Mapes - Too Convenient?
Allahpundit wonders:
If you believe WaPo's article from earlier today, Mapes was investigating this story since mid-August; she finagled a sit-down meeting at that time between herself, the source, and Dan Rather; she later expressed absolute confidence in the source and how he had come by the documents. All that being so, even if you assume the worst anti-Bush gullibility on the part of Mapes and Rather, is it really likely that a single known crackpot like Burkett could have perpetrated a giant hoax upon the entire CBS News division using ridiculously amateurish forgeries? And that the whole thing would suddenly unravel neatly in an on-camera interview?
No kidding. The way this story is wrapping up has all he trappings of
trying to toss Mapes overboard to the sharks as the rest of the leaky boat quietly paddles away:
CBS News plans to issue a statement, perhaps as early as today, saying that it was misled on the purported National Guard memos the network used to charge that President Bush received favored treatment 30 years ago.
The statement would represent a huge embarrassment for the network, which insisted for days that the documents reported by Dan Rather on "60 Minutes" are authentic. But the statement could help defuse a crisis that has torn at the network's credibility.
If you accept - as I do - that a huge swath of the mainstream media seems to be willing to sacrifice a bit of credibility to see Bush defeated, the loss of some credibility and a senior producer is acceptable.
Allahpundit continues:
There's no way. I know the RatherBiased guys will disagree with me and say that yes, Dan Rather really is that stupid and blind with Bush-hatred. But there's simply no way the entire News division could be too. At least, not to the point where they'd let it destroy their professional reputations. Something's up.
I have to agree.
Even though most news people trend left, most of them pride themselves in being able, as far as they can, to avoid at least the appearance of bias. I know reporters who are casually, caustically biased in their personal views, but bristle at the notion that they'd allow it to affect their coverage (and, at least as far as overt bias is concerned, I think most of them are right).
So I agree. I think the story is still just getting started.
Posted by Mitch at
September 20, 2004 07:55 AM
| TrackBack
This explains why Mapes name was listed so prominently above Dan Rather's head as he was talking about this on 60 minutes, I guess. I wondered about that.
Posted by: Eliza-beta at September 20, 2004 07:16 AMIf memory serves (and it's been years since watching an episode of 60 Minutes) I think that the producer's name is always displayed prominently along with the story title projected behind the CBS Correspondent.
Posted by: chris at September 20, 2004 12:05 PMI think that CBS will use the Burkett interview only to confuse things further (for those not paying attention that closely), reinforcing their 'Fake But True' meme. Burkett will deny any association with the documents and CBS will say they are simply exonerating an innocent guy who is getting beat up in the press.
They will say the documents came to them anonymously, and they did a bad job of verifying them, but they are true in the sense that they reflect what their 'impeccable' sources say is the truth.
2nd prediction: At this point I will puke.
I should have said that CBS will claim Burkett is being smeared by 'conservative activists' on the internet, and turn him into a sympathetic figure.
Posted by: chris at September 20, 2004 12:13 PM