« My Most Sincere And Humble Thanks... | Main | Arnold And The Failed Initiatives »
November 11, 2005
Speechless
After seeing Mary Mapes on O'Reilley's show last night and reading the transcript today, I'm very nearly speechless. The sum effect of her appearances hawking her new book is to leave me floundering for a word that combines pathetic with evil. The interview is rather rambling in its course (I would have dearly loved to see a sharp attorney like John Hindraker do the questioning) and O'Reilley fails to stay focused on the important points. But here's a sample:
MAPES: OK. Here's why I think you're wrong. I believed in these documents beyond a reasonable doubt. I did.
I had also worked for four years essentially, mostly off, rather than on, but for four years' time gathering information, talking to characters, looking at documents, knowing the story of what had happened. I really knew it.
I had plenty of reason to believe these documents were real, because I didn't just count on document analysts at all, because I felt that their evidence was probably the least important or the least believable to me. I'm a very old-fashion reporter. I believed collaboration [sic. corroboration?--Jeff]. I believed content. I believed vetting. And I believed the meshing that I did.
This is not a question of the blind leading the stupid; it's an example of being both stupid and blind. This excerpt confirms what has been obvious all along. Mapes wanted so desperately to believe that Bush got preferential treatment that she was utterly unable to recognize that the docs were fabrications.
There are three possibilities that apply to any person who still thinks that the documents are authentic, and they are not mutually exclusive:
1) That person is not aware of the evidence.
2) That person is aware, but does not understand the evidence.
3) That person is aware of the evidence and understands it, but wilfully choose to disbelieve it.
I think in Mapes' case, it might be all three. Check out this excerpt at Political Teen, taken from an interview by Howard Kurtz with Mapes (hat tip Instapundit). Mapes:
MAPES: I can’t speak for Dan, I certainly can’t. All I can do is tell you my experience and once again, I’m going to say your reporting was wrong about proportional spacing, it was wrong about the document being able to be created in [Microsoft] Word with Times New Roman font,(1) it was wrong in a number of respects and it remains wrong and if you had spent more time looking for more documents, looking at the facts of the story, and really looking at the case you would have done some different reporting yourself.(2)
From this snip it's clear she has no grasp of the typographical evidence that is stacked against her, evidence that is only slightly technical and easy enough for any savvy high school student to follow.
Obviously she can't follow it--I guess she's just a very old-fashioned reporter.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/418
Comments
Believing something doesn't automatically make it true. Poor Mary. As for your wanting a word meaning pathetic and evil, how about just "mapes"? "He was so mapes that even his own mother disowned him."
Posted by: Pam at November 11, 2005 12:23 PM
Not bad! If we have to endure hearing "bork" used as a verb, I think using "mapes" as an adjective would balance the scales.
Posted by: Jeff at November 11, 2005 07:27 PM
