28-06-2009, 10:45 PM
I have read the responses but I'm not sure I agree. I dont dispute Rather's role as custodian of the official narrative. Nor do I dispute the idea that Rather is now Lear in Wildnerness to the rest of the Corporate Media. But by completely discrediting him now, what does that do to his earlier role in the official narrative? In other words there may be a cost associated with excessive Rather-bashing. Snag a thread, the sleeve may unravel.
I am far from suggesting that Mr. Baker put all his eggs in that basket. He has lots of other impressive blurbs as well.
It just seems that to me that the public perception of Rather might be more complicated than others think. I think there is a general perception that although Rather got burned, he was somehow set up by a government that was allowed to get away with too much. Because of Rathers role early on in Dallas, I think that the publicity of the Rather v. Bush contraversy might be used to positive effect, while its negative potential-- real as the above posters have outlined-- might be more limited than some think. Its a blurb, and it comes as an interesting time. I am far from suggesting that Russ Baker start using Rather as a major source of new evidence. Besides, I learned recently from researcher Joseph Green that Rather made some comment to the effect of "we really blew it on Dallas" in the year 1993. Does anyone, by the way, have this quote in context? Appreciate the comments, just mulling it over. I am sorry if I am insufficiently Manichean for some, but sometimes to get you book out it's more important to be macheavelian. Of course there are risks with that too, just got to make sure they're smart ones.
I am far from suggesting that Mr. Baker put all his eggs in that basket. He has lots of other impressive blurbs as well.
It just seems that to me that the public perception of Rather might be more complicated than others think. I think there is a general perception that although Rather got burned, he was somehow set up by a government that was allowed to get away with too much. Because of Rathers role early on in Dallas, I think that the publicity of the Rather v. Bush contraversy might be used to positive effect, while its negative potential-- real as the above posters have outlined-- might be more limited than some think. Its a blurb, and it comes as an interesting time. I am far from suggesting that Russ Baker start using Rather as a major source of new evidence. Besides, I learned recently from researcher Joseph Green that Rather made some comment to the effect of "we really blew it on Dallas" in the year 1993. Does anyone, by the way, have this quote in context? Appreciate the comments, just mulling it over. I am sorry if I am insufficiently Manichean for some, but sometimes to get you book out it's more important to be macheavelian. Of course there are risks with that too, just got to make sure they're smart ones.