Bill O'Reilly defends Dan Rather

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-11-30 07:34pm

Dan got smeared

The ordeal of Dan Rather goes far beyond the man himself. It speaks to the presumption of guilt that now rules the day in America. Because of a ruthless and callow media, no citizen, much less one who achieves fame, is given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to allegations or personal attacks. The smearing of America is in full bloom.

Weeks before the election, Kitty Kelley put out a book defaming the entire Bush family. The allegations were primarily made by anonymous people, but that didn't stop the media from gleefully recounting all the sordid accusations. Some newspapers even put them on page one.

That smear came on the heels of the "Swift boat" attacks on John Kerry, an ordeal that may have cost him the election. While some of the Vietnam vets had valid points, more than a few of the accusations against Kerry were simply untrue. It didn't matter though - his war record became a negative.

Right-wing talk radio in particular pounded Kerry and also bludgeoned Dan Rather for his role in another smear incident - the charges against President Bush about his National Guard service. Again, Rather was found guilty without a fair hearing. Charges that he intentionally approved bogus documents that made Bush look bad were leveled and widely believed. It was chilling.

As a CBS News correspondent in the early '80s, I worked with Rather and have known him for more than 20 years. Listen to me: There is no way on this Earth that he would have knowingly used fake documents on any story.

It may be true that Rather did not vet the information supplied to him by producers, but few anchor people do. They are dependent on other journalists, and this is a huge flaw in the system.

Dan Rather is guilty of not being skeptical enough about a story that was politically loaded. I believe Rather, along with Andy Rooney, Walter Cronkite and other guardsmen of the old CBS News, is liberal in his thinking. That is certainly a legitimate debate - how for years CBS News has taken a rather progressive outlook. But holding a political point of view is the right of every American, and it does not entitle people to practice character assassination or deny the presumption of innocence. Dan Rather was slimed. It was disgraceful.

But you'll be seeing more of this kind of thing in the future. All famous and successful Americans are now targets. Unscrupulous people know that any accusation can be dumped on the Internet and within hours the mainstream media will pick it up. It will be printed in the papers, discussed on radio and TV and become part of the unfortunate person's résumé whether he or she is guilty or not. A click of the Internet mouse can wipe out a lifetime of honor and hard work. Just the accusation or allegation can be ruinous.

Let me ask you something: In the future, do you think potential public servants and social crusaders are going to risk being brutally attacked within this insane system? I don't. I think many good people are simply going to walk away from the public arena.

Dan Rather did not get what he deserved in this case. He made a mistake, as we all do, but he is not a dishonest man.

Unfair freedom of speech did him in. This is not your grandfather's country anymore.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-11-30 07:49pm

Not really surprising, Dan Rather has historically been said to be a very upstanding man and journalist. The trouble of course being that he isn't a journalist anymore as this article points out, he is merely an anchor and he DID get unfairly bashed for what was, at worst, a mistake of the entire CBS news team. Rather was the fall guy and it is totally unfair for a man that has served in such a distinguished position as long as him.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-12-01 12:37am

On the other hand, he saw the story ahead of time, and could have questioned the veracity of the story. The documents don't even look historically correct. And the real reason this hurt him is because it took so long for them to admit they were wrong, compared to the amount of time it took for the documents to be shown to be fake.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-12-01 12:48am

I was listening to O'Riely talk about this and I was pleasently surprised.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-12-01 01:24am

So should I take the man whom a lot of people here call 'O'Lielly' at his word?

As usual, O'Reilly's full of shit.
Rather wasn't brought down because of the documents turning out to be fake.
He was brought down because of his total refusal to concede that he could be wrong, despite mounting evidence to the contrary even as his story originally broke.

If when the brouhaha erupted, Rather had simply said 'we'll put our evidence up for independent testing' instead of doing a Nixonian stonewall until it was obvious to even a rabid DU poster that the docos were forged, he could have left with his reputation intact.

The bloggers merely exposed the phony documents.
Gunga Dan wrecked his own reputation by forgetting that pride goeth before a fall.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-12-01 12:41pm

This is not the first time Dan Rather has been found to be running BS stories. Frankly I think the real reason Rather got "slimed" was that he refused to even consider he was wrong for a week. Further the whole spiel about the documents coming from an "unimpeachable" source, rings damn hollow when the source is a known partisan and his conditions for turning over the documents was a meeting with the Kerry campaign. At the very least Rather should have admitted that:
A. His source was not "unimpeachable".
B. He never saw the original documents.
C. The ultimate source of the documents was anonymous.
D. That he could be wrong.