Here is what O'Reilly said about it today. "Kerry Spot."
SURVIVING THE NO-SPIN ZONE
Well, I got through my interview with O’Reilly.
Bill read some comments from this posting and refuting the speculation in that comment that perhaps he’s jumped the shark. Clearly bruising Bill’s ego is not the right way to start an interview.
I cited O’Reilly’s book “Who’s looking out for you” and asked Bill if one of his core values was standing up for the little guy. Of course, he said. I asked why he had such a problem with the ultimate little guys - the bloggers - taking on one of the ultimate big guys, Rather, and being proven right.
O’Reilly kept insisting that the point of his column wasn’t that he faulted bloggers.
(Decide for yourself here. Key excerpt:
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.
But you'll be seeing more of this kind of thing in the future. All famous and successful Americans are now targets. Unscrupulous people know that any accusation can be dumped on the Internet and within hours the mainstream media will pick it up. It will be printed in the papers, discussed on radio and TV and become part of the unfortunate person's résumé whether he or she is guilty or not. A click of the Internet mouse can wipe out a lifetime of honor and hard work. Just the accusation or allegation can be ruinous.
Am I crazy to interpret that as a reference to Rather’s critics on the web?)
O’Reilly said that the column’s point was that Rather’s errors in the memo matter weren’t deliberate, and that the anchor was getting unfairly charged with deliberately running a fake story. His criticism, he said, was aimed at those on the right for going after Rather too harshly and too quickly. In his interpretation of things, Rather was a well-meaning if liberal guy who wanted the story to be true, and who just put too much faith in producer Mary Mapes.
I said the original decision may have been a “mistake” of putting too much faith in Mapes, but there was two weeks or so between the original report and the concession that the documents could not be verified as true. During those two weeks, he attacked the bloggers as “partisan political operatives” and kept making the argument, essentially, “who are you going to believe - me, or your lying eyes?” I should have added that Rather used the CBS Evening News every night as his personal soapbox to argue with the blogs, and the decision to rely on Bill Burkett as a reliable source.
I also mentioned that while the original story may have been an error, it’s tougher to say that it was just an innocent mistake to not present the opinions of the forensic experts CBS consulted who said the document wasn’t real, and for misrepresenting Marcel Matley as a forensic expert when his expertise is solely in handwriting. They also didn’t mention that Matley said he can’t verify a photocopy, and CBS only had photocopies of the memos.
(At what point does a mistake in vision become willful blindness? Didn’t Rather himself say “the camera never blinks”?)
O’Reilly said he had covered all of this on his show earlier, and that no one was tougher on Rather than him. Okay.
I said that Rather kept insisting that the memo’s source was “unimpeachable”, which, I added, only told us that the source wasn’t Bill Clinton.
(Bill didn’t laugh.)
“Rather is defending his people,” O’Reilly said, attributing Rather’s actions to loyalty to a longtime employee. (It’s ironic, just last weekend I just watched the last half hour or so of the movie “Shattered Glass.” One of the big themes of that film is the tension of New Republic editors who wanted to defend the reputation of reporter Stephen Glass, in the face of building evidence that Glass’s magazine journalism was largely imaginary. Loyalty to your subordinates is often an honorable trait, but it shouldn‘t be a higher priority than the truth.)
And then O’Reilly denied that he was too easy on Rather or anyone else, because he had reduced Rather “a puddle” when he had interviewed him. And he had interviewed Peter Jennings, and all these other mainstream media figures.
“You’re a very tough interviewer,” I said, not really eager to wander down this particular segue. “But let Rather defend Rather. I think you’re giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt.”
O’Reilly also said he has no interest in taking over as the CBS anchor chair. I had heard through the grapevine that O’Reilly wanted that job and was campaigning for it, but I’ll take O’Reilly at his word that becoming the new face of CBS News didn’t interest him.
He offered me, as is his trademark, "the last word." (I was tempted to say the last word was "the.") I told the Fox talk show host that he still had many viewers on the left and the right, but that a lot of folks, particularly on the right, were wondering why he putting so much effort into riding to the rescue of Dan Rather. I added - probably foolishly - that I doubted Rather would do the same for O’Reilly.
O’Reilly said he didn't defend Rather because he expected the CBS anchor to return the favor; he did it because he was a fair guy. And everything he said in the Rather column was accurate. And right.
O’Reilly’s advice to me was to stop saying he‘s jumped the shark and “get out of the shark pool.”
Thanks for the tip; I'll try to emulate that gentle and humble O’Reilly style.
|
