Changes

'''Dan Rather''' (born October 31, 1931) was the longtime liberal anchor of the [[CBS]] Evening News and  [[Democratic Party]] fundraiser.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-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.   

'''Dan Rather''' (born October 31, 1931) was the longtime liberal anchor of the [[CBS]] Evening News and  [[Democratic Party]] fundraiser.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-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==

==Other career highlights==

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>

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>   

The documents were reviewed by experts who decided that the documents were false, and that CBS was negligent in airing them.<ref>[https://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>[https://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>

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>