Author's Expertise: Commentary

The authors listed are Greg Sheffield and Matthew W. Sheffield. They provide both email contact information as well as a phone number. I used Google and Altavista to locate information on the authors and found links to sites where they were quoted such as NewsMax.com, The New York Observer Online and Crashing Through the Ignorance Barrier. An online article in the New York Observer describes the site as a “homespun web site” by two brothers who are college students at Southwest Missouri State University. The article was written in October of 2000. I went to the Missouri State University web site and neither is listed as a current student. From the information gathered, it appears these two gentlemen have no credentials other than being obsessed with monitoring CBS news and specifically Dan Rather.

Reliability of site

The site was founded in 2000 as an independent media-criticism web site. It is a not-for-profit venture and is not affiliated with any other organization. The mission is to “document the partisan belief of one of the most politicized journalist of our time.” The authors certainly seem to have an agenda and are not affiliated with any reliable organization. Although it is listed as a not-for-profit venture it has a .com domain.

Reliability of linked pages

The sections within the site providing links include main, people, issues, events, groups, scandals and journalism. Most of these sections link to pages within the site, created by the authors of www.ratherbiased.com. The main section does include numerous links to outside media links including links to Media Analysis/Criticism Groups, Journalism & Media-Related Publication and Media Columnists. Many of the sites appear to be legitimate but many of the links provide an obvious slant. They mostly have domains of either .org or .com

Other pages linked to this page

Pages linking to www.ratherbiased.com show both bias and sarcasm. The “OnlineDailyNews.com has sections titled The Daily Farce and MockingWord. Another link, Page One News has a banner promoting a “Ring of Conservative Sites.” Another is titled ConservativeU.Com which claims to be devoted to the providing “an alternative (yet correct) political, economic and historical education. These links are all red flags and should not to be used as authoritative in any form.

Information from traditional sources

The site uses transcripts from the CBS Evening News but quotes are often pulled out of context to make points. Even in the section on Rather’s biography, the information provided is slanted, listing Rather as “always a controversial figure” whose personality divided audiences. This information is from Wikipedia an online encyclopedia that has a general disclaimer regarding validity of information on the site. They do link to a biography from CBS on Rather, which is quite different in tone from the one found on www.ratherbias.com. This site obviously has an agenda and even when it uses transcripts, they twist the meaning to reflect that agenda.

Last update of this page?

The site was created in 2000 and the main page appears to be updated on a weekly basis. There is a posting for March 30, 2004.

Document Accuracy

The site uses transcripts from newscasts, but they take the information out of context to make it fit their agenda. There is no unbiased information presented in the site or linked to the site that would provide a way to judge accuracy.

Relative bias of this page

I would answer yes to all the questions on the evaluation wizard. The language of the document is often extreme. In one case they quoted Donald Trump as saying “He’s (Dan) got absolutely no talent or charisma or personality”. They even have a section titled “Bizarre.” The site is created to stir up your emotions, headlining scandals or issues such as abortion. There is bias on every page and in every article. There is only one perspective and that is that Dan Rather is a liberal who adds his own slant to the news.

Supporting evidence?

The evidence presented is through transcripts of newscasts and interviews by Dan Rather. If they were presented without all the biased statements and in context they might be valid. There is plenty of quantity in the site, but from my perspective, very little quality. There is contact information for the authors through email and a phone number. The authors have a definite agenda and they do nothing to provide the visitor with evidence that is not also biased in nature.

Availability of second opinion?

I do not know of anyone with expertise in the area of news media and credibility. I searched online and found a book by Bernard Goldberg who was a former CBS news correspondent titled Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite. He also wrote Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. When you read the reviews you learn that he too distorts the facts and makes personal shots at several news figures. It appears that there is definitely some truth to the accusations, but a more balanced presentation would make the argument much more credible.