Dan Rather thinks it’s a problem when journalists don’t ask tough questions and follow-ups. He also thinks it can be a problem when they do — if they ask him the tough questions. Tough questions posed to The Dan are as uncomfortable as a pair of armadillo-skin underwear. And a pack of booing journalists agrees with him. (Via Romenesko.)
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Powered by WordPress.
Clearly, it’s a case of nobless oblige. The confusion comes from the inability of the little people to grasp that when The Dan talks, it’s a one way street. The Dan asks the questions and others submit to his interrogations. It’s the natural order of things and there are no exceptions.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 3/14/2006 @ 8:35 amIt’s noblesse oblige.
And Rather would thus be required to accommodate the questioner, not disdain him.
“The Courier-Post won’t run something if we’re not sure it’s authentic.”
They never have to run corrections. Who Knew?
The same writer, Jim Walsh, did a cut-and-dry account of the Rather speech five days before in the same paper and never construed any spectacle or theatrics over the Guard question.
Courier-Post readers should expect to be informed of high-drama audience booing and mic cut-off’s, even if the writer was the goad.
Guess he found a spine. Or misplaced his notes.
Second takes appear a tad contrived.
http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060309/NEWS01/603090376/1006
steve (ab55e3) — 3/14/2006 @ 9:51 pmThat proves nothing. Perhaps an editor cut out the reference to the booing. Perhaps the reporter figured he’d save it for a column. I find those explanations far more plausible than one that requires the reporter to have simply made up the incident, as you seem to suggest.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/14/2006 @ 10:05 pmMade it up?
Perhaps embroidered.
The Rather speech was a big deal in Cherry Hill, from all indications. If barbs fly and mics are cut, you don’t save it for the next week. Such a dust-up, as described, would have had considerable, time-sensitive news value.
I await with interest Courier-Post follow-up letters on the night.
steve (ab55e3) — 3/14/2006 @ 10:30 pm