Mary Mapes of Rathergate: Our standard is: We report whatever we want, you disprove.

[fossten]

Mary Mapes: Bush National Guard Story Still "Is a Good Story"
Posted by Brian Boyd on November 9, 2005 - 12:31.

Mary Mapes, the producer fired from CBS News for her role in the 60 Minutes story about President Bush’s National Guard service, has written a book to explain her side of the story. On today’s Good Morning America she talked to ABC’s Brian Ross about that book and the forged documents used in the Bush story.

A minute or so into the interview Ross and Mapes got into the question of the documents and whether the responsibility was to prove the documents authentic before airing the story, or if any documents could be used until someone else proved them to be false.

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."

Ross: "CBS News strongly disagrees. An outside panel appointed by CBS found the story did not meet CBS News standards and that it was caused by a 'myopic zeal' to be first, to report on the President's National Guard service. It's harshest criticism was for Mapes, herself.

[snip]

Ross: "In a statement CBS says Mary Mapes' disregard for journalistic standards and for her colleagues comes through loud and clear in this interview and her book, which CBS says tries to rewrite history. CBS says the idea that a news organization would not need to authenticate such important source material is 'just one of the troubling, erroneous statements in her account.'"

 

[raVeneyes]

Contrary to your hateful skewed title...the article proves it is not the standard of journalism, just the standard of Mapes, who obviously forgot her journalistic ethics classes.

 

[fossten]

Oh, really? Then maybe you'd like to explain this quote from the same interview:

Mary Mapes: "I loved that job, loved it wildly and suddenly there were pictures of me on the Internet. They were saying mean things about me, saying that I was an angry, man-hating femi-Nazi. I had people driving by my house and taking pictures. I have a little boy, seven years old, and--"

Ross: "What did you tell him?"

Mapes: "I didn't tell him much."

Ross: "Mary Mapes was the woman behind the scenes, the producer who researched, wrote and put together Dan Rather's 60 Minutes report on President Bush's National Guard service. A report which Rather and CBS would later apologize for airing."

Mapes: "Friendships were destroyed, trust was abandoned and it was a very, very dark time. It was a very dark time, I mean, it was like having a little, mini witch hunt within the corporation."

Ross: "And at the heart of that was Mary Mapes."

Mapes: "Yes. Yes, that's true. I know."

Ross: "In the ten months since she was fired, Mapes has been working on a book titled, 'Truth and Duty,' her answer to her enemies in politics, critics in the media and one-time colleagues at CBS News.

"You're seen by many as the person who brought down Dan Rather and CBS News."

Mapes: "Oh, probably. I think that's an accurate characterization. I think I'm somebody who got fired for trying to do their job in a difficult atmosphere."

Ross: "Nothing to do with bad journalism?"

Mapes: "I don't think I committed bad journalism. I really don't. I don't think I've done a good job for 25 years, woke up on the morning of September 8th and decided to commit professional hari-kari."


So, if she did this for 25 years and thinks she did nothing wrong, and CBS never fired her till now, it's obvious (except to those in denial or morons) that the only reason CBS fired her and retired Dan Rather is BECAUSE THEY GOT CAUGHT THIS TIME.

 

[RB3]

Mapes: "I don't think I committed bad journalism. I really don't. I don't think I've done a good job for 25 years, woke up on the morning of September 8th and decided to commit professional hari-kari."


So, if she did this for 25 years and thinks she did nothing wrong, and CBS never fired her till now, it's obvious (except to those in denial or morons) that the only reason CBS fired her and retired Dan Rather is BECAUSE THEY GOT CAUGHT THIS TIME.

And there's the key to why the Left hates Rush and Fox News. They cannot get away with lying any more, as they have for years and years and years; at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and on and on. All places run by Democrats, staffed by Democrats, produced by Democrats, edited by Democrats, reported by Democrats; where Democrats decide what is and isn't news, and what will and won't be reported.

 

[raVeneyes]

Oh, really? Then maybe you'd like to explain this quote from the same interview:

Mapes: "I don't think I committed bad journalism. I really don't. I don't think I've done a good job for 25 years, woke up on the morning of September 8th and decided to commit professional hari-kari."

Just the way I already explained it.

Mapes did not know her journalistic ethics

Ross: "Mary Mapes was the woman behind the scenes, the producer who researched, wrote and put together Dan Rather's 60 Minutes report on President Bush's National Guard service."

while CBS and Dan Rather do

"A report which Rather and CBS would later apologize for airing."

 

[raVeneyes]

And there's the key to why the Left hates Rush and Fox News.

PEOPLE (not just the left, but almost all journalists and many people from both sides of the aisle) dislike Rush and Fox news because they have no journalistic integrity from the outset. Rush has had so many reports that have been proven to be based on bad data or false evidence that people automatically brand him as editorial, not news. Fox news also has bad journalistic practices on a consistent basis, not reporting the news, but rather whatever the editorial staff thinks is more right wing.

They cannot get away with lying any more, as they have for years and years and years; at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and on and on. All places run by Democrats, staffed by Democrats, produced by Democrats, edited by Democrats, reported by Democrats; where Democrats decide what is and isn't news, and what will and won't be reported.

Several of those news agencies are neutral and non party affiliated, and several of them are owned and operated by Republicans, staffed by majority Republicans and have a Republican editorial staff.

 

[Calabrio]

You're missing the point.

While this doesn't necessarily prove that everyone working for the network media has such low standards, it does demonstate a very distinct problem.

Mapes wasn't some woman who'd just graduated from college and didn't have much experience in the field She's been working for CBS for 20 years. So, now that we know what she was thinking regarding this story, why are we to believe she ever responsible any time before?

And give the level of success she had achieved up until this point, it would lead most to believe that she clearly can't be that far out of step with the rest of the industry.
"I don't think I committed bad journalism. I really don't. I don't think I've done a good job for 25 years, woke up on the morning of September 8th and decided to commit professional hari-kari."


The problem isn't that she suddenly decided to commit hari-kari. She clearly doesn't think she did anything differently regarding this story. The only difference is that there are alternate sources of news out there that held her and Dan Rather accountable.

Let's not forget, this wasn't just a poorly supported attack article on Bush. It was a poorly supported attack article on Bush, using clearly forged documents, just weeks before the 2004 election. A story like this is released to influence the election. It's completely dishonorable to launch an attack like this without making absolutely sure it is 100% verifiable. If you're on CBS news, you're not supposed to go on an offensive like this without proof.

 

[MonsterMark]

Mapes did not know her journalistic ethics
....[snip] while CBS and Dan Rather do ...

"A report which Rather and CBS would later apologize for airing."

Only 4 days after they denied and attacked everybody that challenged the "FORGERIES".

I would like to hear from some that think the documents may not be have been forgeries.

Forget about the typeface used. The fact that the documents were in the EXACT same default as Microsoft Word (which I may remind you did not exist at the time) renders anyone that wants to defend the documents a ( fill in the blank).

Dan Rather... nothing more than a low-life for letting his political hatred shine thru. I think it is fantastic that he crashed and burned the way he did. 25 years of listening to his slant finally caught up to him. You reap what you sow.

And Mary, thank you for finally burying yourself. Thank God e won't have to listen to one of your 'great' works again.

 

[raVeneyes]

You're missing the point.

While this doesn't necessarily prove that everyone working for the network media has such low standards, it does demonstate a very distinct problem.

Mapes wasn't some woman who'd just graduated from college and didn't have much experience in the field She's been working for CBS for 20 years. So, now that we know what she was thinking regarding this story, why are we to believe she ever responsible any time before?

And give the level of success she had achieved up until this point, it would lead most to believe that she clearly can't be that far out of step with the rest of the industry.
"I don't think I committed bad journalism. I really don't. I don't think I've done a good job for 25 years, woke up on the morning of September 8th and decided to commit professional hari-kari."


The problem isn't that she suddenly decided to commit hari-kari. She clearly doesn't think she did anything differently regarding this story. The only difference is that there are alternate sources of news out there that held her and Dan Rather accountable.

Let's not forget, this wasn't just a poorly supported attack article on Bush. It was a poorly supported attack article on Bush, using clearly forged documents, just weeks before the 2004 election. A story like this is released to influence the election. It's completely dishonorable to launch an attack like this without making absolutely sure it is 100% verifiable. If you're on CBS news, you're not supposed to go on an offensive like this without proof.

Well I'll agree with you...Mapes' long standing career and statements do bring to question the general ethics of the news organizations she's worked with, but I have to protest the assumption that seems to be being made where it's the whole news media that has bad ethics and not a specific person or people.

Just the fact that she was called on her bad journalistic ethics means that some people in journalism have good ethics.

And if you've ever taken a journalism class, you know that journalists have a responsibility to verify their sources...it's taught that way in school anyway, and if it doesn't happen that way in the real world, that's no fault of media, but rather a culture at that particular publication.

 

[RB3]

PEOPLE (not just the left, but almost all journalists and many people from both sides of the aisle) dislike Rush and Fox news because they have no journalistic integrity from the outset. Rush has had so many reports that have been proven to be based on bad data or false evidence that people automatically brand him as editorial, not news. Fox news also has bad journalistic practices on a consistent basis, not reporting the news, but rather whatever the editorial staff thinks is more right wing.


Several of those news agencies are neutral and non party affiliated, and several of them are owned and operated by Republicans, staffed by majority Republicans and have a Republican editorial staff.

This is the second time you've made the unsubstantiated claim that no one listens to or believes anything on the Rush Limbaugh show. Now you've made the same unsubstaniated claim about Fox News. For your information, twenty million people listen to Rush everyday. More people watch Fox News than all the other cable news networks COMBINED.

In this thread you were confronted with specific, substantiated claims of false reporting on CBS, and you respond with "Rush has had so many reports that have been proven to be based on bad data or false evidence..." PROVE IT. Where is your evidence on Rush? Where is your evidence on Fox? You are just offering YOUR opinion, nothing more.

Entire books have been written about the overwhelming Democrat dominance of the so called "mainstream press." Voting surveys in the last two elections of the major networks and newspapers have revealed that the "talent" votes about 80-90% Democrat. This in a country with a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Yet you proclaim "several of them are owned and operated by Republicans, staffed by majority Republicans and have a Republican editorial staff." Really? Which ones are they? Could it be CNN? Nicknamed the "Clinton News Network?" How about ABC? The network that employs a Clinton staffer to anchor a "news" program? Maybe the New York Times? A paper that conducts a continuing vendetta against Fox, and finally has to apologize for false reporting about Fox (after repeated refusals) when being told by their own omsbudsman that they were in the wrong? Maybe the Los Angeles Times? The home of the 11th hour pre-election attack on Arnold, printing the same kinds of undocumented charges against him that they had REFUSED to print about Gray Davis?

 

[MonsterMark]

Just the fact that she was called on her bad journalistic ethics means that some people in journalism have good ethics.

The fact is it was the bloggers that caught the fraud within 1 Hour of the story airing. Of course the media views the bloggers as nothing more than a bunch of RWW in their pajamas. So, in truth, it takes a non-journalist to be ethical in reporting now-a-days. Truly sad.

 

[fossten]

C'mon, Raveneyes, I devoted an entire thread to showing how the MSM gets it biased or wrong. Let's see you post your 'evidence' of how Rush and Fox have been discredited or proven wrong.

And personal attacks on Rush or Fox's staff don't count.

I'm not gonna hold my breath. Something tells me it's going to be a while.