Home
Media Bias Outrage/Week
Outrage of the Month
Outrage Archive
On The Offensive
On The Offensive Archive
Hot Topic Links
Special Features
Activism
Press Releases
Rolodex
Activist Handbook
Thread Archive
Identify Media Bias
Mission Statement
Guestbook
Contact Us

• How did you first become interested in Dan Rather as a subject for study?

RatherBiased.com--I first became interested in about 1998 during the time Congress was discussing whether or not to impeach President Clinton. Rather was very much opposed to the idea and would frequently make his views known in his broadcast, his column, and in his radio commentaries.

• How did you develop the idea to use the internet to share your documentation of Rather?

RatherBiased.com--We wanted to provide a way for people to see all the evidence themselves, to see how Rather (and sometimes his colleagues) allow their political views to affect their coverage on a wide range of issues, people, and events. The Internet is an ideal place for this.

• When did you launch RatherBiased.com?

RatherBiased.com--We launched it in July of 2000 after gathering and verifying material for a year off and on as well as organizing, designing and testing our site.

• Do you have a favorite Rather anecdote?

RatherBiased.com--Well, mine is the time a Howard Stern fan called up CBS during the search for JFK Jr.'s plane and got patched through to talk to Rather, live. Another one involved the first John Kennedy. The day he was shot, Rather was so desperate to get the film of the event and put it on the air that he was going to physically assault the owner of the clip, Abraham Zapruder, and steal it. Rather's superior decided that was not a good idea.

• Why does it seem that Rather stands out from the rest of his colleagues as being so significantly more biased than the rest?

RatherBiased.com--Rather stands out partly because he's so much more visible than most reporters. Only two other journalists have comparable visibility, Jennings and Brokaw (and Rather's on three network programs compared to just one for the other two). Another reason I think Rather stands out so much more is because he puts up much more of a fuss about not being liberally biased. Many of Rather's competitors take a less self-righteous position and realize that allegations of unfairness are one of the most serious accusations that can be made of someone who is expected to be an honest broker of information.

Rather also has had a history of confrontations with Republicans on both domestic and international issues but only occasionally disagrees with Democrats on foreign policy, and never on domestic policy. There just aren't any stories of Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings haranguing Republicans like Rather has.

Of course, a quirky personality also helps.

• Dan Rather claims he's not biased and that those who say he is just want the news reported their way. Why do you think he doesn't seem to get it?

RatherBiased.com--That's his public position. There are times when he's criticized and realized later he was wrong--not that he's admitted it, though. It's easy to reject charges of bias if you simply say, "I'm not going to report how you want me to." When Rather says this, he's implying that some people simply want him to report with a conservative bias instead. The real demand is for Rather to report both sides. It's much harder for Rather to dismiss this by saying, "I'm not going to report both sides fairly."

• Do you plan to continue your coverage of Dan Rather beyond his eventual retirement?

RatherBiased.com--We have some projects in the works. It's also been rumored that he might get a talkshow on CNN, so Rather may not just fade off the map once he quits (or is bumped from) his anchor job.

• Which other media personalities, in your opinion, represent a significant bias threat?
  
• Are there any media news personalities that you feel you can trust?

RatherBiased.com--My advice on that question would be never to trust just one news source or one point of view. To be an informed person, you have to read what people of all perspectives are saying. No news organization has the staff or the inclination to bring consumers the full gamut of views. That's why I like reading both the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Both have several good stories daily and together they're second to none. I highly recommend reading the political magazines as well.

I would also add that as a general rule, print journalists are not only more thorough but also more balanced. Maybe that's one thing about news that Dan Rather and I agree on--print is still king.

• Media bias is a subject that has really begun to catch people's attention. Do you have an opinion as to why that is?

RatherBiased.com--Among conservatives, it certainly has begun to catch attention. The Internet has made this all possible because now people can see the bias literally. During the 70s, 80s and much of the 90s, accusations of bias could slide off the backs of journalists because there was no clear, permanent record of bias that the public could view--any day of the week, 24 hours a day.

Unfortunately, among journalists it has not caught attention. Questions of honestly seeking out all major points of view aren't stressed enough, if at all.

• Will mainstream media ever bow to the demands of media bias activists? Or should we focus on changing the way the public feels about putting their trust in mainstream media?

RatherBiased.com--It should be a question of if journalists will ever bow to the demands of their consciences. If their consciences need some stimulation, that needs to be done. (This is primarily because most medium to large newsrooms are greatly lacking in ideological diversity.) One of the best ways to do that is to inform the public at large that the stories they read or watch on any given day are an incomplete, one-sided retelling of the day's events.

• What advice can you share with other media bias activists?

RatherBiased.com--The most important thing to remember is to state your arguments using facts, not simple, angry or snide rhetoric; but certainly nothing bland. You also need to have very clear definitions of what bias is. The most easily identifiable form of bias are reports that only relay one side of an argument, or ones that may include arguments from both sides, but one side is presented much weaker or superficially. There are certainly other ways to be biased--that need to be highlighted--but this is the hardest form of bias to explain away. Avoid quoting people out of context, also.