Why Bill O'Reilly is Wrong

Bill O'Reilly is defending Dan Rather from the vast right wing conspiracy. No, he doesn't call it that, but his tone definitely gives it that flavor.

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.

What O'Reilly doesn't understand is that this isn't just some partisan attack. Certainly it's everyone's right to have a political point of view, but for most of us it doesn't discredit an entire news show or network when we aren't "skeptical enough." For most of us, it isn't an opportunity to influence millions of Americans every week that leads to such a public mistake.

To put it another way, each of us is entrusted with a certain responsibility related to our jobs. If a person is a cook a fast food joint, they are entrusted with the proper and sanitary handling of food so that the public isn't endangered when they eat the burgers or tacos or pizza. A break in that faith can put the public in jeopardy. Their ability to fix car engines, though, is irrelevant.

Law enforcement officers are trusted with the right to detain criminals and even use deadly force when necessary. The bar of trust has to be set pretty high for someone in law enforcement in a lot of areas, but we don't worry much when their cooking isn't up to snuff.

Dan Rather's position was one where the public trusted him to provide news with a minimal amount of partisan spin and where the facts would be properly checked before a story aired. In other words, his job is to be "skeptical enough," and he failed that job dramatically.

I am one of the people that believe that Rather would have run with the story even if it were about Kerry. I've never believed that it was purely partisanship that pushed him to put his credibility on the line; it was the pursuit of a good scoop that caught him. From that point of view, it isn't partisanship that leads me to believe that Rather was wrong, it's simply the fact that he so emphatically failed in his job function that he no longer merits the trust that a journalist needs to function.

It would be uncharitable to suggest that his own recent legal issues might have roused O’Reilly’s sympathies. The public certainly jumped to a verdict of guilty (or, at least, slimy) when his own alleged improprieties came up, and surely his quick, out-of-court settlement did nothing to cement his innocence.

The difficulty that O'Reilly wants to skirt is that the public wants to have some level of faith in the people who have such a great capacity to influence opinions--and, whether the transgression is in being improperly familiar with an employee or in being not quite skeptical enough about a story, the public has the right to say, "Sorry, we don't trust you to do that job any more."

O'Reilly should spend less time defending Rather and more time shoring up his own credibility.

Read the story.

Posted by zombyboy at November 29, 2004 11:09 AM