[KellyAdmirer]

And that, to me, means obsession, and as you pointed out the other day, you know, that's what editors are for. Editors are there to harness the energy, sometimes obsessive energy of reporters and they clearly didn't do it in this case."

Come on, Howard, there wasn't an "editor" who should have stopped the story. Mapes has a direct line to Rather. There is no "editor" in between. The only "editor" who could have injected some reason into this partisan exercise was Dan Rather, but he was either too stupid or too partisan to do anything but go along.

[Bernard Marx]

The only "editor" who could have injected some reason into this partisan exercise was Dan Rather, but he was either too stupid or too partisan to do anything but go along.

You're right -- and Mapes, herself, is also an "editor." When the MSM prates on about its system of "checks and balances," this is what it amounts to. When the "editor" is biased, whatcha' gonna' do? Having worked in the media with many a biased editor, I know what goes on.

[Radix]

Dan Rather, but he was either too stupid or too partisan...

A whole lot of both.