'''Dan Rather''' (b. October 31, 1931) was the longtime liberal anchor of the [[CBS]] Evening News for twentyand [[Democratic Party]] fundraiser.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-four years, until his retirement dyn/A34557-2001Apr3</ref> In 2004 Rather's mid-campaign smear attempt against President [[George W. Bush]] was revealed to be based on forged documents. Rather knew the documents were forged (see [[Rathergate]]). He retired under pressure in March 2005. ==Other career highlights== He also contributed to the show "60 Minutes". Rather covered many important events during his twenty-four years, and was known for his coverage of [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] in the [[Watergate Scandal|WatergateAffair]] scandal and of the [[Soviet]] invasion of [[Afghanistan]]. He has been accused of having a [[liberal]] bias, and his sudden retirement might have had something to do with retired suddenly under a cloud after the scandal known as "[[Rathergate]]"was exposed.
==Rathergate==
In September 2004, the middle of the presidential election, Rather claimed on "60 Minutes" that he had authentic typed documents from the 1970's which called into question [[George W. Bush|Bush's]] [[National Guard Service]] service. These documents were almost immediately ruled exposed in blogs to be shoddy forgeries. CBS based on font and Rather himself later apologized for running the story<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml</ref>. Four CBS employees were later fired over the controversy, including the Senior Vice President, and many suspect script print that Rather retired in order was not available to avoid the same fate<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml</ref>typewriters of that time period. The documents were later reviewed by experts who decided that the documents were falseIndeed, and that CBS was negligent it appeared to be written in airing them<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21675-2004Sep14.html?nav=hcmodule</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html</ref><ref>http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf</ref>. Some have said that Rather intentionally ran the story in order to influence the election. Others have said that the false documents were included due to being rushedMicrosoft Word, and a program that they were did not intentionally used for political purposes. A senior official of exist at the [[John Kerry|Kerry]] campaign made a phone call to time the man who was the source of the false documents four days before they were aired. Republicans claimed to have pointed to this as a conspiracy<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cbs-parties_x.htm</ref>been written. Kerry claimed that his employee did nothing wrong<ref>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040922-122835-2135r.htm</ref>. A few [[Democrat|domocrats]] blamed [[Carl Rove]], and he denied the accusation<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040922-101433-4296r.htm</ref>.
Instead of admitting the documents may have to be looked at further, the initial response of Rather and CBS was to stick to their guns that they were genuine. <blockquote>"As a standard practice at CBS, each of the documents broadcast on "60 Minutes" was thoroughly investigated by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity"</blockquote> Indeed, CBS had actually been warned by some of the people they interviewed for the story that the document they were talking about was probably a forgery, but they were dismissed as 'pro-Bush'. Only when it was overwhelmingly apparent that they were shoddy forgeries, did CBS and Rather relent. CBS and Rather later apologized for running the story, but their obstinance in light of the building evidence had already done its damage.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml ''Dan Rather Statement On Memos''], CBS News, 20 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/9/192002.shtml '' '60 Minutes' Bush Guard Documents Questioned''], NewsMax.com, 9 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/11/100726.shtml '' '60 Minutes': Witness Who Contradicted Forged Docs Was Too 'Pro-Bush' ''], NewsMax.com, 11 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref>.
The documents were reviewed by experts who decided that the documents were false, and that CBS was negligent in airing them.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21675-2004Sep14.html?nav=hcmodule ''Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags' ''], The Washington Post, 15 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html ''Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush''], The Washington Post, 10 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf ''Appendix 4: Panel Observations Peter Tytell's Analysis of Typestyle Issues''] (PDF), CBS News. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref> Four CBS employees were later fired over the controversy, including the Senior Vice President, and many suspect that Rather retired in order to avoid the same fate.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml ''CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story''], CBS News, 10 Jan 2005. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref>
Some have said that Rather intentionally ran the story in order to influence the election. Others claim that the rush to be the first to break the story was the reason behind the false documents inclusion, and that they were not intentionally used for political purposes. A senior official of the [[John Kerry|Kerry]] campaign made a phone call to the man who was the source of the false documents four days before they were aired, a rather odd coincidence. Republicans have pointed to this as a conspiracy.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cbs-parties_x.htm ''Parties lob accusations over suspect papers''], USAToday, 21 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref> Kerry claimed that his employee did nothing wrong.<ref>[http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040922-122835-2135r.htm], Washington Times.</ref> A few desperate [[Democrats]] tried to blame [[Karl Rove]], but apart from a knee-jerk accusation to deflect attention, there was no evidence.<ref>[http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040922-101433-4296r.htm], Washington Times.</ref>
In September 2007, Rather sued CBS News for $70 million, claiming that they gave him insufficient airtime on [[60 Minutes]] after forcing him to step down as anchor of the [[CBS Evening News]] in March 2005.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/business/media/19cnd-rather.html?hp ''Rather’s Lawsuit Says CBS Made Him a ‘Scapegoat’''], New York Times, 20 Sept 2007. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref>
== References ==
<references/> ==External Links==*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/dan-rather/ What Liberals Say - Dan Rather], [[Accuracy In Media]] {{DEFAULTSORT:Rather, Dan}}[[Category:Liberals]][[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Best Selling Authors]]