# HDNet signs Rather



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

HDNet Announces New Program, "Dan Rather Reports"

News program produced and reported by legendary broadcaster premieres this October.

PASADENA, CA - July 11, 2006 - HDNet is excited to announce today that one of the most accomplished news journalists of our generation, Dan Rather, will produce and host "Dan Rather Reports," premiering exclusively on HDNet this October.

A weekly news program, "Dan Rather Reports" will feature hard-edged field reports, interviews and investigative pieces. It will be one-hour in length and will be completely uncensored. It will reflect the signature qualities of its host with a focus on accuracy, fairness and guts.

"We're thrilled that Dan is now part of HDNet" said Mark Cuban, Co-Founder of HDNet. "Now that he is finally released from the ratings driven and limited depth confines of broadcast television, I am excited about the impact Dan can have on the future of news."

"Hard news needs backers who won't back down. Mark Cuban is such a leader," said Rather. "As a team player I intend to give Mark and HDNet all of the hard work, loyalty and fearless, high quality reporting possible."

Cuban and Rather will expand upon the program and address questions at the Television Critics Association Tour at the Ritz-Carlton, Huntington Hotel and Spa in Pasadena, CA at 4:00 Pacific Time.

http://www.hd.net/

Thanks to Shane Sturgeon at HDTV Magazine for the heads-up.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

If this reporter express a personal opinion...

I wish Mark Cuban had hired _Katie Couric_ instead and let Rather walk off into the oblivion of television history.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It'd rather they had not done this hire. 

Do you really want to see Dan Rather in HD?
I havn't watched him in SD for many years.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

All they need to make this action complete is to hire Connie Chung!.:nono2:


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

What a major development in broadcasting--Dan Rather in HD! Just what everyone had been wanting!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Enter Cuban. After getting word of Rather's imminent departure, the Internet mogul and Dallas Mavericks owner expressed interest in making an offer, telling the Hollywood Reporter last month that he thought Rather, a native Texan, was "being held back by the corporate structure of CBS."

"They prefer pretty faces, earnings per share and fluff to news with a payoff," Cuban told the trade. "Dan is hungry to do something unique and exciting. So we are talking about how he can do that with HDNet."
source​One thing HD will do is prove that Dan Rather is not a 'pretty face' reporter.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

"Fake but Accurate" in HD


----------



## anthonyi (Feb 4, 2006)

Does this mean that the quality of my HD picture will be tilting more to the left?


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

anthonyi said:


> Does this mean that the quality of my HD picture will be tilting more to the left?


No the quality will remain high, but the picture rotation will be tilting to the left.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

I disagree. I think this is an opportunity for American media to take back the reigns of the fourth estate which has become the 'fourth front' under this administration.


----------



## Neil Derryberry (Mar 23, 2002)

High-resolution liberal bias.. just great.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

Finally, some decent news programming.


----------



## Tom in TX (Jan 22, 2004)

Nick said:


> It will reflect the signature qualities of its host with a focus on accuracy, fairness and guts.


Dan Rather - Accurate and Fair? I don't think so!! :lol:

Tom in TX


----------



## Laverne (Feb 17, 2005)

I think I'm the only Republican that actually still likes Dan Rather. (And, yes, I AM a Republican, I've voted straight Republican since I was 18, I think that qualifies me. )

I think it must be something about his voice. But also, I appreciate his seriousness and solemnity when it comes to certain nationally significant events. For example, when Reagan died, and when they had the memorial for the 7 astronauts of Columbia, he said very little, and did it very quietly, as opposed to that blabber-mouth, Katie Couric, (et al.) who just couldn't seem to _SHUT UP_! (Sorry, Nick. )


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

No, I am also and Goldwater was the first candidate I voted for. thanks for the comment.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Remind me on a daily basis not to tune in. :barf: Just what I need, DR projected life size in my living room. NOT.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

So Rather believed and reported a story about Pres. Bush that later turned out to be false. Unfortunately, he was sent to broadcast hell for it. Other "reporters" broadcast false reports almost daily with no repercussions. It's a matter of visibility, I guess.
Personally, I've never been a big Rather fan, preferring Tom Brokaw or the late Peter Jennings. 
The good thing about Rather is the fact that he is a reporter in the truest sense of the word, one who normally researches stories thoroughly. The bad thing is the fact that he didn't research the Bush story thoroughly, and for that he will be remembered.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Regarding Rather's "hard-hitting" interview with Saddam Hussein:

From Conan O'Brien:

“CBS news anchor Dan Rather has interviewed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. When asked what it was like to talk to a crazy man, Saddam said, 'It's not so bad.'”

And Jay Leno:
“One of the interpreters hired by CBS for the Dan Rather/Saddam Hussein interview adopted a phony Arabic accent. You know, maybe CBS should have hired somebody with a fake Dan Rather accent to ask tougher questions.”

Two of my favorite quotes abour Rather.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

I see the neo cons are alive and well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laverne said:


> ... he said very little ...


I prefer it when Dan Rather isn't talking too! 


Cholly said:


> So Rather believed and reported a story about Pres. Bush that later turned out to be false. Unfortunately, he was sent to broadcast hell for it. Other "reporters" broadcast false reports almost daily with no repercussions. It's a matter of visibility, I guess.


One of the news articles referred to him as a "voice of God" newscaster. When he (and his contemporaries) said things America took it seriously. He was introduced as a serious newscaster and didn't get into the role of "funtime Danny with the news".

Most newscasters are taken with the seriousness of Jon Stewart. When they say something the question 'really?' is near the top of the mind. And if we find out that they were wrong we are not suprised. But when a "voice of God" fails he has further to fall.

IMHO Dan started his demise when he attacked President GHW Bush live (on the east coast) during the CBS Evening News. He lied to the president's staff about the nature of the interview and showed disrespect for the office of the president. Liberals may have loved it but conservatives hated it and tuned out. He gave up the role of being an impartial observer to take a cheap shot and it cost him.

Fortunately this new thing is an hour a week. Easy to miss if you don't like his style of news and easy to find if you do.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Dan will have a much harder time passing off fake documents in High Definition. :lol:


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Well , there have been _some_ things I liked about Rather, despite some of his antics, like disrespecting the presidency and having his own hidden agenda re GWB -- but, I was both glad and sad to see him leave CBS.

Seeing Rather's rugged visage in HD wil be akin to viewing craters on the dark side of the moon with the Hubble telescope!  But I probably will tune in occasionally.

*Makeup!*

:grin:


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Neil Derryberry said:


> High-resolution liberal bias.. just great.


Exactly, maybe now he can forge documents and lie in High Defination. Maybe then it will be even clearer how full of crap he is.


----------



## dsanbo (Nov 25, 2005)

Cholly said:


> So Rather believed and reported a story about Pres. Bush that later turned out to be false. Unfortunately, he was sent to broadcast hell for it. Other "reporters" broadcast false reports almost daily with no repercussions. It's a matter of visibility, I guess.
> Personally, I've never been a big Rather fan, preferring Tom Brokaw or the late Peter Jennings.
> The good thing about Rather is the fact that he is a reporter in the truest sense of the word, one who normally researches stories thoroughly. The bad thing is the fact that he didn't research the Bush story thoroughly, and for that he will be remembered.


Right.....Remember....If Mother Theresa committed one transgression in her life....THAT'S what she'll FOREVER be "remembered" for....:nono2:


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

James Long said:


> Enter Cuban. After getting word of Rather's imminent departure, the Internet mogul and Dallas Mavericks owner expressed interest in making an offer, telling the Hollywood Reporter last month that he thought Rather, a native Texan, was "being held back by the corporate structure of CBS."
> 
> "They prefer pretty faces, earnings per share and fluff to news with a payoff," Cuban told the trade. "Dan is hungry to do something unique and exciting. So we are talking about how he can do that with HDNet."
> source​One thing HD will do is prove that Dan Rather is not a 'pretty face' reporter.


Yikes. How about Laurie Dew in high def, now that would be sweet.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

dsanbo said:


> Right.....Remember....If Mother Theresa committed one transgression in her life....THAT'S what she'll FOREVER be "remembered" for....:nono2:


Yeah, purposefully fabricating a story about a sitting president to influence an election. Just a minor transgression. What's the big deal?


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

That story really shows how important the internet has become as "fact checkers" for the "media". A few years ago his phoney documents would have simply been accepted as fact. Now, thanks to technology, the "media" has to be a bit more careful and aware that any comments they make may be fact checked by people who don't have the same agenda.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> Yeah, purposefully fabricating a story about a sitting president to influence an election. Just a minor transgression. What's the big deal?


Yeah exactly. I mean shouldn't that be a crime? The good thing is, almost no one watched his new or any of the three networks any more. They are in about the same position T-Rex was about 5 minutes before that huge meteorite landed in Cancun about 60 million years ago.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Richard King said:


> That story really shows how important the internet has become as "fact checkers" for the "media". A few years ago his phoney documents would have simply been accepted as fact.


Almost a full circle there. Were the phony documents also not a product of the Internet? Giving people a platform on the internet to publish what they want can not only vet stories on other sites/sources but create more incorrect buzz information.


ebaltz said:


> Yeah exactly. I mean shouldn't that be a crime? The good thing is, almost no one watched his new or any of the three networks any more. They are in about the same position T-Rex was about 5 minutes before that huge meteorite landed in Cancun about 60 million years ago.


Naked on the beach? :lol:


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Cholly said:


> So Rather believed and reported a story about Pres. Bush that later turned out to be false. Unfortunately, he was sent to broadcast hell for it. Other "reporters" broadcast false reports almost daily with no repercussions. It's a matter of visibility, I guess.
> Personally, I've never been a big Rather fan, preferring Tom Brokaw or the late Peter Jennings.
> The good thing about Rather is the fact that he is a reporter in the truest sense of the word, one who normally researches stories thoroughly. The bad thing is the fact that he didn't research the Bush story thoroughly, and for that he will be remembered.


Let's not rewrite history here. Dan was deeply involved with this story for well over a year. He was warned on numerous occasions that there were "problems" with the credibility of his sources. Disregarding the obvious issues, he still decided to run with the story just prior to a national election.

When the fraud was exposed and every expert and their mother was screaming that the documents were blatant forgeries...he still refused to back down. His half-hearted apology weeks later was just a bogus as his story. Actually, to this day he has still yet to actually admit that the documents are fakes.

Shed no tears for Dan. He is not the poor virtuous newsman who accidently ran with bad info. He knew what he was doing.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

ebaltz said:


> ....The good thing is, almost no one watched his new or any of the three networks any more.


Yeah, which begs to question why on earth HDNet would sign this clown. Even before he was busted as a fraud his ratings were in the toilet. What could they possibly hope to gain?

For me that's one more channel I'll remove from my guide listing.


----------



## Laverne (Feb 17, 2005)

LtMunst said:


> For me that's one more channel I'll remove from my guide listing.


One program you don't like and you boycott the whole channel? I suppose you boycotted CBS also when he was there?? 

Sorry to hear you'll be missing out on all the great HD NASA content.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Laverne said:


> One program you don't like and you boycott the whole channel? I suppose you boycotted CBS also when he was there??


No...just CBS news.



Laverne said:


> Sorry to hear you'll be missing out on all the great HD NASA content.


I'll look forward to great HD NASA content when they stop flying 25 year old junkers and come up with something new.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

James Long said:


> Almost a full circle there. Were the phony documents also not a product of the Internet? Giving people a platform on the internet to publish what they want can not only vet stories on other sites/sources but create more incorrect buzz information.Naked on the beach? :lol:


One of life's beautiful ironies.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> Almost a full circle there. Were the phony documents also not a product of the Internet? Giving people a platform on the internet to publish what they want can not only vet stories on other sites/sources but create more incorrect buzz information.Naked on the beach? :lol:


And which case do you think the Killian documents were? The originals were not from the internet. The proof that they were forgeries was espoused on the internet, by a lawyer with no access to the documents. The supposed proof the documents were forgeries, from handwriting experts came later, and were derived from an email and then faxed copy. We can now 'prove' anything is or is not true via the internet. In today's world the press is irrelevant. Opinions are all. Beliefs over documentation rules. I scream louder and longer than you, thus I win. And it is now all about winning.


----------



## Dan the Cards fan (Mar 18, 2006)

ebaltz said:


> Yikes. How about Laurie Dew in high def, now that would be sweet.


I agree with that. Lauire is HOT!


----------



## Red Dwarf (Aug 25, 2002)

:lol: I guess you guys would "rather" get your fake news from FOX. :lol:


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Red Dwarf said:


> :lol: I guess you guys would "rather" get your fake news from FOX. :lol:


Last time I looked they were #1 by like 100% and they weren't making up fake documents.


----------



## Red Dwarf (Aug 25, 2002)

ebaltz said:


> Last time I looked they were #1 by like 100% and they weren't making up fake documents.


IMHO they shouldn't even call it news. It's mostly propaganda from the Republican party. FoX being fair and balanced is a joke.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

OK ... let's leave the faux news bashing to Potpourri. The only fake news discussion that should be in this thread is about Rather.

Thanks!


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

fair.org :lol:


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Red Dwarf said:


> IMHO they shouldn't even call it news. It's mostly propaganda from the Republican party. FoX being fair and balanced is a joke.
> 
> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067


You being an intellegent commentor on the issue is what is a joke.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Dan Rather only has minor problems in his reporting, and that is using "actual" facts in them.

There is very littie real news today, its only some journalists opinion, if we "really" had news today, the reporters would be telling and showing us what happen not what they think. 

Even when there is a "news event" say a bomb goes off somewhere, an airliner crashes, you get hours of the same video in a loop, with slews of "so called" expert analysis, and anyone with a brain would be bored in the first five minutes.


----------



## Powie (Apr 9, 2006)

ebaltz said:


> You being an intellegent commentor on the issue is what is a joke.


Before making personal attacks, one might try a spell checker.

Otherwise you look like a *commenter* with no *intelligence*.


----------



## Red Dwarf (Aug 25, 2002)

Powie said:


> Before making personal attacks, one might try a spell checker.
> 
> Otherwise you look like a *commenter* with no *intelligence*.


Is that the best you can do in your little flame war? He misspelled a word?:lol:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

He misspelled TWO words, not just one. As you know, that is FAR WORSE. Twice as bad. :lol:

OK, you've had your fun. Let's get back to Rather and HDNet.

Rather was on Larry King last night (taped July 12th). Spent most of the hour talking about the promises broken by CBS. Well, not really talking about them - just saying that there were promises broken. According to Rather he still doesn't know why he was fired from CBS.

Perhaps he could do some investigative reporting and find out?


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Rather is in a state of denial, and has been perhaps for years.. He also has a story from the late 80's if I recall about Vietnam, that was largely fiction as well.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Rather has _already_ appeared on HDNet -- today!

I wish him well.

(I expect him to report on the shuttle landing at KSC tomorrow (Monday) morning.)


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*News program produced and reported by legendary
broadcaster Dan Rather premieres this October.*

PASADENA, CA - July 11, 2006 - HDNet is excited to announce today that one
of the most accomplished news journalists of our generation, Dan Rather, will
produce and host "Dan Rather Reports," premiering exclusively on HDNet this
coming October.

A weekly news program, "Dan Rather Reports" will feature hard-edged field
reports, interviews and investigative pieces. It will be one-hour in length and
will be completely uncensored. It will reflect the signature qualities of its host
with a focus on accuracy, fairness and guts.

"We're thrilled that Dan is now part of HDNet " said Mark Cuban, Co-Founder
of HDNet. "Now that he is finally released from the ratings driven and limited
depth confines of broadcast television, I am excited about the impact Dan can
have on the future of news."

"Hard news needs backers who won't back down. Mark Cuban is such a leader,"
said Rather. "As a team player I intend to give Mark and HDNet all of the hard
work, loyalty and fearless, high quality reporting possible."

Cuban and Rather will expand upon the program and address questions at the
Television Critics Association Tour at the Ritz-Carlton, Huntington Hotel and Spa
in Pasadena, CA at 4:00 Pacific Time.

About HDNet: HDNet (www.hd.net) provides viewers with the best in original
comedy, drama, news, sports and music programming.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

Cholly said:


> So Rather believed and reported a story about Pres. Bush that later turned out to be false. Unfortunately, he was sent to broadcast hell for it. Other "reporters" broadcast false reports almost daily with no repercussions. It's a matter of visibility, I guess.
> Personally, I've never been a big Rather fan, preferring Tom Brokaw or the late Peter Jennings.
> The good thing about Rather is the fact that he is a reporter in the truest sense of the word, one who normally researches stories thoroughly. The bad thing is the fact that he didn't research the Bush story thoroughly, and for that he will be remembered.


What portion of Dan Rather's report on President Bush's National Guard service was false?


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

olgeezer said:


> What portion of Dan Rather's report on President Bush's National Guard service was false?


The better questions would be, what part of it was true?

Answer: None of it.

He made it all up with the help of some willing participants in the charade that created the fake documents and passed them off to Rather as real.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe the part about Bush being in the national guard was true.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

Would you like me to list the official documents?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

No. (You're not in the Potpourri fourm, are you?)


----------

