‘Truth’ Is One of the Greatest Journalism Movies Since ‘All the President’s Men’

observer.com...

Robert Redford as Dan Rather.

At a calamitous time for journalism, when every day brings another little death to a once noble, courageous and respectable profession that is slowly being crushed in a blogosphere of junk, it is rare to see a bold, respectable and truthful movie get financed about the news. Miraculously, there are suddenly two. Tom McCarthy’s forthcoming Spotlight is a brilliant, incisive film about the 2001 Boston Globe investigation of the Catholic Church’s sex-abuse scandal that won a Pulitzer Prize. Meanwhile, we have James Vanderbilt’s aptly titled Truth, about the ill-fated 2004 exposé on 60 Minutes about George W. Bush’s alleged draft-dodging shame that called on powerful friends in the military to protect him from serving in Vietnam.

a reply to: wasaka

What made it great? That a lying weasel got caught trying to manipulate the news?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He didn't lie and CBS threw him under the bus.

originally posted by: Kali74
He didn't lie and CBS threw him under the bus.

If you say so. It would appear that he and his producer are the only ones who thought the doucments were real.

I would say he had a hell of a wrongful termination suit on his hands if they were in fact real, any reason he did not win his suit?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think the story was real and CBS forced them to run with it.

originally posted by: Kali74
I think the story was real and CBS forced them to run with it.

Then why was his suit tossed twice and an independent panel plus an investigator determined the documents were forgeries?

I mean, if the guy got railroaded I would expect some attorney worth their degree would have raked CBS over the coals and gotten a monster payout.

He was a biased clown and got caught with his old man pants down. I say good riddance. Only shame is that he did not drag more people like him down at the same time.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Dealing with a sitting President, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that some serious doo doo went on to trash that story.

originally posted by: Kali74
Dealing with a sitting President, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that some serious doo doo went on to trash that story.

All the more reason why I ask how come some crusading attorney did not take up his case. Sitting Presidents have been the targets of investigations before, that is nothing new.

Also, he was told prior to using the documents that they appeared to be specious by a top expert, yet Danny Boy went ahead in spite of that.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Post 9/11 I don't think it's so easy to investigate a President if there's actually something to find. I'm not really a tinfoil hat type and I don't plan on jumping down any rabbit holes on this but we are talking about GW's administration.

originally posted by: Kali74
...but we are talking about GW's administration.

Who was so beloved that every attorney in the country would not take a civil suit that was approaching $100 million?

The third party investigation also found additional serious irregularities with both Rather and Mape's actions. They both s*** the bed on this one.