Newsmaker: Blogging's not the enemy, says Dan Rather

(continued from previous page)

As the gap widens between newsrooms and boardrooms, how can journalists in large media organizations stand up to pressure from above to not push hard on stories?
Rather: The first thing, and I include myself in this criticism, is that it's increasingly hard for people in news to have any access to the top leaders of the giant corporations. But I think you have to work hard at it...In today's mega-corporation, I think those at the top in the news divisions--the anchor, the managing editor and the presidents of the news divisions--need to work harder to explain to the very top what it is we do, why we do it...It is important to have a news operation that is known for independence and backs the independence of the division and the reporters. It has to be a stronger line of communicable trust between the leadership and the newsroom.

It has been a long time since anyone has called me an idealist. But I consider myself one.

Good journalism, great journalism, starts with owners who have guts. So if you give them a reason why it's in the company's interest, never mind the country's interest, to do it, that's one reason. And the other is to stand up for good reporting when it's necessary, when the heat comes down, to back reporters, and to back investigative reporting. And the most insidious part to me, the part that needs sunlight put to it, is the need of the larger corporation to get legislation passed (that helps corporations that own media companies), or get legislation stopped (that harms corporations that own media companies). This frequently comes in conflict with particularly hard-digging investigative reporting. The public needs to know that.

What's your take on Net neutrality?
Rather: Neutrality is an emotionally charged word for the Internet. I'm not an expert, but I believe in equality all the way around. If someone's going to have high speed, then everybody ought to have access to high speed. I recognize that there's an argument the other way, that you can't have it for everybody, but I just don't buy that argument. To me, it's akin to saying, "Well, there's this new invention called the telephone, and only a few people should be allowed to have it, because everybody can't have it at once."

What other regulatory issues do you think are important for ensuring continuing freedom of distribution of content on the Internet?
Rather: I'm very wary of anything that smacks of government censorship or regulation. Having said that, our system of government in this society depends very heavily on individual responsibility, individual outlets, private ownership and having a sense of public responsibility...If there's no self-discipline with whatever the new technology is, whatever the new practices are, if they're not acting in the public interest, and particularly if they act against the public interest--smearing their neighbor or trying to undercut their business competitor unethically--that will lead to increased government regulation, as it has before.

It has been a long time since anyone has called me an idealist. But I consider myself one. Ideally, (the answer) would be self-discipline. I don't like the word regulation, and the way (to go) is to expose those who are using it for nefarious purposes. But if it isn't self-discipline, and if the marketplace doesn't (adapt) fairly quickly, in each succeeding progression of technology, then you will have voices saying the government definitely needs to step in and put in a new set of regulations. The less of that the better.

Large tech companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft seem to be making an argument for the good of the people, even as they are multibillion dollar companies. Should we worry about that dynamic?
Rather: We saw it with newspapers, when newspapers were dominant. We saw it with radio to a degree when radio became a competitor to and supplemental to newspapers. Certainly we've seen it in television. There's nothing wrong with a corporation being big in and of itself, but if we aren't careful, there's always the tendency to become monopolistic, whether the leaders of the business intended to be so or not.

I consider the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt to be one of the great American presidencies, perhaps not right there with Washington and Lincoln, but right behind it, because as a Republican, mind you, he saw the dangers of trusts, monopolies and the great syndicates. So I think attention must be paid as the larger some companies you name become; do they choke off competition? If they reach that point of monopoly or something near that, attention must be paid.

I think there's always greed, not only for money, but for power, or to control the marketplace. It's inevitable when companies reach a certain stage. Up to a certain point, not only is it OK, but it's good. But particularly when it stifles innovation and creativity, the creation of new businesses and new jobs, that's when we have to watch it.

More Newsmakers

[lingsun]

Who cares what biased members of the media think?

Dan Rather should be best known for the fraudulent documents that he was responsible for airing on CBS during an election year. Maybe the subject of the article should have been about the liberal media's continued lies, deceit, and half-truths in support of the Democratic Party.

[ZululaZulu]

Stick to facts

I suggest your post is more biased than the individul that you
attack.

[fafafooey]

He trashed the bloggers when they caught his lie

He trashed the bloggers when they caught his fake documents - and he *still* insists they are "real".

He's a typical Demokook blinded by Bush hatred.

[Len Bullard]

Who Cares? We Care.

Who cares? We do. The public, what Nixon once called the silent majority, except no longer silent, with access to more information and disinformation than ever before but the ability to TALKBACK. We care what Dan Rather has to say.

Why?

He's an expert. We're not and you're not. He actually has experience that we don't and you don't. He has an informed point of view and he knows how to get the facts and present them. Can he be fooled? Certainly. Did Bush avoid service in Vietnam? Yes, he did. Did Clinton have sex with Monica Lewinsky? Yes, he did. Did Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby and the rest lie to lead America into a war? Yes, they did.

Do we care about all of that? Yes, we do. Do we need the Dan Rather's of the world, warts and all to use their experience to get good information to us so we can make informed decisions?

Oh God yes, we do, and in this age of a megaphone in the hands of every political operative, every experienced journalist, and every nutcase from here to Bagdhad, we need him now more than we ever have before.

Why?

Because he knows how to get it done. And you don't.

Flame away. You're losing.

[fafafooey]

Don't speak for "we"

Maybe "you" happen to care what Dan Blather thinks, but don't extrapolate what you think into what "we" think. You do not speak for anyone but yourself.

You sound like these self-important media and Hollywood stars, acting as if they "represent us" when they haven't been elected to anything.

"... in this age of a megaphone in the hands of every political operative" - HA! Dan Blather *IS* nothing more than a political operative. He advocates the Democrat/liberal point of view under the guise of an "unbiased journalist".

THAT'S the problem I have with Blather. I'd have more respect for him (well, until his forged document fiasco) if he'd just admit his bias.

Oh, and you're remark about Bush avoiding service in Vietnam - the first day he showed up for duty in the Texas National Guard was one day more of service than Bill Clinton provided his country.

[riredale]

Here we go again

Bush Derangement Syndrome rears its ugly head again. I suspect there is NOTHING that W could say or do that some folks would applaud. If so, they need to check out the real problem by looking in the nearest mirror.

Please, let's just stick to the subject matter. Dan Rather lashed out viciously at the blogosphere when its members quickly and conclusively proved his memos were forged.

Until recently the Main Stream Media held the keys to the information kingdom. Not any more, thank goodness. It has become obvious to many that the old school journalists like Rather inevitably tint every news story they do. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Given that 90+% of all MSM journalists consider themselves Dems, it's only natural to expect a certain slant on every story they do. But the blogosphere bypasses that now.

[CBSTV]

A web log does not make someone a journalist

Journalism is a profession, not a part-time hobby or job. It requires
the types of skills and devotion that are outlined in this interview:
checking facts with multiple sources, traveling to where news
happens, talking with witnesses, making phone calls, doing
research.

It's true that some "bloggers" are journalists. But simply knowing
how to type thoughts and opinions into WordPress does not
sidestep the need for experience, judgment and hard work.

[Phillep_H]

Journalist?

Why are the people on the news shows and writing for news papers called "journalists" then?

[digableplanet09]

I agree with CBSTV when he says real journalists are made through experience, judgement and hard work.
This name calling and the smearing of a person's reputation because they don't agree with you, is very ugly and disturbing. We need objective reporting without childish behavior.