Another excellent analysis on Power Line from Hindrocket, who discusses the NY Times take on the report. The Times felt the report showed a "star producer overruling the better judgments of an entire series of top news executives." I think this overestimates Mapes ability to drive the story, vis a vis Mr. Rather. Certainly he could have put a stop to the developing fiasco, had he not been so blind with desire for the intended outcome. To this day he continues to hold to the "fake but accurate" interpretation of the documents.
Rather informed the Panel that he still believes the content of the documents is true because “the facts are right on the money,” and that no one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic.
Mapes, for her part, not only insists they're accurate, but denies that they were forged.
Before the Bush/Guard story aired, the newly found documents that supported it were thoroughly examined and corroborated. The contents of the new documents mesh perfectly, in large ways and small, with all previously known records. The new documents also were corroborated by retired Gen. Bobby Hodges, the late Col. Killian’s commander, who said that the documents showed Col. Killian’s true sentiments as well as his actions in the case. After the broadcast, Marian Carr Knox provided the same corroboration in her televised interview.
None of this is true, as Hindrocket points out here. She concludes:
It is noteworthy the panel did not conclude that these documents are false. Indeed, in the end, all that the panel did conclude was that there were many red flags that counseled against going to air quickly...
I believe the segment presented to the American people facts they were free to accept or reject, and that as those facts were presented, there was nothing that was false or misleading.
Nothing? She needs to read the blogs more often.
UPDATE: At The Volokh Conspiracy, Jim Lindgren discusses the concept of political bias, and who has it, as opposed to searching out the truth. He writes:
[T]he Panel is pretty quick to charge those who exposed CBS's fraudulent documents as having a political agenda. The motivation to seek and expose the truth is a pretty powerful one by itself, and motivations are complex. As I have said many times before, first you determine if the facts that someone is asserting are true or not. Only if they are false do you begin to ask why they would be putting forward false information, whether pushing false information might be the result of political bias.
Exactly. If the refutation of the documents is the truth, just how exactly does exposing it constitute political bias? And why is it right to assume no political bias if a flawed story is presented simply because you are MSM?
Via Ace of Spades, who has many more thoughts on the matter, even for you ParrotHeads out there.
Comments