Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Dan Rather post-assassination career trajectory curious, all things considered?  (Read 3090 times)

Offline Tom Scully

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1216
Advertisement
I read this, by Linda Minor, earlier this afternoon, and it's got me thinking...
...considering all of the controversy and contradictions related to what Dan Rather did, said, and reported,
was it better to "hide him" in plain sight, as it ended up with Rather becoming the heir to "Uncle Walter,"
or would it have been better to consign Rather to an executive position with no further public visibility?

Quote
https://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2015/05/dan-rather-tales.html
Saturday, May 28, 2022
The Uvalde Connection to JFK Assassination

Events keep happening that remind me of work I did that I never finished. The Uvalde Shooting was the recent event that reminded me of a project I started in 2015 and never finished. Here it is.

Dan Rather Got His Start in Uvalde ....

Checking for mentions of Dan Rather to attempt to determine if I'm posting anything not fully explored in the past,
these two posts influenced me to think I could add something to the discussion by putting this thread up.

John Mytton seems to come on routinely as the chief cook and bottle washer around here.
Yes...seriously.
Dan Rather was among the privileged few press correspondents that were given a private showing of the film back when it was solely in the hands of the Time-Life outfit. Few know what he reported..."Upon viewing the president's head shot---JFK could be seen slumping forward." Is that what we see in that film? Maybe he saw a different copy? ???

Yes. But as John Iacoletti pointed out, the police also talked about the President being DOA, even though he wasn’t.

Question 1:

If a report of the death of the President could be garbled into “the President was DOA”, why couldn’t something similar have happened regarding the report of a police officer being DOA?

I expect you will dodge this question.




Why would the media be so slow in reporting the death of the President but so fast in reporting the death of a police officer? Because it’s one thing to report a police officer was killed, and later be proven wrong. It’s another to report the death of the President, and later be proven wrong. That’s the sort of mistake that would define a career. If Dan Rather had made such a mistake, he would never have replaced Walter Cronkite.
....

I'm not even sure this author influenced Linda Minor's Dan Rather research and questions,

Beginning here,
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48756#relPageId=7&search=rather-clearly-needed-to-delete
The Third Decade, Volume 6, Issue 6
Current Section: Dan Rather In Dallas, by Monte Evans

Monte Evans points out that there is no plausible explanation for Dan Rather having information enabling him
to announce before any else reported it, (much less have CBS network just take his word for it) resulting in almost immediate national broadcast, that the President had died and had been given last rights by a priest, or how Rather was informed to start a search for anybody with an 8 mm camera. "Eddie Barker's people began calling all over Dallas. And slowly we picked up a trail. Someone had seen a man standing at a certain spot. Someone else thought he was in the retail clothing business (wholesale, it turned out.) We ran our leads through the FBI and the Dallas police. Finally, we had a name: Abraham Zapruder,"17 "The Camera Never Blinks" p. 123


https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48756#relPageId=9&search=rather-clearly-needed-to-delete

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48756#relPageId=12&search=rather-clearly-needed-to-delete
« Last Edit: June 06, 2022, 10:32:42 PM by Tom Scully »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tom Scully

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1216
https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/1534912986833297415

Maybe a new slogan for Fox News should be: “For those who can’t handle the truth.”
10:59 AM · Jun 9, 2022

https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKOH/Rather%2C%20Dan/JFKOH-DR-01/JFKOH-DR-01
RATHER, DAN: ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW - JFK #1, 2/11/2003

"...DAITCH: Right. You’d better tell me about the Zapruder [Abraham Zapruder] tape
before we run out of time. Don Hewitt told me a story about that. We need
to get your....
RATHER: Well, I don’t know. Don has written three or four different versions.
DAITCH: We need to get yours.
RATHER: Yes. Well, we started.... First of all, hand-held, home movie cameras were
out at that time, but were not nearly as pervasive as they became later. But
in the confusion, the melee of coverage, trying to find anybody who had a
camera of any kind that was preferably a home movie camera, that I’m not sure whether
Zapruder himself called. But we got a call – I didn’t take the call – that Zapruder had
home movie stuff, and that he had “captured the whole thing.” Now remember this is
film, not tape. It had to be processed.

DAITCH: Oh, right.

RATHER: And so we quickly said, well, we’d make the local arrangements to get it
processed. Which we did. I don’t remember every detail about that. We
got the film. We called some people. First of all, it was a weekend.
Second, it was the night of the assassination. So we stayed up a lot to get this film

                                                          [-16-]

processed, and we had to get it processed quickly.
Certainly by the time the film got finished, I think poorly, but he had this attorney.
And the attorney called and said – I didn’t talk to the attorney directly – he said, “We
have the film. Meet me in my office.” And I told him right away, you know, that we must
get this receipt for it. He said, “We can talk about it at the office.” When I got to his
office, he explained what the procedure would be. He’d take us in and show the film one
time, we could see it one time and one time only. Then he did entertain bids. Dick Stahle, (Stolley)
Richard Stahle, who’s now retired, a friend of mine, was there for Time Magazine. And I
had hoped that he would . . . I had hoped that, because we had known about and had it
processed and so forth, that maybe we would get a show of our own.
But how Stahle even knew about the film, I’m not sure, but I think they took it to
other reporters. Stahle was there, and I was sorry to see Stahle there because he’s a very
tough competitor, and he’s a very smart guy. Also, Time-Life in those days had very deep
pockets. Anyway, he set up his projector. It came up how short it was, but everything was
there. So as soon as the film was over, we had discussed it. I got up and left the meeting.
It was near our studios, from where we were broadcasting from our local station. And I
basically said, “I’ll be back.” I went over to describe what I had seen. I told Hewitt that
Zapruder footage was very clear. They said, “Well, get on. You describe what you’ve
seen.” Which I did. I first described it to them. Frankly, I thought they ought to dump the
thing now. There were others we could have used with other views. Given the fact that I
hadn’t seen it for much time, the description I’d given on the air was very accurate, that
those with other views were how could you have not picked up on this? How could you
use this and not the other? Only saying that as they smile. By the way, this was news.
There was a lot of discussion, not just with.... Actually a guy named Ernie Mizer
was the most important man. Mizer was the guy with CBS coverage, and he wanted to
know how did we get our hands on it? There was a discussion about, well, why don’t you
just grab the film and run with it? But mythology has sort of taken hold of that whole
thing. First of all, it wasn’t really practical to do, even if we’d wanted to do it. It was on a
projector; it was their projector. So, you know, the story gets better as each person tells it
over time. The fact is that we saw the film, saw – we were seeing the assassination. That
was news. And we were only the on the air constantly. I went right back to describe what
I saw as best I could.
Before I went back over to the attorney’s office, they put somebody from Business
Affairs, I can’t remember who it was. I think it was a guy named Cleveland Clem or
something. Anyway, he said, “Well, you know, you offer him....” I think it was like
$3,000. We were paying $10,000 top. These are 1963 dollars. And I told him. I said,
“Well, I don’t know if we can get it for that.” When I got back over, the attorney said,
“We sold it to Time-Life.”

DAITCH: Oh. Already done!

RATHER: And I was really stunned by that. I said, “Well, wait a minute. We haven’t
even....” He said, “Well, they made a preemptive bid.” Now, the story has
always been that what they did was they said $50,000 and you can have it
now.” for an exclusive. And $50,000 in ‘63 would be, I think, about a half million dollars
now. Remember I had $10,000 top. But while Stahle has never admitted it, I think, they

                                                    [-17-]

gave $100,000 for it. That’s what I think they gave. But nonetheless, all I know is that the
publisher said $50,000, and that the attorney said a million $99, and I really tried to argue
with him and saying, well, you haven’t even heard what we were going to offer. Tried to
confuse him to let us play it one time.
But it was over. Not only was I disappointed by the results and angry about it; I’m
a biased witness, it’s true. But I thought it was really important that people see the footage
then. That it was a way of keeping it off the air. I had my thoughts then: Is this something
the government had done? Is this connected with the government? I don’t think so. I
don’t think so mainly because I know Stahle, and he’s a journalist through and through.
But I have often wondered what would have happened if we’d made the show at the time.
I think for one thing there would be a whole lot fewer conspiracy theories. But that was
that story. I know Don is a good storyteller in a dramatic fashion.
DAITCH: Right.
RATHER: [Inaudible]. I thought I remembered about Don at the time, just sort of
jumping up and down. One of the few times I’ve known him when he was
almost out of control. But Mizer is now deceased. He was the guy who
kept a steady hand on us. And also he thought carefully about giving the change. The first
time I described it, I described it as Mrs. Kennedy was trying to get out of the limousine.
After the first time, Mizer.... I think Hewitt first must have said, “Take that part out
because people are complaining.” And I remember saying, “That’s what I remember
seeing,” and it was sort of, well, “I know you’ve seen that, but you didn’t see that.”
And this has gotten to be a minor controversy. I had thought it was no disservice
to her. She would not have been trying to get out of something, probably, without
instructions from the Secret Service agents when it happened. But it all got caught up in,
and everybody’s trying to legend it that she was trying to help the Secret Service men that
were there. I don’t know that she ever spoke to it. But I do remember the first time I
described it to them that, you know, Mrs. Kennedy tried to help the President. Then she
crawled in the back of the limo trying to get out. It was Hewitt who first said, “You can’t
say that.” I said, “Well, what are you telling me? This is what I saw.”
DAITCH: That’s what it looked like.
RATHER: He said, “Well, you just didn’t see that.” Then Mizer came in. He was a
steadier hand. He said, “Well, here’s the thing, that you’ve only seen it
once. You can’t rule out the possibility. And it really takes away from the
overall…. It strikes an emotional chord with people.” And so I left it out of subsequent
descriptions. Even now, you know, I laugh about it. God, we really [Inaudible]. I mean
we’re not victims of anything. It’s just so much was happening so quickly. The Zapruder
film negotiation alone was full-time work.
DAITCH: Oh, yes, yes. It was crazy. And I heard Bob Schaefer [Robert
Schaefer] on the radio just yesterday or the day before. I guess he has a
book out in which he’s describing bringing.... Lee Harvey Oswald’s
mother just happened to call, and he just happened to bring her.

                                                  [-18-]

RATHER: I mean I called Scheefer; that’s where I met him because he had this thing
[Inaudible]. But I said something to Mr. Zapruder in the Office of Public
Service, in a desperate effort to get – to be assured, once I came back, that
the deal was closed. You know, I thought in my head, maybe I’d made a mistake, you
know, what if? What if I had stayed and all these thing? But things go that way.
DAITCH: Sure.
RATHER: To pay that kind of money in those days was virtually unheard of. I mean
these days people do it all the time.
DAITCH: It’s amazing.
RATHER: But that’s journalism. What did Don tell you? He told you that I should
have grabbed it?
DAITCH: Yes, hit the guy, run off with the tape, and then take the tape back.
RATHER: Yes, yes. Well, it makes a nice story.
DAITCH: It does. It’s very dramatic. He said he would have done it.
RATHER: And there’s always somebody around to tell you what you should have
done.
DAITCH: Exactly. But it does make a good story. We’ll keep you for the historical
record, but we’ll tell his story from now until Doomsday.
RATHER: Sure.
DAITCH: So afterwards, you continued to cover Texas? Or you moved pretty
quickly to the White House?
RATHER: No, I was moved to the White House pretty quickly after it happened. The
assassination was in November, and I came to be a White House
correspondent the end of January.
DAITCH: I’m told.... I actually spoke with Mr. Stanton [Frank Stanton] the other
day, and he says that your work in Dallas really brought you to people’s
attention, I guess.
RATHER: Well, he would know. You know, I was a junior correspondent in those
days. I had been on television quite a lot because of the civil rights
movement. Clearly when you have something like this, you’re centered,
and our coverage was good. I’ve always been proud of our coverage. Of course it may be

                                                           [-19-]

that all the coverage was good. Finding the Zapruder tape and getting it, you say, well,
you got lucky. But it was no small thing.
DAITCH: Sure.
RATHER: Also we got it processed. That, by the way, is a good story. If we were
going to do anything, that would have been the place to do it.
DAITCH: Getting it processed.
RATHER: Well, mighta, coulda, shoulda. Tell them you’re in the process of trying to
make a copy. That’s going to slow down the process. It’s also a crime. It
didn’t belong to us. But that’s something could have been done. We also
could have, I think, there would have been an opportunity when it came off the processor
to take it and show it, and then give it to him. I don’t remember his attorney being there
when the film was processed. But again, mighta, coulda, shoulda.
DAITCH: Yes. And as you say, it would have been illegal – some of that, at least.
RATHER: Well, it not only would have been illegal, but it would have been
unethical.
DAITCH: Yes.
RATHER: I’m sure of the front-page sort of thing. And if we’d have done it they
could sue you or something. But I remember seeing it, and I think my eyes
literally bulged. Being in that small room in the throes about my case to
report. My eyes bulged and I thought “people have to know about this.” You see, nobody
knew anything before we saw the film. We had wildly conflicting eyewitness reports as to
where the shots had come from, from what direction. Once even the description was told,
the story came much sharper into focus, and my only thought was to get out and tell
people what I’d seen.
DAITCH: Yes. I can’t imagine what.... I mean even now you see that, and it’s just
so.... Even after all the years of much more graphic things that you see on
television and perhaps even since then, there’s still something about that
that is just horrifying.
RATHER: True. But, you know, it told you so much. I remember thinking.... I don’t
know what I was thinking at the time. But very quickly anyone that was
shown the film knew that this shot didn’t come from far away, you know.
He wasn’t shot at 500 yards or something like that. It was pretty much up close.
DAITCH: Well, and you’re familiar with guns.
RATHER: Yes. You saw how much the Secret Service was taken by surprise. All of
« Last Edit: June 10, 2022, 05:28:55 AM by Tom Scully »

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3725
https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/1534912986833297415 Maybe a new slogan for Fox News should be: “For those who can’t handle the truth.”
10:59 AM · Jun 9, 2022

 
Then add a dash of this reality--- 
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FU2bJ3MUUAEfi6Y?format=jpg&name=small

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/1534912986833297415

Maybe a new slogan for Fox News should be: “For those who can’t handle the truth.”
10:59 AM · Jun 9, 2022

:D :D :D

Dan Rather has the best slogans.

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5015
https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/1534912986833297415

Maybe a new slogan for Fox News should be: “For those who can’t handle the truth.”
10:59 AM · Jun 9, 2022



That's rich considering that Rather was forced to leave CBS and his career there ended in disgrace for making up a false story.  I guess he, like so many radical leftists, was the one who couldn't handle the truth because it didn't fit his desired narrative.

JFK Assassination Forum


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
That's rich considering that Rather was forced to leave CBS and his career there ended in disgrace for making up a false story.  I guess he, like so many radical leftists, was the one who couldn't handle the truth because it didn't fit his desired narrative.

So, CBS was leading by example when they let him go. If the same would happen at Fox they wouldn't have a presenter left over.

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5015
So, CBS was leading by example when they let him go. If the same would happen at Fox they wouldn't have a presenter left over.

What does Fox News have to do with Dan Rather's disgraceful conduct?   CBS didn't actually fire him but continued to allow him to work while knowing that he intentionally fabricated a news report for political purposes during an election.  As Rather lost his marbles, they gradually forced him out.  How is CNN doing on that front?  They ran the fake Russian collusion hoax for almost four years before giving that up with no consequences whatsoever.  The most massive fake conspiracy in history.  They have commentators like Jeffrey "Tubin" Toobin and the disgraced sexual predator Al Franken.   Chris Cuomo covered up the COVID nursing home scandal for his brother with no consequences while harassing staffers.  Cuomo faked an entire news cycle about staying in his basement when he had COVID while he was actually frequenting crowded public restaurants.  The President of CNN lied about his affair with a staffer before he was let go.  On and on. 

JFK Assassination Forum


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
There are few things more hypocritical than a Trump stooge pontificating about sexual predators.