Editor&Publisher reported Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post might have a bigger scoop than he thought. In his online column this morning, as a final, almost throwaway item, he quoted from the first chapter of the forthcoming book by former CBS producer Mary Mapes that covers, among other things, her controversial experience with the Dan Rather/Bush/National Guard “60 Minutes” segment. Among the excerpts: "I was incredulous that the mainstream press -- a group I'd been a part of for nearly twenty-five years and thought I knew -- was falling for the blogs' critiques.
They had been getting away with telling lies for 25 years; why did that have to stop?I was shocked at the ferocity of the attack. I was terrified at CBS's lack of preparedness in defending us. I was furious at the unrelenting attacks on Dan. And I was helpless to do anything about any of it."
Truth can really hurt someone who is not used to it.
OneBigDog blogged Note to Mapes: The documents were phony and your liberal biased blindness did not allow you to do what the public expects of respectable journalists. Documents are destroyed when they are phony and no fax machine in the world will take a document from 30 years ago and change the font to that found on computers not available at the time they were supposedly written.
Perhaps the reason that you are upset is that with the Internet, the public no longer needs to sit in front of a TV and have your spin spoon fed to them. The public now has a means to verify claims made by the liberal biased media. Instead of being told what we should believe, we are investigating for ourselves and finding the truth.
Bill blogged What's more persuasive, Mapes' grasping analysis of the destruction of "subtle arcs and lines in the letters" or the analysis of a renowned forensic document examiner and "one of the pioneers of electronic typesetting." Or your own eyes?
No comments:
Post a Comment