Skip to comments.MEMO-GATE (one of CBS's "lousy analysts" speaks
Posted on 11/11/2005 6:43:57 AM PST by bilhosty
On Friday, September 3, 2004, I was closing down my office and thinking about the Labor Day Weekend ahead when the phone rang and the caller asked whether I would be willing to work over the weekend on some important, time-sensitive documents. This was the beginning of my involvement in the examination of documents in the Bush National Guard Document/Memo-Gate news story.
This week, the book "Truth and Duty" by Mary Mapes, former CBS producer, was released. The book contains several inaccuracies in the description of my participation. Because the book is a public document, I see it as my duty to publicly state the truth about what I said and did.
Did you read your link?
This woman refutes specifics in Mary Mapes book. She points out how Mapes book is WRONG.
Just doing a story...no whims about affecting the outcome of a Presidential election. These Watergate wannabes are really something. Thats all they dream about.
We don't need no stinkin fact checks.
O'Reilly was way too soft on her, but he did drag out one telling admission. O'Reilly told her where she went wrong was not proving the documents beyond a reasonable doubt. Mapes responded by saying she believed them to be accurate beyond a reasonable doubt.
And that, in a nutshell, is how the modern liberal mind works. Their beliefs trump overwhelming evidence to the contrary, which is why Mapes refuses to admit the evidence is overwhelming that the memos are fakes. She clings to the one-in-a-trillion possibility that an officer with very limited typing skills would use an extremely advanced typewriter requiring advanced training and elaborate setup to create photo-ready quality text - for minor personnel memos destined for his own personal files. THAT is what Mapes believes and demands that others believe.
And Mapes casually restated that she had been pursuing the story for four years. That shows an Ahab-like fixation on getting Bush. Her bosses should have taken that as a warning signal that Mapes was way too personally involved and invested in the story - which led her to reject any feedback that the memos were forgeries.
She certainly does!! I think the original reference to 'CBS lying scum' was to Mapes, not Will.
What ever happened to the investigation into who gave who what?
Oh, and you left out in your analysis of the one in a trillion odds, the fact that you could recreate the document pixel for pixel by using the default settings in M$ Werd.
I wish I had the direct quote but a few days ago when Mapes was asked point blank if it was her responsibility to prove they were accurate instead of others to prove they were false, she said (paraphrasing) "no, I don't think so."
A cup of coffee can be your friend in the morning.
I wasn't even getting to that level in refuting Mapes' defense of the documents. She is addressing it on the typewriter technology issue, and, even not getting down to the pixel level of the characters, her insistences that it was possible absolutely defy rational analysis.
This analyst simply crushes Mapes. Way to go Emily.
follow the link at the top
What is fascinating to me is that Mapes, by her own admission, CONTINUES to "work" this non-story. Presumably, she has commissioned a forger to create a better set of "documents" to implicate Bush.
What will be interesting to see, once she takes receipt of the new forgeries, is if any reputable news organization (a stretch when we include the MSM), will give her the time of day, given her current reputation.
ROSS: Do you, Mary Mapes, still think these stories are true?
MAPES: The story? Absolutely.
ROSS: This seems remarkable to me that you would sit here now and say you still find that story to be up to your standards.
MAPES: I'm perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there's proof that I haven't seen.
ROSS: But isn't it the other way around? Don't you have to prove they're authentic?
MAPES: Well, I think that's what critics of the story would say. I know more now than I did then. And I think -- I think -- they have not been proved to be false yet.
ROSS: Have they proved to be authentic, though? Isn't that really what journalists do?
MAPES: No, I don't think that's the standard.
Page 167: "Emily Will and I had an unusual conversation that Monday [Sept. 6], a talk that raised questions for me about how well-suited she was to be working on this project. I called to see how her analysis was going and she told me she had a problem with the documents."
Apparently to Mapes, "well-suited" means "rubber stamp" the documents. Amazing.
During Mapes' CNN-Blitzer appearance, she appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. IMO.
This rebuttal by Emily Will is devastating to Mapes, but Mapes seems oblivious to any criticism.
Stunning on two levels. She doesn't think proof is necessary. But, even then, there were SERIOUS doubts raised as to the authenticity of the memos. From what has come out, there were people raising the same issues that we on FR raised. But Mapes pushed them aside in her Ahab-like zeal to run with this story.
"This woman refutes specifics in Mary Mapes book. She points out how Mapes book is WRONG."
She is being polite "WRONG" is a euphemism for lie. Even if it really were a mistake then my statement calling her a liar would be "fake but accurate".
If I tried this with the Editor of The Malden Observer it would be my last day in the paper.
Mary Mapes and Dan Rather both had a personal type vendetta mindset where Bush was concerned. The bad blood between Bush and Rather went back to the Bush 41 presidency. This was all about getting GWB ... their reckless compulsion to do so backfired and both Rather and Mapes have trashed their reputation as journalists.
I like that question. Did the investigation just go down the drain or was it derailed by a vested interest?
Thank you, thank you, thank you! "No, I don't think that's the standard." Good grief. She really believes that. You've documented the "game over" quote.
That is "full-circle" of the "situation-ethics" nonsense which was taught to Baby Boomers and younger in school. She/They create their own reality, depending on each situation. Since she wanted the story and the documents to be true/real, they are. Simple as that. Anything which doesn't fit into that reality is simply ignored.
Unfortunately, there are millions of Americans who were raised on that ethic and its re-named successors. IMHO, it will be nearly impossible to change their minds on anything: that's how they view the world. (Even another 911 would simply be seen from the perspective of "Why didn't [Bush] stop it? We [America] deserved it because...." etc.)
I have come to understand that to an MSM "reporter" the phrase, "I stand by my story", is meant to clinch the argument. After that we mere mortals are meant to defer to their superior judgement.
Thanks for posting this. What may be even more upsetting to Mapes is what CBS News is sending to those who will be interviewing her after her GMA debacle.
Look at the CBS News response to her appearance on GMA. This was sent to Larry King before and he read it before he interviewed Mapes. Apparently O'Reilly got the same response before Mapes was on his show.
"(After yesterday's Mapes' Good Morning America appearance, CBS issued the following statement, which Larry King read to Mapes last night):
"KING: We're here with Mary Mapes, the book "Truth and Duty, the Press, the President and the Privilege of Power." CBS News gave us this statement today.
"Mary Mapes' actions damaged CBS News as an organizational and brought pain to many colleagues with whom she worked. Her disregard for journalistic standards -- and for her colleagues -- comes through loud and clear in her interviews and in the book that attempts to rewrite the history of this complex and sad affair.
As always, revisionist history must be tested against the facts. Not only are those facts contained in the extensive media coverage that took place at the time, but also in the 200-plus-page report of the independent panel which investigated the matter for more than three months.
We believe those facts speak for themselves. The idea that a news organization would not need to authenticate such important source material is only one of the troubling and erroneous statement in her account."
(Mapes only reply was: CBS has been working on that statement for months.)
Hey Mapes, your former employer, CBS News is setting the record straight about your lying past. CBS is not Free Republic.
Somebody ouught to find a way to get this into the MSM talks shows when they interview Mapes.
What's interesting however is how the MSM is rallying around Mapes and her book.
The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz for example wrote a column that virtually accepted most of Mapes' accusations and explanations.
We will have to fight this fight again or they will sell the public on the issues and rehabilitate Mapes, Rather, and all the MSM who jumped on the story. (Sigh)
In addition to FreeRepublic. What the CBS memo leaves out is that Mapes was no alone. It was All of CBS News that let this dog off the leash. I notice that after a face-saving interval, Rather and the CEO are gone.
Reality is a mental construct and my construct is better/more compassionate than your construct.
"In addition to FreeRepublic. What the CBS memo leaves out is that Mapes was no alone. It was All of CBS News that let this dog off the leash. I notice that after a face-saving interval, Rather and the CEO are gone."
We know this young lady, a daughter of some very close friends. She is an independent consultant for PR work for companies needing PR to mend their image or just to let people know what the company represents.
She said even before the election of 2004, the program that Blather and Mapes used to as a platform for their lies had become a no go for most of these companies re any ads. After the election, no one wanted to advertise with the program and many didn't want spend money in ads with CBS News on any program.
I have not seen this level of Chutzpah since that guy a couple of years ago that claimed the Holocaust never happened.
According to her bio page, Emily J. Will is a certified documents examiner in private practice, working out of Raleigh, NC. Does anyone know what her position was with CBS, and whether she was fired for telling the awkward truth during Rathergate?
Here's her internet business card, as it were:
Strange, then why even bother having a specialist look at them to authenicate the documents? What's the point if you don't care and are going to ignore the specialists anyways?
And O.J. Simpson remains, even at this very minute, relentless in his pursuit to find Nicole Brown Kidman's real killer.
There's no "story" here to "work" and Mapes (deep down) knows it. Any "work" that she claims to be doing involves media appearances to promote her new book, which can be redefined as "the interviewing of sycophants, seeking help in the promotion of this psychotic fantasy of hers."
Initially, I thought her stance was a way to sell books. After all, if she admitted screwing up, no one would want to book her on the TV talk show circuit. No controversy.
But after seeing her on O'Reilly, I think she really and truly believes this nonsense. As does much of the MSM. Which is why they keep repeating these kind of errors - their standards have gradually drifted so far away from old-school journalism that they are oblivious to the shift and treat whacked-out views like Mapes' as mainstream.
I don't know if they are a cult per se, but they sure have a lot of the mannerisms. Mapes sure seemed like a zombie last night.
Its a good fight to have from the standpoint of having the facts on our side. How well we will be able to mobilize the pajamadeen and get the facts out a second time is the issue.
It's not a good fight from the standpoint that the MSM will now use the misinformation in Mapes' book to justify her program and the MSM response. Like it or not they control the evening news and all the panel shows. Our facts will be dismissed as 'old news' or attacked by the MSM as Mapes' "new facts' become the story.
We've already seen Howard Kurtz's veiled acceptance of her story in the WAPO and the failure of a Fox news interviewer to really expose the misinformation.
Back to the barricades, citizens!