Mudd showed why he was sharper and more devoted to journalism that Rather. Rather was giving us poetry; Mudd gave us straightforward analysis, even when it was not the nice tied up ribbon some viewers wanted.
Mudd gave the most reasonable, fact filled response to Rather’s unconvincin pretty response. It was a travesty that CBS picked Rather over Mudd, in 1980, to succeed Cronkite. I don’t blame him for bolting for NBC.
Mudd got passed over twice. His NBC contract stipulated he would succeed John Chancellor as anchor of NBC Nightly News upon his retirement. The network made Brokaw anchor of Nightly to fend off ABC, who was looking to hire Brokaw. Chancellor stepped-down to assume a special commentator role, and Mudd co-anchored from Washington. The format didn't work, and shortly thereafter Brokaw became the sole anchor of "Nightly." I believe Mudd stayed as Washington correspondent and presented a decently-rated but not lucrative newsmagazine show before leaving TV news for good in the late 80s.
The humiliation of resigning as president I believe was enough punishment without dragging all of us through the ordeal of a trial. I'm looking back at this as an adult as I was about to turn 12. I frankly was as a kid bored with the Watergate hearings.
Roger Mudd was my favorite news anchor/reporter behind of course Walter Cronkite. Mudd's assessment of Nixon's fall from Office of the President of the United States could be restated for the current predicament Trump finds himself in today. A divided Congress and no accountability on the part of lawmakers.
Indeed, the stunt Nixon pulled in August of '74, and which was aided and abetted by Jerry Ford one month later, raised questions which finally "we, the people", had a real opportunity to answer, yes, in 2029-20, but, more particularly in this current year of 2021, in the wake of the Trump-ordered insurrection at the United States Capitol. The main question was: Does the Congress have the Constitutional authority to impeach and try a president after he leaves office? Clearly, the answer is "Yes". A related question is: Shall there be any attempt at accountability for a president who, while in office, engages in criminal acts, even if the accountability occurs after he leaves office? Or, to put it in Nixon's language: Is something legal (and, therefore not to be investigated and prosecuted) simply because the president does it? I would say: "No." Indeed, prosecutors, both Federal and in the state of New York, by their course, are saying the same thing: There does need to be accountability. To be quite frank, by their actions in August and September of '74, Nixon and Ford both sought to pre-empt the Federal Constitution: Nixon, by resigning in the face of certain impeachment by the House (and a realistic prospect of conviction and removal by the Senate). Ford, by issuing the pardon, whereby he endeavoured to prevent any future prosecution of the man who put him in the White House in the first place. The party of Nixon, Ford and Trump, it can truly be said, has adopted the attitude of, to paraphrase the well-known line of a film from only a few years before Nixon's resignation: "Politics means never having to say you're sorry." History has proven the assessment of Roger Mudd to be correct.
I read the various posts here and many of these comments surprise me. I thought both Rather and Mudd, as well as Severeid, were trying to be analytical and assess the situation at that time as objectively as possible. Rather candidly said that some questions raised were difficult ones to find answers to. Regarding the pardon, I think it was the right thing to do. I might not think that way except for personal experience with litigation. Litigation gets terrible, and very protracted, and I'm glad Ford issued the pardon, thus calming down the country.
Mudd's commentary is reasoned and truly analytical rather than personal opinion, yet at the same time genuinely personal and genuinely reportorial. No one in broadcast news today can ad-lib as thoughtfully, like writing without a pen or a typewriter, and as well as Mudd does here. For my part, Ford's subsequent pardon of Tricky Dick was a historical mistake of monumental proportions that opened up the Pandora's box that ultimately was shown to contain the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush (the worst of the worst) and Barack Obama and the current namby-pamby Congress. In this clip, Rather emerges as a "consensus" man (as does Sevareid, with puppeteer "Uncle Walter" using Rather & Sevareid to practice the craft of journalistic ventriolquism) and Mudd as more philosophical. Sevaried had earlier denounced Nixon's tendency toward "paternalistic authoritarianism" in the wake of Tricky Dick's post-1972 election vow to "bring an end to an era of permissiveness". In this clip, Eric folds like an accordion.
Your opinion obviously and one that can't possibly agree with. I believe that Ford pardoning Nixon was a step in healing this nation and was the right thing to.
This is why the late Roger Mudd was a much more perceptive journalist than Dan Rather. This was an American tragedy caused solely by Richard Nixon, who will be remembered in history as the president forced to resign due to his clear malfeasance. He took several of his staff down with him, yet accepted no blame. Mudd does a service to the truth, while Rather seems to dismisses this travesty as relatively trivial. He simply gives Nixon a pass. If history makes note of this, Rather will not be regarded as much of an objective journalist, while Roger Mudd will be.
When Cronkite retired, Mudd should have replaced him. And everyone knows it. Rather has many accomplishments but just wasn't as good a journalist as Mudd.
Dead giveaway Ratherbiased! Right up there with his letting us know he voted for Eisenhower as some kind of absolution for his Democrat-leaning partisanship. No objective analysis of his undisguised hatred for the Bushes and Republicans leads anyone to believe "no pleasure" is taken in Nixon's downfall. Good for Mudd's honesty.
"No joy," "rather." Nobody is his right mind who has followed Ratherbiased believes in his credibility or that he didn't celebrate Nixon's resignation. From his live "gotcha" attack on GHW Bush; to his pre-air fight with Leslie Stahl to attempt to kill the CBS poll which showed GHW Bush with a big lead over Dukakis; to his practically accusing the GW Bush campaign of leaking information--a Democrat-appointed judge made the statement--that Prosecutor Ray could investigate criminal charges against Bill Clinton; to his fake National Guard memos which finally brought him down, his anti-GOP bias is palpable.
Frankly, I am one progressive Democrat who wholeheartedly agrees with the principled, reasoned assessment given by Roger Mudd and finds the attempted "middle-of-the-road" approach offered by Dan Rather in this instance off-putting, indeed, downright nauseating. Until a couple of years ago, if anyone had asked me where I stood on the question of Nixon's resignation, I would tell them that it was the right thing to do, but that the pardon issued by Jerry Ford was wrong. Ironically, it was when I finally had the opportunity to watch the entire CBS News special from August 8, 1974, which includes Nixon's address, that my view toward the whole sordid situation changed. Indeed, Roger Mudd's observations contributed a great deal to that rethinking and reassessment on my part. To see the exchange between Mudd and Rather isolated, as in this presentation, serves to reinforce my new position of the last couple of years that both the resignation and the pardon were, not only wrong, but also reprehensible in the extreme, in light of the fact that both actions served to pre-empt the Federal Constitution.
Mudd showed why he was sharper and more devoted to journalism that Rather. Rather was giving us poetry; Mudd gave us straightforward analysis, even when it was not the nice tied up ribbon some viewers wanted.
Mudd gave the most reasonable, fact filled response to Rather’s unconvincin pretty response. It was a travesty that CBS picked Rather over Mudd, in 1980, to succeed Cronkite. I don’t blame him for bolting for NBC.
Mudd got passed over twice. His NBC contract stipulated he would succeed John Chancellor as anchor of NBC Nightly News upon his retirement. The network made Brokaw anchor of Nightly to fend off ABC, who was looking to hire Brokaw. Chancellor stepped-down to assume a special commentator role, and Mudd co-anchored from Washington. The format didn't work, and shortly thereafter Brokaw became the sole anchor of "Nightly." I believe Mudd stayed as Washington correspondent and presented a decently-rated but not lucrative newsmagazine show before leaving TV news for good in the late 80s.
I used to dread Walter Cronkite being on vacation because Rodger Mudd was his regular substitute. He was a great journalist but boring as could be.
Along with John Chancellor, David Brinkley & Peter Jennings --- Roger Mudd is my all-time favorite
Agree
Peter Jennings, Frank Reynolds, Roger Mudd, Harry Reasoner.
May Mr. Mudd rest in peace.
It is interesting how these guys, who were not raised on television, can "talk on their feet," without notes and such.
The humiliation of resigning as president I believe was enough punishment without dragging all of us through the ordeal of a trial. I'm looking back at this as an adult as I was about to turn 12. I frankly was as a kid bored with the Watergate hearings.
Roger Mudd was my favorite news anchor/reporter behind of course Walter Cronkite. Mudd's assessment of Nixon's fall from Office of the President of the United States could be restated for the current predicament Trump finds himself in today. A divided Congress and no accountability on the part of lawmakers.
Indeed, the stunt Nixon pulled in August of '74, and which was aided and abetted by Jerry Ford one month later, raised questions which finally "we, the people", had a real opportunity to answer, yes, in 2029-20, but, more particularly in this current year of 2021, in the wake of the Trump-ordered insurrection at the United States Capitol. The main question was: Does the Congress have the Constitutional authority to impeach and try a president after he leaves office? Clearly, the answer is "Yes". A related question is: Shall there be any attempt at accountability for a president who, while in office, engages in criminal acts, even if the accountability occurs after he leaves office? Or, to put it in Nixon's language: Is something legal (and, therefore not to be investigated and prosecuted) simply because the president does it? I would say: "No." Indeed, prosecutors, both Federal and in the state of New York, by their course, are saying the same thing: There does need to be accountability.
To be quite frank, by their actions in August and September of '74, Nixon and Ford both sought to pre-empt the Federal Constitution: Nixon, by resigning in the face of certain impeachment by the House (and a realistic prospect of conviction and removal by the Senate). Ford, by issuing the pardon, whereby he endeavoured to prevent any future prosecution of the man who put him in the White House in the first place.
The party of Nixon, Ford and Trump, it can truly be said, has adopted the attitude of, to paraphrase the well-known line of a film from only a few years before Nixon's resignation: "Politics means never having to say you're sorry."
History has proven the assessment of Roger Mudd to be correct.
Of course any legal action against Nixon was stopped by Ford's pardon.
Two typos: ventriloquism and Sevareid rather than -reid at the end. Mea culpa.
I read the various posts here and many of these comments surprise me. I thought both Rather and Mudd, as well as Severeid, were trying to be analytical and assess the situation at that time as objectively as possible. Rather candidly said that some questions raised were difficult ones to find answers to. Regarding the pardon, I think it was the right thing to do. I might not think that way except for personal experience with litigation. Litigation gets terrible, and very protracted, and I'm glad Ford issued the pardon, thus calming down the country.
Was Rather reciting a volume of Hiku? Lol
Mudd's commentary is reasoned and truly analytical rather than personal opinion, yet at the same time genuinely personal and genuinely reportorial. No one in broadcast news today can ad-lib as thoughtfully, like writing without a pen or a typewriter, and as well as Mudd does here. For my part, Ford's subsequent pardon of Tricky Dick was a historical mistake of monumental proportions that opened up the Pandora's box that ultimately was shown to contain the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush (the worst of the worst) and Barack Obama and the current namby-pamby Congress. In this clip, Rather emerges as a "consensus" man (as does Sevareid, with puppeteer "Uncle Walter" using Rather & Sevareid to practice the craft of journalistic ventriolquism) and Mudd as more philosophical. Sevaried had earlier denounced Nixon's tendency toward "paternalistic authoritarianism" in the wake of Tricky Dick's post-1972 election vow to "bring an end to an era of permissiveness". In this clip, Eric folds like an accordion.
Your opinion obviously and one that can't possibly agree with. I believe that Ford pardoning Nixon was a step in healing this nation and was the right thing to.
This is why the late Roger Mudd was a much more perceptive journalist than Dan Rather. This was an American tragedy caused solely by Richard Nixon, who will be remembered in history as the president forced to resign due to his clear malfeasance. He took several of his staff down with him, yet accepted no blame. Mudd does a service to the truth, while Rather seems to dismisses this travesty as relatively trivial. He simply gives Nixon a pass. If history makes note of this, Rather will not be regarded as much of an objective journalist, while Roger Mudd will be.
When Cronkite retired, Mudd should have replaced him. And everyone knows it. Rather has many accomplishments but just wasn't as good a journalist as Mudd.
Hindsight is 20/20.
1974 President Ford pardoned Former President Richard M. Nixon.
Mudd didn’t take any BS.
I found a new Danism. 'Not to shoot at lightposts'. Profound.
Rather really didn't have much to say, but he also didn't get as much air time as Mudd.
Dead giveaway Ratherbiased! Right up there with his letting us know he voted for Eisenhower as some kind of absolution for his Democrat-leaning partisanship. No objective analysis of his undisguised hatred for the Bushes and Republicans leads anyone to believe "no pleasure" is taken in Nixon's downfall. Good for Mudd's honesty.
"No joy," "rather." Nobody is his right mind who has followed Ratherbiased believes in his credibility or that he didn't celebrate Nixon's resignation. From his live "gotcha" attack on GHW Bush; to his pre-air fight with Leslie Stahl to attempt to kill the CBS poll which showed GHW Bush with a big lead over Dukakis; to his practically accusing the GW Bush campaign of leaking information--a Democrat-appointed judge made the statement--that Prosecutor Ray could investigate criminal charges against Bill Clinton; to his fake National Guard memos which finally brought him down, his anti-GOP bias is palpable.
Frankly, I am one progressive Democrat who wholeheartedly agrees with the principled, reasoned assessment given by Roger Mudd and finds the attempted "middle-of-the-road" approach offered by Dan Rather in this instance off-putting, indeed, downright nauseating.
Until a couple of years ago, if anyone had asked me where I stood on the question of Nixon's resignation, I would tell them that it was the right thing to do, but that the pardon issued by Jerry Ford was wrong. Ironically, it was when I finally had the opportunity to watch the entire CBS News special from August 8, 1974, which includes Nixon's address, that my view toward the whole sordid situation changed. Indeed, Roger Mudd's observations contributed a great deal to that rethinking and reassessment on my part. To see the exchange between Mudd and Rather isolated, as in this presentation, serves to reinforce my new position of the last couple of years that both the resignation and the pardon were, not only wrong, but also reprehensible in the extreme, in light of the fact that both actions served to pre-empt the Federal Constitution.
I stopped watching CBS news that year and never went back.
Dan Rather was a better correspondent then an actor
This is like Point Counterpoint. Roger Mudd should just say, "Dan, you ignorant slut!"
UGH
Rather, always phony.