O'Reilly Wanted To Ambush Dan Rather

Bill O'Reilly and Bernard Goldberg sat down to deliberately trash veteran newsman Dan Rather last night. Rather has a long, distinguished career in journalism but ever since he dared to report that George W. Bush went AWOL during his time in the Texas Air National Guard, he's been a GOP Fox News pariah. Even if you believe (which I do not, by the way) that Rather got his AWOL story wrong, compare the treatment of him to Andrew Breitbart and his series of discredited reports.

The gist of O'Reilly's beef last night seemed to be that Rather had had the temerity to cancel an interview on The Factor despite appearing on Good Morning America to defend his reporting. “We reported a true story,” Rather was seen saying in a clip, and had faced a “propaganda barrage to discredit it.”

The childish attacks by O'Reilly and Goldberg could only have confirmed to Rather that he made the right decision, assuming he caught the segment. Goldberg said, “I know it doesn't sound logical, but I think he's more comfortable with sitting down with a murderer like Saddam Hussein than he is... sitting down with you.”

“We were going to ambush him, like we did with our pal Bill Moyers, but – uh – we decided not to do it,” O'Reilly boasted, citing Rather's age as the only factor. Gee, that's big of you O'Reilly.

But that didn't mean either he or Goldberg were through demeaning Rather.

Noting that he had spent several millions of dollars on his case against CBS, which Rather lost, Goldberg said, “Here's a man who covered every major story since the assassination of JFK, he has put his life in danger more than a few times and I think he's painfully aware of the fact that someday, down the road, when somebody writes the obit for Dan Rather, in the first paragraph, it's gonna contain the words either 'memogate' or 'Rathergate' and I think that hurts him terribly.”

“But he could have rehabbed it here,” O'Reilly said. Oh, sure he could have. Assuming he wasn't sandbagged by anyone and assuming O'Reilly didn't slyly put on people before and/or after Rather – without giving him a chance to respond to their “rebuttal” of anything he said.

“He has become obsessed with this, spending all the money that he spent and all that. He's like Captain Ahab... He just can't let this one go,” Goldberg sneered.

Do you like this post?

	Tweet

Showing 10 reactions

Yakki PsD commented 2012-05-02 14:32:29 -0400 · Flag

But hey Billo! Dan was on Morning Joe this morn haha! You were beat out by Joe,once again!

Charles Rita commented 2012-05-02 13:17:10 -0400 · Flag

Goldberg said, âI know it doesn’t sound logical, but I think he’s more comfortable with sitting down with a murderer like Saddam Hussein than he is… sitting down with you.â

Which is a greater threat to an American journalist? A foreign dictator who lies and tries to prevent journalistic endeavors or Bill O’Reilly? Yeah, I can’t tell the difference either.

Richard Speight commented 2012-05-02 09:09:47 -0400 · Flag

He could have got Robert Reich in as a replacement, I’m sure he’d have gone on Bill!

Gaetano Balestra commented 2012-05-02 03:07:42 -0400 · Flag

Oh yes, we must all fear the great O’Reilly. Who does he think he is ?

mj - the same one commented 2012-05-02 01:20:12 -0400 · Flag

âWe were going to ambush him, like we did with our pal Bill Moyers, but â uh â we decided not to do it,â O’Reilly boasted, citing Rather’s age as the only factor.

Tell the truth, BillO . . . Rather mentioned the name “Andrea Mackris”, and rendered the video unusable — didn’t he?

.

Robert Urban commented 2012-05-01 20:22:34 -0400 · Flag

I found it worded better than my post (gee, surprise) on Media Matters:
All of this has been made plain by a scathing new Parliament report issued today, which condemns the News Corp. CEO for being not only unfit to run an international corporation, but also for having turned "a blind eye and exhibited willful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications. The inquiry found the culture of corruption permeated “from the top” of News Corp.; corruption that “speaks volumes” about the company’s “lack of effective corporate governance.”

Robert Urban commented 2012-05-01 20:12:10 -0400 · Flag

Why he even agreed to go on a show like O’liely is beyond me. Perhaps his close friends told him this show was nothing more than an ambush in waiting. Or it could be that being a credible journalist with friends all over the globe he decided it would be best to blow off an interview with a “news” outlet that was about (today) to have it’s owner (Rupert and son) castigated by a British Commission saying that (paraphrasing) the owner of this media outlet was personally incapable of running a professional business, and should have their rights to do so revoked. This ruling came today but was only a couple of votes short (conservatives refused to include this wording in the middle of the 85 page decision) of the official findings in Britain. (See Fox News Story: Murdoch and Son are Fu@#ing Brain Dead says British Commission —-I believe it is under the Fox Nation headline: “Today it was Overcast and Foggy in England, What is Obama trying to hide?”. NPR might have a more in depth story. I heard it on the radio a few hours ago.

truman commented 2012-05-01 18:27:08 -0400 · Flag

Hackberg is insanely jealous of Dan Rather’s professional success. Rather was a major news network anchor and a distinguished reporter for 60 minutes. By contrast, Hackberg’s career now largely consists of kissing Bildo’s splotchy ass.

NewsHounds posted about O'Reilly Wanted To Ambush Dan Rather on NewsHounds' Facebook page 2012-05-01 17:56:06 -0400

Funny how Andrew Breitbart - who had far more work discredited and whose discredited reports did far more damage - never gets this kind of treatment on Fox News.