All goes back to verify the source. Whenever a big problem arises, it most of the time is not doing the most simplistic steps.

Hi Irene, You are so right. If only he had verified, none of this would have happened. He should never have gone on air without verification. There is no way he could remain as the face of CBS News after committing such an egregious journalistic sin. Thanks. Z

Dan lied, his career died. He should have to give a public apology to President Bush.

I think Dan Rather was still paid a salary for his contract even though he was no longer employed. That seems fair enough to me for compensation. He must not have verified his sources because it none of the allegations against President Bush were ever substantiated were they? Most of the damage to his reputation was probably the unsupported claims. I guess CBS realized that.

Yes, he was paid. And no he did not verify -- nor did he evbery substantiate the claims he made against President Bush. Terrible journalism. In fact, it isn't even journalism when you behave as recklessly as Rather did. Thanks. Z

This is a simple case of arrogance. I worker for a Minneapolis CBS affiliate and met Rather many times. One time when he broadcast the eveing news from our studio. All he did was worry about how he looked, the lighting, what the director was doing, and ranted and raved about everything other than the content. Rather simply got caught being Rather. This is why in the industry talking about Rather was reffered to as, "Rather Bashing!" Cronkite was even quoted as saying that Bob Schiefer should have gotten the anchor job. Cronkite never liked the way Rather worked as a journalitst.

I was trying to cling to a modicum of empathy/ sympathy for veteran T.V newsman Dan Rather in the aftermath of his attenuated lawsuit brought against his longtime former employer CBS News Corp.. But in reading a very revealing article by journalist Matea Gold in the L.A. Times Business section in this morning's edition, I've pretty much now thrown in the towel re/ Mr. Dan 'In-a-Lather' Rather.

From this thorough L.A. Times piece, I learned that the contractual 'arrangement' for yearly compensation between Rather and CBS, post-the "60 Minutes II" dust-up, (what amounted to Rather's personal Waterloo) was more than generous, in my view, where for the two subsequent years after his 'demotion' he was receiving his annual base salary of $6,000,000 per year (WOW!), and from mid-2006 his compensation was "accelerated up" (read increased) until the point of termination w/ the company (CBS).

Rather was apparently arguing in his lawsuit against CBS that if they had continued to keep him in their employ he would have likely drawn at least a $4,000,000 annual salary from the Network, considerably more than his paltry compensation at the on-line HDNet. We're talkin' millions here folks. That could buy a cowpoke a heck of a lot of Texas long-horn steers, and then some.

When all is said and done, was Rather's primary legal bone-of-contention w/ CBS more of a saving-face, respect issue, or was he more ticked off over his dramatic pending loss of a steady, and generous income? I'm certain it was a bit of both, w/ probably the reputation-angle winning out over the mega-bucks.

Frankly, it's awfully hard to knock Rather's stellar decades-long track-record as, early on, a crack, in-the-field globe-trotting reporter, and later as the high-profile Network anchorman, and although the brash, in-you-face style of this 77 year-old native-Texan has likely 'attracted' several enemies, and his fair share of detractors over his many years on-air, generally he was (and still is) thought of by most viewers and colleagues alike, as belonging in the highest ranks of premier T.V. news journalists.

However, his huge 'boner-move' on his "60 Minutes II" piece, re/ George W. Bush's alleged preferential treatment during his Vietnam-era service w/ the Texas Air National Guard, and his not thoroughly verifying his research data in this regard (which later could NOT be authenticated), was such an egregious error of sound judgement in the execution of professional journalism on Rather's part, that CBS upper-management had no real alternative but to summarily demote him. Sadly, almost overnight, Rather became a virtual persona non grata at CBS, relegated to the corporate dog-house, and eventually sent out to pasture.

I read somewhere, early on, that Rather even tried to initially foist the blame for the shoddy research on the "60 Minutes II" George Dubya segment onto a few junior research assistants. However, Rather would be the ultimate arbiter in terms of verifying all the research data that would have come under his purview, so essentially he, and he alone, was the guilty party in this embarrassing, career-crippling incident.

It's been, and continues to be, a sad and slightly tragic scenario, all round.

This statement from the appellate court ruling against Rather's lawsuit w/ CBS Corp. is quite telling. It reads thusly :" Rather never identified a single opportunity (for employment) with specific terms that was actually available to him and which he declined to accept because of CBS' actions."

Further, the court added, " It would be speculative to conclude that any action taken by CBS would have alone substantially affected his (Rather's) market value at that time."

Dan Rather has another pending lawsuit brought against CBS Chief Exec. Les Moonves and CBS News Pres. Andy Heyward, which, if this most recent legal defeat before the NY State Appellate Court is any indicator, will likely be tossed out, as well.

Yet Rather, like a mortally wounded, ornery old rogue rhino, will apparently continue his battle in the best Texas wrangler tradition. In my humble opinion, he should fold his hand, and just ride into that Lone Star State's glowing orange-sherbet sunset, and call it a day. I think he's already written his memoirs, no?

There's only so much valuable T.V. air-time these days for curmudgeonly, old-school journalists, and octogenarian Andy Rooney, at least at CBS News, has that job pretty much covered for at least another decade. Do you ever wonder? ..... if Andy will ever run out of subject-matter.(HA!)

I guess old, disgruntled T.V. journalists never die (sorry Walter C.), they just try to sue their former employer for several million clams, for wrongful dismissal.

I want to see more young, gruntled (as opposed to disgruntled) T.V. news anchors. Just call me an old agist. I can take it. HA! HA!

ALEX