2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDan Rather on the importance of the press getting a spine
From his Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10157430091225716
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 Obamas 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 Clintons 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
(60,335 posts)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
(67,111 posts)RKP5637
(67,111 posts)doing anything to increase profits.
Dan Rather defends his comments well when he writes:
Donald Trump has attacked the very mechanisms of our democratic republic. As Mr. Rather notes:
Thanks for posting the link, MBS.
MBS
(9,688 posts)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
(962 posts)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
(32,723 posts)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
(23,968 posts)If the populace is dumb enough to elect Captain Orange, there will be a select few with access.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,176 posts)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
(113,336 posts)Apr 23 2005
Rathers 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 Rathers unguarded comments over the years indicate any kind of bias, its 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 countrys 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, its we. And about that I have no apology. Rather has made similar comments about the Iraq war, acknowledging (CNNs 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 Rathers 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 cant 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 Rathers 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.
CBSs coverage of the Iraq war was similarly skewed against the left: During the first three weeks of combat, Rathers 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 (CBSs 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
(9,114 posts)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
(9,114 posts)The big money owners of media may believe that they have a lot to gain from putting a nazi strongman into office, too.
spiderpig
(10,419 posts)"No, Mr. President. Are you?"
niyad
(113,336 posts)world wide wally
(21,744 posts)That would force the press to drop the false equivalencies they constantly use as Agent Orange argues in favor of lies gong unchallenged.