Dan Rather on the importance of the press getting a spine

[MBS]

From his Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10157430091225716

. . . Trump’s relationship with the press is at the heart of so much that is troubling about his candidacy - the secrecy, the lack of transparency on something as normal as tax returns, the flaunting of the very rules by which we elect our leaders, the appeasement of hate groups. And his embrace of Roger Ailes and Breitbart, institutions who have polluted press freedoms, is a further dangerous sign of decay.

And yet when presented with this challenge, too much of the press has been cowed into inaction. This is a man who can be fact-checked into obscurity by any second grader with an Internet connection. And yet when he issues a mealy-mouth non-apology about President Obama’s obvious pedigree as an American, here we are with too many in the press not acknowledging his years of lies (check your Twitter feeds about how the New York Times initially covered this event). All of this of course sets the stage for Trump to lie again about somehow birtherism being Clinton’s fault.

I fear that this mindset will infect the debates. Trump is already setting the stage for that. If you are moderating and are not going to fact check him, you might as well just roll campaign speeches live - far too many of which have been shown on television without being subjected to journalistic context. If these debates will be debates in name only, another opportunity for Trump to flout fairness by spewing his venom and bullshine, I say cancel them.

Enough is enough. It is a reality that every reporter must come to grips with. Trump is not a normal candidate. This is not a normal election. He will set a precedent that other demagogues will study and follow. Fear, combined with the lure of ratings, views, clicks and profits, have hypnotized too much of the press into inaction and false equivalency for far too long. I am optimistic the trance is being broken. Fear not the Internet trolls. Fear instead the judgement of history.

[liberal N proud]

1. The media is at risk of losing big time if Trump is elected

He will shut them off from all access and launch attacks (more than verbal) on them using all the resources of the office the first time they are critical of him.

The media could be committing suicide if the help Trump get elected.

[RKP5637]

3. Trump will create a "Ministry of Truth." M$M will be banned. n/t

[RKP5637]

2. The press, for the most part, has become nothing more than sensationalized tabloid journalism

doing anything to increase profits.

[PJMcK]

4. Good read

Dan Rather defends his comments well when he writes:

This is not about partisan politics, about who is right on immigration or gun control. This is about the very machinery that has allowed our American experiment to persist and thrive, a machinery which is far more fragile than we would like to believe.

Donald Trump has attacked the very mechanisms of our democratic republic. As Mr. Rather notes:

Donald Trump’s disdain, mockery, and antagonism of the press, whose freedoms are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and whose presence has provided ballast to our democracy since its inception, raises very serious questions about his fitness for the presidency of the United States.

Thanks for posting the link, MBS.

[MBS]

5. yes, and thanks for posting that particular excerpt

That first sentence really captures the essence of his argument and explains why voting for Democrats (for president and for all down ballot candidates) in November is absolutely crucial. It is not an exaggeration to say that the survival of our democracy and constitution are at stake in this election.

[TonyPDX]

6. They're basically rolling campaign speeches live already.

And expecting these cretins to "Fear instead the judgement of history" isn't realistic. They lost any capacity for shame or guilt quite some time ago.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

7. What's sad is when they report what the public believes as if that's fact checking....

Wolf Blitzer falls back on that all the time. Reality isn't based on what people believe.

By his logic there was a time when the world was flat until a majority believed it was round.

To this day I bet if you try to nail him down on WMDs in Iraq he would site some poll indicating that a big percentage of Republicans still believe there were.

Polls like this are a reflection on the effectiveness of propaganda. It's supposed to be the media's job to cut through the propaganda, not to wallow in it.

[sarcasmo]

8. Trump has already blackballed some media outlets.

If the populace is dumb enough to elect Captain Orange, there will be a select few with access.

[uponit7771]

9. "..moderating and are not going to fact check him, you might as well just roll campaign speeches"

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Totally agree

Cancel the debates. Trump is just BS, no sense in debating him at all.
It's not a debate, it's a corporate press conference.

[niyad]

11. lest we all forget:

Apr 23 2005
Rather’s Real Bias
He slanted toward power, not the left
By Peter Hart

When Dan Rather stepped down from the CBS Evening News this week, right-wing media critics ought to have been among those most sorry to see him go. Rather has long served as their “liberal media” bogeyman, personifying the nightly news’ supposed tendency to skewer Republicans and coddle Democrats. But given the central role Rather plays in the conservative critique of the media, the evidence for his alleged liberalism is remarkably flimsy.

If Rather’s unguarded comments over the years indicate any kind of bias, it’s a fondness for power and an unwavering support for American military action. During the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Rather professed support for illegal attacks on that country’s electrical supply (at a National Press Club appearance, 6/25/99): “When U.S. pilots in U.S. aircraft turn off the lights, for me, it’s ‘we.’ And about that I have no apology.” Rather has made similar comments about the Iraq war, acknowledging (CNN’s Larry King Live, 4/14/03) that his reporting would reflect his view that “when my country is at war, I want my country to win.”

But perhaps more distressing was Rather’s explanation of the near-absence of media skepticism prior to the Iraq invasion (at a Harvard University forum on the media, 7/25/04): “Look, when a president of the United States, any president, Republican or Democrat, says these are the facts, there is heavy prejudice, including my own, to give him the benefit of any doubt, and for that I do not apologize.”

These are clearly not the words of the mythical liberal crusader that has been caricatured by conservatives. And you can’t find much evidence on his newscast to support their argument. A FAIR study of the network newscasts in 2001 (Extra!, 5-6/02) found that Rather’s CBS Evening News featured substantially more Republicans than Democrats (76 percent vs. 23 percent). The differences between CBS and the other broadcast networks was slim, belying the notion that any of them have a left-wing bias.

CBS‘s coverage of the Iraq war was similarly skewed against the left: During the first three weeks of combat, Rather’s broadcast had the highest percentage of official U.S. sources (75 percent) and the lowest number (less than 1 percent) of U.S. anti-war voices (Extra!, 5-6/03). Rather famously announced after the September 11 attacks (CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman, 9/17/01)

****** that “wherever [Bush] wants me to line up, just tell me where”; perhaps his most valuable service to Bush was the failure to pose difficult questions or feature dissenting perspectives on the Iraq war.*****



. . . .

http://fair.org/extra/rathers-real-bias/

[Mc Mike]

14. He's an odd hybrid. His open lying about how he was involved in reporting the JFK

assassination is a negative. His calling Ollie North "Ollie Nark" during Iran Contra coverage is a positive. His getting assaulted by guys in suits during Iran Contra, who asked him "What's the Frequency Kenneth" while attacking him, is interesting. He stood up to Nixon and Poppy bush, but knuckled under to li'l bush, like Chris Matthews did.

Maddow seems to actually want him on her show, and her aims and journalistic integrity are something I agree with most always, though she doesn't seem to have total control over who her guests are, and respects journalistic biggies that I don't respect.

[Mc Mike]

12. Fear and greed. That explains most media outlets' ridiculous deference to t Rump, for sure.

The big money owners of media may believe that they have a lot to gain from putting a nazi strongman into office, too.

[spiderpig]

13. I've loved Rather ever since his challenge to Nixon during a press conference

"No, Mr. President. Are you?"

[niyad]

15. see post 11

[world wide wally]

16. Hillary should INSIST on the debate moderators fact checking!

That would force the press to drop the false equivalencies they constantly use as Agent Orange argues in favor of lies gong unchallenged.