4 ms·

Taking Dan Rather's advice on a responsible attitude to science is like going to Bill Cosby for dating advice, or asking Rolf Harris to run your kindergarten.

Taking Dan Rather's advice on a responsible attitude to science is like going to Bill Cosby for dating advice, or asking Rolf Harris to run your kindergarten. Booted from CBS in disgrace for confusing journalism with character assassination. Read the original CBS report. "This man is a truth teller". Indeed. Here is the full report. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report...

MrZongle2 10y ago
I'm glad somebody brought this up. Rather is no Cronkite, Murrow or Brinkley: the Killian documents debacle demonstrated that he was sloppy at best, and was more interested in pushing a political agenda than digging for the truth. That's the antithesis of science. This doesn't invalidate the need for climate change research -- not by far! -- but he shouldn't be the poster boy for any fact-based cause at this point.
- cnnsucks 10y ago
  This doesn't deserve down mod. If Hacker News is going to cite Dan fucking Rather about anything then pointing out the intellectual fraud this guy is guilty of is 100% legitimate.
hackuser 10y ago
I don't see one mistake (assuming it is that; I don't know the details) in a long career as discrediting him, or else everyone is discredited. We have nobody left. Integrity isn't binary; it's not all or nothing.
- touleier 10y ago
  If you don't know the details, that is easily remedied by reading the CBS Report, which I linked to. It is free. I followed this controversy at the time, and it is very revealing precisely in those details, which I read in full as soon as it came out. Rather was guilty of assisting fraud in the service of a cause, no other conclusion is reasonable. That certainly disqualifies him as a serious commentator going forward. Trust matters. Yet now he is being resurrected to lecture us about science.
Retric 10y ago
Please take your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem somewhere else, it only suggests ignorance on your part.
- touleier 10y ago
  "suggests ignorance" == ad hominem. Rather is a discredited hack. Get a clue.
  - Retric 10y ago
    I don't care if he is insane, who he is says nothing about his message. At most a speaker simply calls into question the evidence they are using to support an idea, not the idea.
  - sctb 10y ago
    > Get a clue. Please stop this. We need you to comment civilly and substantively on Hacker News or not at all.

MrZongle2 10y ago

I'm glad somebody brought this up. Rather is no Cronkite, Murrow or Brinkley: the Killian documents debacle demonstrated that he was sloppy at best, and was more interested in pushing a political agenda than digging for the truth. That's the antithesis of science. This doesn't invalidate the need for climate change research -- not by far! -- but he shouldn't be the poster boy for any fact-based cause at this point.

cnnsucks 10y ago
This doesn't deserve down mod. If Hacker News is going to cite Dan fucking Rather about anything then pointing out the intellectual fraud this guy is guilty of is 100% legitimate.

hackuser 10y ago

I don't see one mistake (assuming it is that; I don't know the details) in a long career as discrediting him, or else everyone is discredited. We have nobody left. Integrity isn't binary; it's not all or nothing.

touleier 10y ago
If you don't know the details, that is easily remedied by reading the CBS Report, which I linked to. It is free. I followed this controversy at the time, and it is very revealing precisely in those details, which I read in full as soon as it came out. Rather was guilty of assisting fraud in the service of a cause, no other conclusion is reasonable. That certainly disqualifies him as a serious commentator going forward. Trust matters. Yet now he is being resurrected to lecture us about science.

Retric 10y ago

Please take your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem somewhere else, it only suggests ignorance on your part.

touleier 10y ago
"suggests ignorance" == ad hominem. Rather is a discredited hack. Get a clue.
- Retric 10y ago
  I don't care if he is insane, who he is says nothing about his message. At most a speaker simply calls into question the evidence they are using to support an idea, not the idea.
- sctb 10y ago
  > Get a clue. Please stop this. We need you to comment civilly and substantively on Hacker News or not at all.