"Phone" Bill O'reilly pens controversial defense of Dan Rather and attacks Swifties

[KirkVining]

Is O'reilly trying to land the Rather job?


Dan got smeared
by Bill O'reilly

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.

[kerry]

And by implication...........

That's a shrewd piece.

[Old300D]

This was posted 3 days ago.

[shane]

"unfair freedom of speech" --- What exactly does O'reilly have in my in this loaded statement. Freedom of speech is just what it says. It is up to the public to decide what to keep or throw to the dogs. Sounds like O'reilly really distrusts the american people.

[KirkVining]

For such a loud mouth, Phone Bill has one of the most anti-free speech track records in media. The guy is really kind of a joke, I have no idea why he is so popular. He was a gossip columnist on Inside Edition before he hit Fox.

[AustinsCE]

Freedom of speech doesnt include libel, slander or infringing of others' rights. My guess is thats where hes talking about.

TV news anchors' main currency is their credibility -- without credibility, an anchor is just a pretty face who can read a teleprompter.

If Rather didn't have people working for him who would fact-check and verify these stories, he was playing russian roulette with his career. He just took the bullet this time...

In other news, I'm watching O'Reilly's show right now, and he's a jackass.

[KirkVining]

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

Freedom of speech doesnt include libel, slander or infringing of others' rights. My guess is thats where hes talking about.

How does free speech "infringe on another's rights?" Also, if you're a public figure, you get very little protection from libel and slander. It's an old rule - those who dish it out, should be ready to take it.

[AustinsCE]

Kinda how you cant go calling everyone you see a racial slur? Or cursing at kindergarten children? N/m i'm sure you condone that sorta thing. Free Country!!!
Oh well theyre famous, forget their rights. I take back what I said.

[wbain5280]

I watch O'Reilly and I don't agree with everything he says.

[Jason Beal]

Originally Posted by webwench

In other news, I'm watching O'Reilly's show right now, and he's a jackass.

BIGTIME.

[MS Fowler]

I am troubled by what I consider the bigger issue in "main stream media". If I remember it correctly, it started during Viet Nam with "uncle Walter". He wasn't the only one practicing what was promoted as " Advocacy Journalism:, but he becme one of its proponents.
It seems to me that "advocacy journalism" is an oxymoron; one simply cannot be a "Journalist" and an "Advocate" at the same time. It has infected the entire industry. Once the people understand that the reporters of the news have abandoned the high road of journalism, they become skeptical of what is, and what is not reported, the verbage used in the reporting, the pull on our emotions to create a desired effect. The main media are now reaping the lack of respect they have so richly deserved.
It seems to me a proper synonom for "advocacy journalism" is simply " propagandist". With all due respect for O'Reily, Dan Rather has become a propagandist, and has betrayed the ideals of journalism. He deserves the disrespect he has earned.

[kerry]

The piece is not about Dan Rather at all. Didn't you read the opening paragraph:

"I'm well aware that if I wrote a piece arguing that I had been defamed by the recent accusation of sexual impropriety, claiming that it was unfair freedom of speech, no one would take me seriously. However, if I write a piece complaining about the same thing occuring to my opponent, I know I I will look broad minded but by implication draw a lot of sympathy for myself. Hence the following piece."

[kerry]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

It seems to me a proper synonom for "advocacy journalism" is simply " propagandist". With all due respect for O'Reily, Dan Rather has become a propagandist, and has betrayed the ideals of journalism. He deserves the disrespect he has earned.

Advocacy journalism=journalism that fails to repeat the government interpretation of events.