Rather

This is a story conjured up to simply be nothing more than slight of hand tactics with manipulation in mind. A story of a man who sold his soul to the highest bidder . A truth teller he is not. He chose to be a manipulative voice for indoctrination of things to draw the most views for the money grubbing moguls who try to push agendas. Facts do not contain opinions. Facts speak for themselves. Rather uses opinions(personal and other flawed views) to manipulate the truth for his own glorification as a supposed newsman. His news is nothing short of propaganda to change beliefs backed only by opinionated jibberish. A glorified prop for those who seek to skew the truth.

This documentary is well done and most will get some good insight on the man. During the 60's, 70's and most of the 80's he was well respected and the documentary shows that. He told the story without opinion, took a lot of risks with his life and worked very hard at his job. He mostly did it very well and should be accorded the proper respect for it. Unfortunately he lost his way in the late 1980's and started to let his political ideology leak into his reporting. He became the story more than the subject he was reporting on. The vast number of people interviewed for this documentary were quick to praise Dan. Many commented on how much he accomplished and how hard he worked and he was "impartial". Unfortunately Dan was far from impartial and it was clearly obvious. Even liberal review sites bemoaned his misleading, inaccurate and incomplete reporting. In Dan Rather's world democrats can do no wrong. Name one democrat from the late 1980's until today that Rather has broke a critical story or initiated an investigative report on? You can't because according to Dan Rathers world democrats do no wrong and we all know that is not true. Regardless of Dan's political stance I think he's a good man. I've enjoyed his later career "Big Interview" series and he's earned a lot of respect. He doesn't deserve the "impartial" moniker though. Cheers...

In an age before community-sourced fact-checking there was one source for news and people had no alternative other than their own historical memory of events.

Dan Rather told his stories which were wholly partisan and designed to create news rather than report on what actually happened. He used his position and image to foist his opinions and personal political views on an unwise and unsuspecting audience who gave him their trust and faith based on his promise to "tell it like it is."

He became the role model for budding journalists who learned their craft at his knee. His protogé, Rachel Maddow, took Rather's schtick and has run with it. Rather, like Maddow, exemplifies the worst of journalism, opinion and hit pieces masquerading and honest news reporting.

Dan was exposed as a hack and a fraud in 2004 when he relied on his reputation to support his false and libelous reporting on George W. Bush. His credibility was shot and he retired. 18 years later, he crawls out from under his rock to play on his reputation that only liberals respect. Dan tells us, "real news" was what "somebody in power doesn't want you to know." Well, he should know. He had the power to frame the narrative to his liking and he did not want you to know it.

Don't support him or his cronies now. Invest your time with something else, something with some truth in it.

"Love never fails" and "Courage" are the two tag lines for Dan Rather, according to this interesting biographical film.

Told through a series of clips and interviews, nothing really new is unearthed by producers, but it is still a good review of the reporter's life.

Rather was at the scene of important events from the start of his career and continued to try to visit the locations of stories as well as do research. This led to viewers latching onto the grittier, more realistic feel of his reports than if he'd merely sat behind a desk.

Rather did run into problems a few times, however, pushing a little too hard perhaps (or a little too fast.) The movie covers this angle as well.

Further, watching the chronology, viewers realize how much the news media landscape has changed--worthy to think about all by itself.

I'd been a fan for a long time for all his dedication to facts and fairness, but had no idea how instrumental he was in so many important events, like Watergate. And while he definitely had some missteps throughout his career, he stood fast in the onslaught of those who sought to discredit him for their own personal and political gain.

Overall structure of the documentary is well-paced and pretty in-depth, and shows away from glorifying him as a saint. Those that were interviewed were interesting and the balance taken was of someone who loves their job, works hard and won't let disinformation stand up to the truth. I'm glad he's turned to social media for discourse these days. We need more intelligent people engaging the young.