Rockin' Rather

Here's a tweet from Dan Rather:

Lies are lies.  Racism is racism.
It is essential for reporters to call these truths what they are in order to inform the public what is really going on.

Let's assume we know nothing about Rather's past and simply look at this statement.  As such, it's incredibly foolish*.

How could Rather not have noticed how political debates go?  For decades, maybe forever, your political stance helps determine what you think is true.  Sure, some statements are empirical**--the capital of Alaska is Juneau, even if someone vehemently claims it's Anchorage--but, in general, statements made in political debates are strongly influenced by partisanship.

This is why it so often seems the person whose politics you disagree with is illogical, or is "lying," if you like. Same for charges of racism. Let's say one group states its mission is to fight racism--if you criticize this group, it's quite possible some will call you a racist, no matter where your criticism is coming from.

It is emphatically not the business of reporters to call out lies and racism.  That's for editorialists (who are doing a notably bad job these days, but that's for another time).  Reporters seem to be as partisan a group as any these days, and have shown, over and over, that they can't impartially call out lies and racism. When they call someone a liar or a racist, they're not reporting facts, they're telling us how they feel.

What they should be doing--what they should be trained to do--is tell the public what people are saying and doing.  That's all.  Then the public can decide who's lying and who's a racist. (Sure, the media should provide facts that create context, but with a highly partisan press they screw this up pretty regularly--better right now to just report the facts, which is hard enough to pull off.)

There are those who believe it's time to strip off the mask of objectivity in reporting.  I think that would be a horrible mistake, but at least they're being honest.  I'd like to know if Dan Rather opposes objectivity in reporting.  Because if he doesn't, he should be satisfied with just getting information out there, not telling the public "what is really going on."

In a photo underneath Rather's tweet, someone is carrying a sign that reads "Why is ending racism a debate?"

It isn't a debate.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a single person who supports racism.  The question is what's the proper way to fight racism. Alas, some people--the person holding this sign, and perhaps Dan Rather as well--apparently believe that people who oppose them don't want to end racism.  All that belief does is make it tougher to fight racism.

* I mean it's foolish as a statement of what the media should do--it may not be foolish for the audience he's seeking, who may believe he should be patted on the head for bravely speaking out.

**Of course, there are those who fight empiricism, feeling it's some sort of trick that people use to force their views on the world.  Presumably, Dan Rather disagrees with these people.