictures be moved down into the biography section. I think the page would look better if they were placed below the content box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starrymessenger (talk • contribs) 13:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No CBS Lawsuit update?
There was some activity on the Rather-CBS lawsuit last April, when a judge removed the three executives named. But there seems to be nothing substantial since then. The section at least should include this, as well as any info for 2009. (I am still looking.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.222.18 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How is the "ra" of "Rather" pronounced? Like (1) the "ra" of "rat" or (1) like the "ra" of "rah" or "trance"? I thought it was the former(1), but then I don't understand how the name "Rather" could be a pun on the word "rather" (which I pronounce with the second "ah" type of sound). But perhaps this is because I am British. Perhaps Americans prounce the word "rather" with the "ra" of "rat"? Anyway I would like to know how to prounce this man's name.--133.62.200.185 (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The British and Americans: two peoples separated by a common language. It is pronounced like the word "rather". See this CBS Evening News clip.

Unreliable source
The Houston Press "Hairballs" section is not a WP:RS. In the 3/16/2011 online edition, it has articles with cartoons with errect penises] and is a free weekly paper that supports itself with ads for thinly-disguised prostitution. On its http://www.houstonpress.com/adIndex/ page it has a link to "Adult Entertainment(8,920)" where that seemingly is the number number of classifieds in that category. Also, the link to the LSD claim is broken. --Javaweb (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Watermelons and Obama
Numerous problems: Why pick Rather saying other people will say Obama is not doing a good job promoting his healthcare policies? Is that important in his Wikipedia bio? This is not notable. He has done 10,000 stories over his 50-some years as a reporter. Why this story? Seemingly, a weak attempt by right-wing newsbusters.org to imply some racism on Rather's part. He took his life into his hands in reporting civil rights in the Deep South. To have the article suggest he is racist violates WP:BLP andWP:NPOV. This was taken out of context. Saying his critics will say he couldn't sell watermelons in the summer in Texas with the State Troopers help is the opposite of saying "He could sell refrigerators to Eskimos". --Javaweb (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb


 * I've restored the section. It's clear from the text that Rather was characterizing what he predicted Republicans would say about Obama; not making the claim himself - however, the use of the word "watermelon" in the context of a Black person naturally created controversy, and the incident was indeed notable. If you think the passage is unclear, try revising rather than attacking the source and deleting. Mark Shaw (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That newsbusters.org, whoever they are, is trying to stir up a controversy is not notable. There are many sites like this on the left and right that take obscure trivia with no lasting importance, take it out of its context, and try to stir up outrage. Also, the Washington Post citation provided, titled title=Obama offers new health-care plan; GOP slams it as 'government takeover', was not about Dan Rather. Here is that citation:.


 * I agree that Newsbusters isn't an optimal reference for an encyclopedia. There are many others out there; for example, this one. Some of these other sources might serve you well for your rewrite. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Donald Sutherland??
Yes, "Kenneth" needs mention in a Rather bio. And the blackboard reference to that incident is worth including, since we lack a separate article on the incident. But the wording must confuse readers about whether (like Homer Simpson) the fictional leader shares a name with a person, or, instead, with a char, from outside the work in question. And even if it didn't, Donald Sutherland would still be too far removed even from "Kenneth" (let alone from Rather) to be mentioned. --Jerzy•t 20:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is already a whole section on the Kenneth incident. It already establishes that


 * Rather reported accurately what happened,
 * it was confirmed by other witnesses at the time, What%27s_the_Frequency,_Kenneth%3F
 * the truth was so bizarre that he was not believed by many,
 * he was widely ridiculed in the media and
 * the perp Tagert was eventually jailed but not before he killed someone else.
 * The best-selling song is worth mentioning. Most trivia is not. The trivia detracts from the article. Few readers care about obscure references in obscure comic books. --Javaweb (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Re-education
I linked "re-education" (which grammatically modifies "camp") to the Dab re-education, on the plausible assumption that the contributor intended to be ambiguous, and AGFing that the contributor had what i lack, a reasonable familiarity with the film. I urge those better disposed than i to determine what the director intended the audience to understand about said camp, which In My Ignorant Opinion is likely be brainwashing disguised or euphemized as rehabilitation (penology). --Jerzy•t 22:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not responsible for shuttle crash
An August 22 edit inserted an opinion as fact. Also, the referenced publisher's prècis of the book and the table of contents and the referenced page does not support the inclusion of that opinion. The reference does not support the importance of Rather's role in the disaster. If you are looking for an explanation of the disaster, see WHAT DO YOU CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK? Further Adventures of a Curious Character. By Richard P. Feynman with Ralph Leighton. Illustrated. 255 pp. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Half of the book describes his experience working on the Challenger disaster committee. This is the best selling book by the Nobel Prize winner. NASA needed a mission past Apollo and moon landings, sold the shuttle as making space travel routine and safe enough for a school teacher to justify the astronomical sums required. They promised an aggressive schedule and underestimated the probabilty of disaster by orders of magnitude. NASA felt if it could not routinely launch these things, they would lose their funding. NBC, CBS, and all the major papers only accurately reported the failed launch attempts. Accurate reporting is what you are supposed to do. The decision to launch despite scientific misgivings was NASAs, based on worrying about losing funding because of postponements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.146.19 (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * comment by Javaweb as unsigned IP.
 * The insert (mine) does not say that Rather was responsible for the shuttle disaster. It does say he partook in the "biting sarcasm" (ie. high-tech low comedy) that increased the schedule pressure on NASA. Both refs support that view. user:JMOprof &copy;&iquest;&copy;&#0172;  12:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Cougar Town episode
At the start of a Cougar Town episode "A Woman in Love (It's not me)", Courtney Cox's character, after being asked "Which celebrity would you have sex with for 15 minutes?" answered "Dan Rather.". She than quickly added "Long story."

I'd like to suggest this be added to the "In popular culture" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.43.182.107 (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

what is the frequency kenneth in popular culture
I forget what novel it was in, but the "What is the frequency, Kenneth" is used as a McGuffin. I think it was a spider robinson novel. --Patbahn (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Chicago cab ride
"Rather called the incident "a rather minor thing""

It was definitely a Rather thing. ---Dagme (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"Liberal Bias"
The "Criticism" section says:

"Rather has, however, been the object of criticism from people who accuse him of having a liberal bias.[62]"

[62] is a reference to an article from the MRC. The Wikipedia article on the MRC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center starts off:

"The Media Research Center (MRC) is a politically conservative content analysis organization ... Its stated mission is to "prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" and to neutralize what they perceive as liberal bias in mainstream media"

It goes on from there. I don't see this as a "criticism" of Rather. Rather (NPI), it is an indictment of his right wing detractors.

In the subsequent section, the same point is made, using references to an article with a far right slant from The Economist, an unprincipled, essentially right wing publication, and an article from the Christian Science Monitor which mentions Rather’s far right detractors.

So it would be good for a NPOV to say just who the people are who accuse Rather of having a liberal bias --- namely, Far Right zealots. ---Dagme (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The section now ends with: "Other critics have expressed dislike for Rather's on-air delivery or argued that Rather was too "ham-handed", "pseudo-folksy" or "old-fashioned"." - without any citations or references. This should be deleted or corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

TV Critic solved the 'Kenneth' mystery?
"In 1997, a TV critic writing in the New York Daily News solved the mystery and published a photo of the alleged assailant, William Tager."

I would propose that this be reworded -- the identity of Rather's assailant was alleged and ultimately charged & convicted, but the mystery about the meaning of "Kenneth, what is the frequency?" remains. Prgcnt (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dan Rather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151122122030/http://carnivalofdreams.org/dan-rather-bio to http://carnivalofdreams.org/dan-rather-bio
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160428072451/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7d8bda585fc1446eb1dbdfbd388c1ea9/mashable-man-dan-rather-isnt-retiring-type/ to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7d8bda585fc1446eb1dbdfbd388c1ea9/mashable-man-dan-rather-isnt-retiring-type/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Religion ?
Anyone know his religion ? 47.201.178.44 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Rather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100429100014/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2005/mar05/mar07/4_thurs/news2thursday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2005/mar05/mar07/4_thurs/news2thursday.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

2012 death hoax claim
http://12160.info/video/dan-rather-cbs-news-anchor-dead-at-80Trish pt7 (talk) (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Notable Incidents and Controversies
This entire article has no mention of Rather's deliberate blocking and censoring of the MLK Jr. FBI bedroom tapes? He mentions it in his own book on pages 101-102 of The Camera Never Blinks (papaerback version ISBN 0-345-27423-7). "I fault myself for not following up on what was a valid story." This was a pure example of media bias (in MLK's favor).Starhistory22 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Young Turks: summer hiatus/vacation or quiet parting of ways?
AFAICT, Rather did 21 episodes on the Young Turks, the last being June 18: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sgmOrfBL8 Trump Policy Separates Migrant Kids From Parents, Throws Them In Cages Ep. 21 - Streamed live on Jun 18, 2018] No subsequent Monday live shows or YouTube videos AFAICT. Also, TYT Plus Android app, released mid-August, shows 20 programs but no News with Dan Rather. Can find no explanation - no hint of media covering parting of ways. Doug Grinbergs (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Big Interview
The paragraph about "The Big Interview" is 3-5, mostly 4-5 years old, and lists "smaller" stars than recent shows. These shows are also right up there with "Charlie Rose quality," will be used by biographers forever as source material. For example: "Check out this season’s lineup:" 10/2	Ringo Starr 10/9	Rod Stewart 10/23	Lynyrd Skynyrd 10/30	Kansas 11/6	Joan Baez 11/13	Dan Aykroyd 11/20	Buddy Guy 11/27	Brian Setzer 12/4	Ricky Skaggs 12/11	Kenny Loggins" —Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

"Assigning frequencies for national news events" sounds wrong
Didn't the FCC assign frequencies for broadcast TV? What did a broadcast engineer named Kenneth Steininger have to do with it? AFAIK networks did not change frequencies according to news events. PapayaSF (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence
"Cronkite also said that Bob Schieffer's succession was long overdue."

The phrase "Bob Schieffer's succession" can mean at least two different things that are virtually opposite to each other.

I hope that someone who knows how to write clearly will fix this with an accurate and unambiguous statement.50.205.142.50 (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I had to go to the source to figure out what it was supposed to mean. Hope the rewrite helps. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Books Section - The Palace Guard
Under the section "Books," the first one noted is The Palace Guard with a publication date of 1977. However, in the fictional Rex Stout book A Family Affair, published in 1974, Nero Wolfe is reading The Palace Guard (page 15 of hardcover edition). I cannot find verifiable data to determine why 1977 is listed. 50.26.139.162 (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Susan Stravato
 * Great catch! Checking the ISBN on Worldcat.org, the correct date is 1974. I've fixed it in the article. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
We need a proper lead paragraph, that summarizes his career and tells us why he is notable. What we have now is a "why he became popular 60 years ago." LK (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Overall article quality
Like many Wikipedia articles, I find this one seems like a hundred puzzle pieces glued together. Reading it through completely, the writing seems awful. Some things are out of sequence; some sentences are non sequitors, having no apparent connection to the rest of the paragraph. References are shoved in abruptly and seem to have no reason for being.

This article badly needs rewriting—not so much because of individual pieces but because there is no holistic structure or theme. I believe bio articles ought to follow a general chronology, and section heads should be treated as subheads for example, instead of completely separate sections calling out in detail material that has been referenced in another section.

I'd like to try a new write-thru to reorganize this article, without really changing much of the actual material. I'm not sure how to do that here, though, as opposed to editing a paragraph or section, for example. What do you think? American Jackson (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd suggest working on it in your user space. When you're satisfied with it, you can post a link to it here, inviting other editors to review it. When there's consensus on that version, the changes can be moved over to the main article. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - that's the noob advice I was looking for. American Jackson (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * American Jackson made a start at User:American Jackson/sandbox/New Dan Rather but did not finish. Please would an interested editor assess the material added there, incorporate what is useful, blank the draft as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

False Representation of the Zapruder Film
It should be noted that Mr. Rather’s incorrect interpretation of the Zapruder film where he stated that he saw JFK’s head fling forward after being shot was quickly followed by Rather’s promotion to the head of news for CBS. 92.12.2.157 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Only if there are reliable sources that make that association. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)