Redstate

So she thinks journalist's should not have to prove their stories or accusations?

It must be up to the critics to disprove it!

WOW! -Journalism- "you've come along way baby"        

The pre-review of her book came out last week with choice quotes as well (my take).  I think she could team back up with Dan as he still thinks there is a story.  they could ride off into the sunset together, at Belview.  

But what you really bring out is choice.  She feared for her son once things became public?  Did a CBS news truck park in her front yard or something?  I have this vision.....

from the Ross interview:

She tells Ross that she had no journalistic obligation to prove the authenticity of the documents before including them in the "60 Minutes II" report. "I don't think that's the standard," she said.

Those were documents used in a story which could have direct bearing on a U.S. Presidential election, and she felt to journalist compunction, let alone obligation,  to prove their veracity.

It's tabloidism at best, streiff, and it shows just what the MSM is willing to defend.

we had a poster last week vigorously defend "fake but accurate" as THE WAY investigative journalists work.

Is the standard now a metric separating that which promotes a editorial agenda and everything else?  Is there a historical single standard?  It seems that number one on the standard list has always been "advancing the story".  How bad the facts are distorted comes next.  But I don't know.  Are we in a cyclic era of yellow journalism?

... the general public has loosened the standards by which is judges journalists.  But it's disturbing to see the journalists themselves doing it, too.

I'm glad to see her counterparts refusing to take the bait here.

but I was always taught that 'the standard' was the difference between that which is true and that which is not.

we've ever been out of a cycle of yellow journalism.

That may not be entirely true. The MSM may still be where people get their mis-information, but the press stands pretty low in the 'old credibility ratings' game. It appears that the 'Average Joe' take what the press dishes out but doesn't necessarily believe it.

The problem is that for most people the MSM is the source. So even if people don't necessarily believe what they are fed, they don't seem to have a way to get anything else. The result is the stinkbomb lingers in the air for a long while and the truth doesn't necessarily get in to bring any fresh air.

Mary must have been absent from Journalism Class when the topic of fact checking and its importance prior to publishing a story was discussed.

Every reporter must have feared backlash after publishing.  It comes with the territory.  That is why you need to make sure that you have checked your sources and made sure that they were above reproach.

Mary Mapes is a pompous, self-grandizing, narcisist.  She is only in it to make a name and make a buck.  To heck with everything else.  Conservatives are always evil, repressive and wrong; liberals are always good, persecuted and always right.  That is her theology and guiding light.  She needs to leave the public domain, reevaluate her thinking and get some serious help.

They teach actual ethics and standards in Journalism School? The same kind of ethics and standards the rest of us use? Naaahhhh.

Do you think then, politically, that yellow journalism its a symptom, or a cause?  Or is it so deeply ingrained in the social 'psyche' that the relationship is purely symbiotic?  Did the framers recognize that "free press" encompassed a yellow press?

The question verges into the Neo-Freudian world of socio-psychology but for long term context it is interesting to consider.  I don't know an answer, but I do think that with examples like Mary coupled with the obvious mistrust of the MSM by the general public, yet confounded by the popularity of the same, it must be ingrained in the psyche.  Or maybe conservatives are no good at empathetic emotional journalism, which is what sells.  

Its a conundrum...

of an objective press is a myth. There never was one and never will be.

People like reading exciting stuff, whether it's true or not. If you have a doubt about that, the next time you're in the supermarket check out line look and the offererings.

I also think that a lot of people who gravitate into the press want to change the world but aren't willing to apply themselves enough to rise to any position of electoral or corporate power, so they achieve their power vicariously through writing snark about people who have achieved something.

If you've read the newspapers that were present in Colonial America and in the years immediately following the Revolution it is hard to believe they didn't know what the press was all about.

was perhaps the epitome of yellow journalism at it's best. Try as they might, and as successful as Sulzberg et al have been, they have never really been able to live up to the standards of Hearst.

For your fun and edification, here is the complete listing of possible journalism classes at the school for which I am surrounded.  I notice that there is two possible areas for the young activist to get some boundaries, 'Media and the Law' and 'Media Ethics'.  Bet those classes are fun.  Also note that you need 128 credits for a full four year degree.  Subtract half for core mush and you have 64.  So you basically have to take everything in the undergraduate schedule.  Not a lot of variety for the aspiring activist.

100 level

The Press and Society (3)

300 level

Fundamentals of Journalism (6)

Journalism Tools and Platforms (6)

Photojournalism (3)

Magazine Writing (3)

Interpretive Journalism (3)

Journalism History and Trends (3)

Media and the Law (3)

Practicum (1)

(Alpha) Journalism Workshops (V)

400 level

Intellectual Foundations (6)

Advanced Photojournalism (3)

Publication Layout and Design (3)

Media Ethics (3)

International News Coverage (3)

Fieldwork (3)

Directed Research (V)

total possible semester credits = 52 + 2 variable

no, not her obvious insanity.  I too find maddening "self rightous typists", pesky things that they are.  If I can make a suggestion to Mary, perhaps she can pool her talents wit O J Simpson.  He has dedicated his life to finding the real murderer and she will prove,here or in the hereafter, the validity of those documents.  Maybe when they're done they can search for the Holy Grail.

I see they managed to find 3 hours for "Media Ethics" (can one presume that this might be remotely related to actual ethics?). Toss in another possible 3 hours for "The Press and Society" and one is practically swimming in the stuff :-)

Yeah, I don't doubt the framers were inundated with slime journalism as well.  And the 'free press' encompasses more than just the political in that they wanted to publish religious material without censorship.

I like it, "Whats a journalist?  Someone to lazy to become a politician."  Thats sarcasm noir.

I have sat through some very disgusting classes back in the day, but that stuff would get you changing majors to psychology in a second (sarc.).  Or just plain send you to the psychiatrist.

Or just point me in the direction of the thread.  I love stuff like this.  I'd love to see the arguments that this fellow you're talking about attempted.

My father and I, who followed Rathergate from Day 1 to Day 12 (hard to believe the 'hot phase' was really that short) and onwards, consider it to be the highpoint of our media-watching lives.  Ah, to relive those delightful, heady days...  

That is the best description of media bias I have ever seen.  "We can't document it, but we know it's true, so we'll run with it."

Mary Mapes is telling us, in a way everyone can understand, just what the media is, and how it operates.

Thanks for the lesson Mary.

of this post

If it wasn't the poor hags job to authenticate the documents why did they bring in people authenticate them?  Or did the hag fight that tooth and nail, which hags should be pretty good at.  To state the obvious; if the documents were on Kommodore Kerry would the hag have had the same standards?  What's the use  Forgive the observation but this is what happens when you engage the hallucinatory minds of those of a particular political persuasion.  You must stand somewhat apart from the maze otherwise, like quicksand you get drawn in and do something crazy, like take the argument/position seriously.  You may consider this a manifesto if you wish.

...whatever you can get away with. Of course her story wasn't even up to those standards.

If you think about it, the press as we know it is nothing like the press of the Founders. The press as they knew it was 'the guy down the street with the prining press' knocking out an edition of 500 broadsheets. I think the closest corrolary in our times are actually the blogs.

as they say at the New York Times, "All the news we see fit to print."

Imagine Mary Mapes and Cindy Sheehan teaming up for an Moonbat All-Stars' 50-City Tour.

A regular Martin-and-Lewis, they'd be.

--furious

I guess the question I must ask is:

What is fact and what is fiction when it comes to journalism?

Conservatives put a blanket tag on all MSM.

Liberals tag Rupert Murdoch, et al.

Bias is a fact of life in the journalism consuming public.

So, who is right and who is wrong?

The "RatherGate" thing, I believe, was a political plant.  CBS just bit.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  It simply caught headlines and the involved principals.

Personally, I'd like to see Marvin Kalb start his own news network.  Unfortunately, cloning isn't possible, so his standard wouldn't be able to be applied from the top down.

I'm disgusted with the way the entire affair ran on both sides...especially so with the political operatives who jumped it all off.  Apparently, it was their gain.

... you'd have thought the "dupe-ees" would have said so by now.  

Are you suggesting that there is a underlying 'free market' that the biased drivel journalism whores operate in?  When they get to far out on a limb, the market corrects, and exposing it becomes more successful than the drivel?  The standard is a slave to popularity?  Sacrilege...

How about simply what is fact?  If you really believe it was a plant, there must be some fact that supports that.  Good luck.  Blanket tags are arguably rhetoric and not useful, but the arrogance in general of the MSM, and their bias, is clearly in the liberal socialist vein, supported by facts, not opinion.  Unless you want to redefine liberal, as some do.  Your disgusted with the affair on both sides?  What do you mean by that?  Your disgusted with bloggers discussing politics among themselves, and exposing an forgery in the process?  Who 'ran' that?  

the more she lowers the likelihood that the CBS story was an error made in good faith.

I think it was a deliberate and direct attempt to highjack an election.

I can't get into an intellectual argument about most of the stuff you put up.  I'm not that...caught up in it.  Frankly, I don't have the pedigree.

My beliefs are simply those, beliefs...a leap of faith, if you will. I'm sure everyone here takes that jump every day.  My beliefs, however, don't have any documentation. I don't have your resources to hunt down the ins and outs of this story.

If you want some sort of deeply intellectual liberal vs. conservative debate over media bias, I ain't your guy.  It's a gut thing with me.

If my opinions are wrong, good on you, but until some supreme being is able to divine absolute right and wrong (and I'd love to know those absolutes as well as anyone), your just gonna have to punch bag me to suit your ends.

I respect your opinion and have no contempt for gut reactions.  I would suggest that we are not deciding here absolute right or wrong.  God gave us a will to decide and a intellect to assist us in deciding.  Its a philosophical point you raise.  You could tell me all my life that I can fly, walk through walls, drink poison etc. and not make that a reality.  My intellect sees the fact that walls are solid, I have no wings, yada, and I use my will to decide correctly.  So I am just suggesting to you that this is one of those situations where a 'leap of faith' is not necessary.  

For myself, it is those absolutes you mention that require faith, for everything else, there is evidence and reason.  (now chime the philosophers denigrating my reason guided by faith)

Yep...that'll draw out the philosophers.

Man, I'll tell ya.  I can't talk dieties and stuff.  I wish I could.  My only evidence of a supreme being is the leaves on my maple tree out front.

I'm at a big disadvantage with you guys as far as this discussion.  I'll admit I read a few blogs regularly...mostly left, but this thread caught my attention because I have problems with the media in general.

We'll shake on this 'un, pard.

Another "It was Rove!!" Kool-aid drinker.

You say you are disgusted with the way 'both sides' handled this.  I'm confused.  Mapes/Rather lied about documents that were obviously made up and were shown to be not credible by the document examiners CBS hired, yet they put them on and presented them as fact anyway.  The other side showed this to be true.  How did the other side disgust you?  Is it that you just don't like when someone shows you that your belief system is wrong?

Grow up, be a big boy and maybe you'll get a snack before your nap.

I wouldn't put too much stock into the Rove is the evil genius that sees all and knows all theory. The left just use him as a boogyman to explain their defeats at the ballot box. The last thing they can ever admit is that they lose when people see what they really stand for. There always has to be some other reason. Rove weaving his mysterious black magic is as good a reason as any.

...did not lie. They were lied to. There is a difference.

The difference is Bush did not lie (according to you all) he was lied to. Now you can't say you are for one but not the other. Or I guess when I see your reply I will know how you can split that hair.

I wonder what she's working on now? Now that the book is done. Maybe she found some of Sen. Prescott Bush's personal Excel Spreadsheet files on a Zip Disk....

They did not lie. They were lied to. There is a difference.

You're right there is a difference, but CBS clearly falls in the liar side that difference.

The difference was shown in the days after the story. Hypothetically, let's assume CBS honestly believed the memo was authentic, they were just too dumb to know the technology in use at the time the memo was supposedly typed, and they were just being sloppy when they ignored the warnings of the document examiners they hired.

If that "They were lied to" hypothesis was true, then when overwhelming contrary evidence was shown in the days after the story, CBS would have retracted the story and settled for finding excuses about how they could have fallen for it. Instead, CBS kept trying to BS their way past the evidence, presenting obviously false claims about how the memo could be authentic. Reporters may be dumb, but there's no way they can be dumb enough to believe the nonsense they were saying in the days after the story appeared.

CBS's statements in days after the story are indisputably lies. The only question is whether they were already lying when they first broadcast the story.

Bush did not lie (according to you all) he was lied to.

Trying to draw a moral equivalence to the mistaken pre-war intelligence on WMD doesn't hold up. All the major intelligence services believed that Iraq possessed chemical/biological weapons, and was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Even countries opposed to invading Iraq expressed that assessment, like France and Russia. The only dispute was how advanced Iraq was in the development of WMD.

When Bush and the CIA came to the same conclusion as most other countries did, the reasonable conclusion is that the US and other countries had inadequate penetration of Iraqi activity. When CBS still tried to say the memo was authentic after seeing overwhelming evidence that the memos were fake, the reasonable conclusion is CBS was lying (unless they had psychotic delusions).

Mary dropped in on Larry King tonight.  Larry asked her if she would change any of the story as it aired on 60 Minutes II.  Mary replied that she would only re-word a few things, but she would have still run with the story as it aired.

I think it is clear that she is delusional.

David Gergen was a guest after Mapes left as part of a panel of Lou Boccardi, Gergen and Michael Medved.  Gergen started listing the sources that challenged Mapes' story and it really start to crack me up.  It seemed like he was listing sources for a few minutes.  He was like, "The AP, CBS investigation, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Knight Ridder, Time Magazine, document professionals, bloggers...".

they had evidence the documents weren't real and they decided to run with the story anyway.

Nice to see how far you guys are willing to go to stretch credulity.

...for 5 years.

That's not journalism. That's obsession.

thank you.

I've given this quite a bit of thought and I'm beginning to warm up to the whole idea of Fake but Accurate™. I think far too much attention has been paid to the limited application of Fake but Accurate™ to journalism and it's time to explore how this can be applies to broader aspects of life.

Think about it for a bit:

• No more IRS problems; Gee Mr IRS Man my return was Fake but Accurate™;
  
• No more bankruptcy problems; Well, I know you didn't get paid, but my bank balance is Fake but Accurate™
  
• Short of money? No problem just write a Fake but Accurate™ check;
  
• Always wanted to be a doctor or lawyer but don't have the time for education? Not a problem, just give yourself a Fake but Accurate™ medical license or Fake but Accurate™ law degree;
  
• Tired of waiting at airports for an actual pilot? Not a problem use your Fake but Accurate™ pilots license and takeoff.

Just imagine the ramifications of Fake but Accurate™. It opens whole worlds of opportunity for the enterprising type with a PC and a laser printer.

-----------------

change the way we look at counterfeiters.

I wonder why Ms. Mapes didn't use her unofficial pen name, Lucy Ramirez, for her new book?

...are certainly more plausible than Steve Martin's "I FORGOT" (to file my taxes) excuse.

And more recent vintage, too.

--furious.