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.

Miller is not a libertarian or a comedian. Were he a libertarian, he would not be such a shameless cheerleader for GWB. Were he a comedian, he would be funny. I think a more apt description is GOP-loving ex-comedian.

Hi Medmech,

Who wrote that piece? It sounds a lot like the sentiments of Bill O'Reilly on what happened to Dan Rather.

He hung himself when he continued to argue the claims were true (what proof?) even if the papers were proved to be false and he argued they were not forged. Right up to the very end.....

And it was clear he had issues far beyond that.

He may not have vetted them but he really wanted them to be true, so much he stuck his neck out far enough to ruin his carreer arguing their validity.

Bill O'Reilly

Comedy is in the eye of the beholder, or the ear of the listener, and you are of course entitled to your opinion.

But you are simply WRONG about him not being a libertarian, just as you, KV, and others are wrong about ME not being a libertarian simply because I support our intervention in Iraq. I would have supported deposing Saddam no matter WHO was President....Bush, Clinton, a libertarian, or even Kerry. The fact that George W. is the man "in charge" of it is largely irrelevant to me. I support the ACTION, but that does not imply that I support everything else about the person taking the action. Far from it.

I'm growing a bit weary of being beaten over the head with the idea that if someone is not adhering strictly to every tenet of the party platform, this somehow "disqualifies" him from truly being a libertarian. It's rubbish, and you know it.

It's only one issue, amongst a VAST sea of issues. Get over it.

Mike

HA HA! So I nailed it! I was listening to his radio program today which is why I figured it was he.

Dan Rather was most likely NOT responsible for the initial research on the story, or the falsification of the documents and the drama that resulted. For that, he is not to blame.

But I also have to partially agree with bonehead on this one....

....It is my opinion that he IS responsible for mindlessly continuing to beat the same drum for a LOOOOONG time after overwhelming evidence was presented to debunk the story.

And for that, I DO think he shares in the blame.

Mike

I don't doubt that you are a libertarian, but you do like to spout RNC rhetoric from time to time and I enjoy jerking your chain over it.

I don't listen to Dennis Miller much, but it seems that whenever W's name comes up he goes out of his way to say what a great leader W is. Are you aware of Miller ever criticizing W?

Hey, I dislike Republicans almost as much as I dislike Democrats....but I agree with BOTH of them on certain issues, and doing so does not make one a "lesser" libertarian, despite what KV or Z would have us believe.

I don't listen to Miller a lot either, actually....but I jump to his defense when I hear people say that stuff, because of the same "you're not a REAL libertarian" bull$h!t that I already mentioned.

Mike

Miller is more of a Bushie cheerleader than I would be. Like MikeMover said, its the policy not the man. But he doesn't laud Bush on anything other than the twined issues of War on Terror and War in Iraq (I'm one of those butt-ignorant people who can't think for himself and see the two as intimately and fully connected. Must be fooled by the RNC propaganda machine, huh?).

But on other issues, he (Miller) departs dramatically from the RepoMan in Washington.

Like MikeMover. Like me.

PS If he gets paid to be funny, the dude's a comedian.

Fair enough.

Not necessarily. It might not be a matter of being fooled by propaganda, it is just as likely that you had your mind made up on Iraq, regardless of the evidence.

I didn't know that.

Does that mean that Brittany Spears is a singer?

Spears is a singer.....wow, you make it tough, huh? I think she's a much better singer than Leonard Cohen or Tiny Tim. Does that help?

And all three are better singers than me.