No Spin Zone?

To Mr. O’Reilly,

First, let me say that I like your show, “The O’Reilly Factor”. Yeah, I think you’re a tad stuck on the guy in the mirror, but hey – you seem like a nice guy. And I DO think you try to broadcast a “Fair and Balanced” presentation of whatever is the topic de jour.

But I just read, and re-read your Wednesday, Nov 24, 2004 offering on your website (BillOReilly.com) – on the topic of “Dan Rather”. And I have to respond.

Mr. O’Reilly, are you holding back so as to not burn bridges? Are you somehow trying to keep your options open with CBS?

I agree with your first three and one-half paragraphs pretty much. The smears are rampant. The Kitty Kelley stuff was just plain wrong. But your defense of Mr. Rather is flawed. And there are two issues with Mr. Rather – first, the initial broadcast of the “memos”, and second, all of the subsequent activity.

We’re about the same age, Mr. O’Reilly. I’m not a journalist of any kind. Sure, I have a blog, but to date it’s had zero hits other than my own. I use it mainly to vent. My not being close to your profession has an advantage – I’m not (or wasn’t) cynical about your industry. I agreed with my grandmother’s position that, “If it’s printed in the Reader’s Digest, it must be true.”

Don’t laugh that one off, Mr. O’Reilly, please. Walk down the street in a tee shirt and jeans. Sit in Wilson’s barbershop in Fair Haven, Vermont and watch a Dan Rather, or Peter Jennings, or Tom Brokaw special report. Then ask the other viewers what they learned. (not what they saw, what they learned) Most of them would answer, “Well, they showed the proof right there in those letters that the President is a liar, and cheated on his military service.” And later they’d say, “And by God if Dan Rather’s staking his reputation on it, it’s got to be true!”

It doesn’t have to be Vermont, or even New England. And it doesn’t have to be Dan Rather. It could have been printed in the local newspaper, or broadcast on the radio. Any news report from the Associated Press, NBC News, The New York Times, or USA Today is by definition “believed to be true by the person reporting it.” Period. Reporters aren’t allowed to lie.

Take a poll. Show a headline from the National Enquirer: “Cloned human baby born with the head of a turtle!” How many people out of 100 would say they believed it? Then show Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather headlining the same story on the Evening News. Ask the same 100 the same question. What do you think you’ll get?

You must remember Heinlein’s “Stranger In A Strange Land”. Remember Jubal and Anne? Anne was a “Fair Witness”.

Fair Witness:
A person rigorously trained to observe, remember, and report
without prejudice, distortion, lapses in memory, or personal involvement.

To demonstrate, Jubal called Anne outside to the swimming pool where he was explaining the no-spin of a Fair Witness. Jubal told Anne to put on her robe, which indicated to the world that she was then in the role of a Fair Witness. Jubal asked her what was the color of the house on the hill in front of them. As a Fair Witness, Anne answered, “The side of the house facing us appears to be painted white.”

When I want the news, and I tune into Dan Rather’s 6:00 CBS Evening News, I expect Fair Witness reporting. Or close to it. I expect the facts, not the beliefs. I expect the truth, not opinions. I expect nothing less from Brit Hume, Peter Jennings, or you for that matter. When you’re behind the news desk and reporting things to me, I expect and even rely on your “facts” being factual. When you’re doing the “Memo”, I know that’s your opinion, and can believe it or not.


“As a CBS News correspondent in the early 80's, 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.”

So Mr. O’Reilly, I believe you mean it when you say, “Listen to me…” – But I disagree that he wouldn’t have knowingly used “fake” documents. The reason is because he stood by them!

Dan reported that not only was the whole house white, but it was painted with Behr Premium latex house paint stock # 54-231. Then even after Behr proved it only manufactured a single gallon of that stock number and it sold for $4 million dollars, Dan got back on the air and said, “We stand by our story! They could have spent that much, and they could have spread it over the entire house.”

And while we’re right here, let me put a really fine point on it by saying, I would have staked a paycheck on the notion that he wouldn’t use “fake” documents, but I would not have bet even a nickel that he wouldn’t knowingly broadcast “false” information. That sir, is the issue. When after most reasonable persons agreed the documents were fake, and he still maintained the story was correct, I can’t in my own mind agree that he “…wouldn’t have knowingly used fake documents…” in the first place.

When the media, any media, knowingly reports anything that is not true, that’s just plain wrong. Caveats be damned, when you know something is not true, you can’t divorce yourself from responsibility by saying, “Sources said…” You’re a smart man. You know exactly what I’m saying.

“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, are liberal in their thinking. That is
certainly a legitimate debate, how for years CBS News has taken a rather (pardon
the pun) progressive outlook. But holding a political point of view is the right
of every American, and does not entitle people to practice character
assassination or deny the presumption of innocence. Dan Rather was slimed. It
was disgraceful.”

I emphasized a part of the above. You are most certainly correct that, “holding a political point of view is the right of every American”, however, it is not your right to allow that view to distort what you tell me as fact. Dan wasn’t slimed – he dove headfirst into the morass. When you’re doing “The Memo” I expect what you say to be your opinion. But when you sit as anchor, behind the desk that says, “CBS Evening News” you had better be telling me what’s true, because I’m believing what you say. After all, my grandma used to also say, “If Walter Cronkite said it on the air, it must be true!”