November 29, 2004
THE WORLD MUST BE SPINNING, 'CAUSE I'M STANDING STILL
Dan got smeared (Bill O'Reilly, New York Daily News, 11/29/4)
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.Leaving to one side the unmentioned elephant in this story, O'Reilly has a small point. It is possible to believe that Dan Rather (as opposed to CBS) didn't realize that the Guard documents couldn't be authenticated. I've always thought, though, that his real sin came after the story aired. Saying that CBS' undisclosed source (Bill Burkett, as it turned out) was unimpeachable was a flat-out lie. Posted by David Cohen at November 29, 2004 4:57 PMAs 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.
Odd that O'Reilly sees the criticism of Rather regarding the phony decades-old memos as a smear against Rather, but doesn't see them as an attempted smear against Bush.
He claims Rather would not have "knowingly used fake documents" in a story. Maybe. But what does it say about Rather's journalistic competence if his judgment is so clouded by what he wants to be true that he goes forward with faxed copies (not originals), ignores the critical opinions of some of his authentication experts, stonewalls for over a week after the documents were discredited six ways from Sunday within a day, and then says something weaselly like "they can't be authenticated"?
Posted by: PapayaSF at November 29, 2004 5:36 PMPapaya:
Agreed. The issue (with respect to Rather's job) is not so much bias, but competence. He just did not do what any self-respecting worker would do: check his input. The bias is a given; the stupidity is an extra, something that he should be blamed for. Even Rather should have known about the Mary Mapes crusade against Bush.
Funny that O'Reilly did not criticize such laxity.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 29, 2004 6:05 PM"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"
I'd be more inclined to listen to you, Bill, if your opinion was at all persuasive. People change in their dotage and in 20 years, particularly if they have been kowtowed to during all of those years.
Bill must be feeling vulnerable to suck up to Dan, CBS, and/or the media establishment in this fashion.
Posted by: curt at November 29, 2004 6:17 PMO'Reilly is just extremely sensitive to being criticized for his behavior, as is shown in his reaction to being called on his sexual harassment. He apparently believes like Rather or Rooney that the MSM should be immune from criticism.
Posted by: Bart at November 29, 2004 9:56 PMBill is a blowhard and a loon. Maybe he thinks he is in the running for Dan's job. IMHO, Dan cared not a fig if the documents were real or not. They were too good not to be true.
And it fits with Dan's career as a Democrat hatchet man. I wonder if Bill know what the frequency is?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 29, 2004 10:37 PMDan Rather smeared himself. Liberally.
Posted by: ratbert at November 30, 2004 5:56 PM