Posted on 01/04/2017 11:51:57 AM PST by Kaslin
Disgraced CBS anchorman Dan Rather keeps pretending he is an expert on The Truth, expecting no one to remember his eternal refusal to admit he used transparently false information to try and smear George W. Bush weeks before the 2004 election. Rather offered another lecture on “truth” and “lies” on his Facebook page on Monday after Wall Street Journal editor Gerard Baker appeared on Sunday's Meet the Press.
Chuck Todd asked Baker if journalists should call out Donald Trump as a liar, and Baker replied “I’d be careful about using the word, ‘lie.’ ‘Lie’ implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.” This sent Rather on a bender:
A lie, is a lie, is a lie. Journalism, as I was taught it, is a process of getting as close to some valid version of the truth as is humanly possible. And one of my definitions of news is information that the powerful don't want you to know.
So this statement (see attached article) from the editor in chief of the Wall Street Journal about how his paper will report on Donald Trump’s potential (likely?) future lies is deeply disturbing. It is not the proper role of journalists to meet lies—especially from someone of Mr. Trump’s stature and power—by hiding behind semantics and euphemisms. Our role is to call it as we see it, based on solid reporting. When something is, in fact, a demonstrable lie, it is our responsibility to say so.
Before lecturing Mr. Baker on the virtues of veracity, perhaps Mr. Rather can address his infamous statement to Bill O’Reilly in 2001 when confronted with Bill Clinton’s world-class lying about Monica Lewinsky, starting with Jim Lehrer on PBS: “I think at core he's an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so, but I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."
By Rather's own tenuous definition, Clinton's sexual exploitation of an intern was "information the powerful don't want you to know," but Rather thinks it's fine to lie to television reporters....when you're a Democrat and you're doing Good Things.
Nonetheless, Rather on Facebook is warning with the ascent of Trump,
this is a gut check moment for the press. We are being confronted by versions of what are claimed to be “the truth” that resemble something spewed out by a fertilizer-spreader in a wind tunnel. And there is every indication that this will only continue in the Tweets and statements of the man who will now hold forth from behind the Great Seal of the President of the United States.
Some journalists and publications will rise to the occasion. Some will not. You as the paying, subscribing public, can use your leverage and pocketbooks to keep those who should be honest brokers of information, well, honest.
Rather linked to Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent, who ridiculed Baker noting a liberal pro-Clinton bias in the press: "I think people say, “Well, you know what? Hillary Clinton said a lot of things that were false.” I don’t recall the press being quite so concerned about saying that she lied in headlines or in stories like that."
Sargent shot back: "The comparison to Clinton is silly. Trump lied far more often, and far more egregiously, than Clinton did." Like nearly every other liberal journalist, Sargent believes the Clintons lie in a "normal" range, and are thus conveniently excused. Calling that a liberal bias is "silly." It's not as silly as Dan Rather posing as the Guardian of Truth.
I find it at LEAST mildly ironic that the guy who tried to forge documents in an effort to attack President Bush is telling the media to hold someone else accountable for “lying.”
Does Dan have a Word document he’s referring to?
Still making stupid similes, I see.......old habits die hard................
Wow, breathtaking for sure! The liberal talking heads accuse but there are no concrete charges, at least in the article. It certainly comes across as a smear/innuendo. OTOH we know Rather is a discredited liar. Thats liar in every sense of the word...as in consciously meant to deceive. What is it with these guys? Do they have short memories, thing we’re fools, have no shame? Certainly they arent acting like adults.
This accusation of lying from Dan “False but Accurate” Rather is as outrageous as Brian Wilson worrying about “fake news.” TV news readers should realize that no intelligent viewer believes anything they say.
NO YOU DIDN’T YOU SACK ‘O CRAP - YOU MADE UP A FAKE STORY AND REPORTED IT AS TRUTH.
Let’s be real here. I am all about truth, even if it doesn’t make us look good.
Rather was onto the truth. W Bush was a total flake in the Guard. He used MANY excuses to miss showing up. Daddy had to come up with all kinds of crap to keep him “politically viable.” Let’s admit that Rather was right: his evidence was FAKE but the story was accurate.
Yaelle, what is your proof? Or should we just accept your word on it? If we accept your word, why don’t we accept the word of Dan Rather?
What is your proof that the story was “accurate”?
Rather was lying to Americans with impunity for years. He was quite comfortable in the practice as were many others.
The heart of the story was the fake news, not Bush’s flaws.
The book “Family of Secrets” was very revealing. Young W was not the greatest example of human responsibility or morality. Does that even surprise you? He got off a lot of Guard time just for “helping his father’s campaign.” He was technically AWOL sometimes too but Daddy got it covered up.
Of all the Bushes I think I like W best. But he’s still a Bush and it’s an evil family, been up to no good for a very long time.
Point is, Yaelle, you want it to be true, and it may be true (as many things are without hard evidence) but if you want to draw the line somewhere, where are you going to draw it?
If we decide your word is good on the absence of proof, then...who decides whose word is good?
The Republican Party? The Democratic Party? Obama? Yaelle?
“Gut check moment for the press” has been and gone. "The press” flopped miserably, showing itself as nothing other than an adjunct of the DNC. It is now the time of free and independent presses.It is arrogant to claim objectivity. Now is the time for the journalist who will actually try to be objective - and claim nothing more than that. The journalist who claims actual objectivity cannot be candid about the reasons why he actually might not be objective - and thus, in good faith, cannot even be trying to be objective. Let alone be an exemplar of objectivity.
Today, Rather is no more than obscure fool desperately trying to appear relevant...which he is not.
Dan doesn’t seem to get that something isn’t a lie because HE says it’s a lie.
Proof, Dano - no more ‘it’s not the nature of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge’. Those days are past.
I might or might not agree with all or some of your post there...I certainly think there are aspects of his conservatism (and his family) I now find repugnant in retrospect (and did at the time) but that isn’t really my issue in this case.
I don’t want to make this an issue with a Freeper like you, as I have followed your postings for some time and appreciate your viewpoint, on this specific thing, I simply didn’t accept the premise of your initial post.
No one on this site knows exactly how responsible and conscientious George W Bush was during his National Guard duty. We all synthesize our knowledge we get from sources and come up with our beliefs. We weren’t there.
So don’t be silly.
And I believe he was not responsible and conscientious about those Guard duties. You might come to another conclusion.
Agree, Radix, the fact that Bush was flaky with his Guard service doesn’t lessen the fact that Rather was and is a dishonest partisan hack.
The 'Endorsements' for the book include:
Dan Rather
Gore Vidal
Bill Moyer
Looks like you are siding with Dan Rather after all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.