Monday, September 13, 2004

Who is Mary Mapes--Perpetrator of Journalistic Fraud?

Bet she isn't a Republican---


--Talon News reports today that CBS spokesperson Kelli Edwards confirmed to them that Mary Mapes was the CBS representative who obtained the disputed documents that allegedly give details of George W. Bush's National Guard service.
CBS producer Mary Mapes is a controversial figure who has made headlines in her own right.

In 1999 she was threatened with jail time if she did not turn over a transcript and videotape of an interview with the murderer of James Byrd. CBS finally relented and put up an online transcript, but only after CBS News president Andrew Heyward said, "Journalists cannot be seen as tools of law enforcement or the judicial system."

Ms. Mapes is also responsible for CBS's reporting on the Abu Ghraib pictures, a story she helped break. According to TV reporter Gail Shister, "The scoop was the result of more than two months' legwork by "60 II" producer Mary Mapes." To interview Charlie Rose, Mapes described how hard she worked to find the incriminating pictures:

"We ended up chasing it, chasing it halfway around the world and back again. Trying not just to chase the rumors of it, but---but to find out what the reality of it. And in the beginning, a lot of it was whispered accounts of pictures that existed somewhere, an investigation that was going somewhere against someone, and we were able luckily to narrow that down and get our hands on the pictures which really gave us our first real hard proof that this was real."

In the Memogate scandal, Mapes played a key role in acquiring the statements of former Guardsmen who served with Bush.

The son of the man CBS alleged wrote the memos, Gary Killian, described on Fox's Hannity and Colmes his dealings with Mapes.

HANNITY: Your father liked George Bush. Your stepmom even went as far as to say that he thought he was an excellent aviator, an excellent person, happy to have served with him, and have him serve under him. Is that true?
KILLIAN: Absolutely.
HANNITY: Yes. And now, you told this to a CBS producer for this piece prior to the "60 Minutes" piece airing. Is that correct, sir?
KILLIAN: That's right, Sean. In fact, even gave her other names of folks that he flew with, including his primary instructor and a fellow that he flew with and actually roomed with.
In fact, Sean, as you know, I sent you an e-mail to that effect.
HANNITY: Yes, and "60 Minutes" excluded both you and your stepmom, told them specifically about what your father had said to both of you about George W. Bush, the good words you had to say that you relayed to "60 Minutes" about what your father had said about him.
KILLIAN: That's true.
HANNITY: They ignored what you said, correct?
KILLIAN: That's true. And apparently, they ignored testimony from other officers within the unit that knew him and flew with him.

Killian recommended to her former Guardsmen who would be willing to vouch on Bush's behalf. But just like Killian, they were ignored and excluded from 60 Minutes. They were not the kind of sources Mapes was looking for.

Newsweek spoke of one particular source with whom she was intrigued, Bill Burkett, "a disgruntled former Guard officer who lives in Baird, Texas, who says he was present at Guard headquarters in Austin in 1997, when a top aide to the then Governor Bush ordered records sanitized to protect the Boss."

Continued Newsweek, "Burkett was impressive enough to cause CBS producer Mary Mapes to fly to Texas to interview him." Newsweek also speculates that Burkett is the source of the documents. If so, we know to whom he gave them.

The American Spectator, who before Memogate claimed to have a CBS source who said Rather was planning a hit piece, says today that a CBS producer told them "[a]ll day Friday, Rather, his producer on the story, Mary Mapes, and other 60 Minutes staffers were scrambling to shore up support from their sources on the story."

But that didn't go well as all of their publicly state sources have recanted their support for the documents.

Mary Mapes didn't turn over her transcript in 1999 in order to save "journalistic integrity." Today, the reason she doesn't wish to turn over her document source is to save her own skin, and Rather's as well.

Rather Says CBS Will No Longer Address Charges of 'Professional Rumor Mill.'

--Dan Rather was quoted in the New Zealand Herald as saying that there was no use debating the authenticity of his documents which he claims are proof that George W. Bush committed any number of unethical acts while in the National Guard.
"Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not [authentic], I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumour mill."

Does Dan's "professional rumor mill" include ABC News, NBC News, and the Washington Post?

Dan, no one needs to show you "definitive proof that they are not" authentic. The burden of proof is on you. You introduce photocopies of suspicious documents that can easily be replicated on Microsoft Word. You don't provide the originals, which you say you don't have, and you don't tell where you got them.

You also have not produced a single typography, signature, or typewriter expert who is willing to go on the record and say all of the documents are real. All the experts you have cited have either comments were misrepresented. The only CBS "expert" who has not recanted his testimony somewhat is Jim Moore, an author of two anti-Bush books whom you described simply as "author Jim Moore [who] has written two books on the subject."




|
Comments:
Did CBS and Rather Get Typeface Font all Over Their Disingenuous Faces?

K Marsala

Why what took place over thirty years ago has become the battleground for John Kerry and his campaign camp seems rather null and void to me. But Kerry has insisted he must bloviate at any given moment that he served (four months) in Vietnam. One would think if you ask a former president, Bill Clinton who won two terms, for advice and the advice given was to stop stumping on "I served in Vietnam" you would quit. Not John F. Kerry though, he just continues to ooze from his purple hearts. Hence, since this is the platform Kerry has decided to run his platoon or "Swift boat" by, we now have what appears to be forged documents surfacing against our current president, bubbling up from the depths of liberal murky waters called- lies, lies, and more lies. Supposedly these credible documents bring forth questions over President Bush's service to his country, some thirty years ago. These documents are to be held quite suspiciously particularly when the typeface used didn't exist back then. CBS, Rather and Kerry campaigner's, it would seem collectively all of you are adrift, possibly even lost, on a Swift boat…somewhere in Cambodia perhaps? It would appear John Kerry that your very inept captain is Dan Rather and CBS- quick Kerry jump ship!

CBS and Mr. Rather need a good butt whippin for trying to break a lead story without establishing clearly the authenticity of the allegations made. Recently I was talking with Jack Yan, a resident of New Zealand, (publisher of Lucire Magazine, and a co-author of a book called Beyond Branding) about these questionable documents over our president's military service- thirty years ago. Mr. Yan is known to be a leading font developer in the Southern Hemisphere and his earlier typeface designs are sold here in the United States. Mr. Yan shared with me his knowledge over the integrity of the typeface design profession with no political bias or opinion for either candidate.

Dan Rather, of CBS, claims in his defense of the documents that the Times Roman typeface has been around since 1931. That is true, but the specific cut of the typeface used in the letters is post 1985. According to Mr. Yan, "Every time a font is recut for a different machine, experts are able to tell. Each laser printer, each digital file, has subtle differences." But, Dan Rather being the professional journalist he is certainly must know more about typeface…than all the leading font developers and computer script geeks in the world do.

Mr. Yan went on to state, "Specifically, the typeface in the letters appears to be Times Roman, as licensed by Linotype of Germany, after 1985. It is not Times New Roman as Mr. Rather claims (as 'New Times Roman' [sic]), which is different again-- that is very evident from the PDFs. (Hence in a lawsuit I worked on in 2001, the typeface was designed in 1954 but could only possibly have come off a Hewlett Packard LaserJet III post 1993). Despite reproduction, the proportions and sizes of the letters relative to each other remain the same and are identifiable to any true typographic expert." Now, I bet you won't hear this full explanation on CBS's 60 Minutes I, II, or any other number they want to throw out.

Can CBS find a typewriter hiding somewhere in a barn outside New York City that might be able to produce this exact typeface that Mr. Rather claims was bestowed upon these typewritten documents? Quite possibly they could, but the only typewriter that could of come close to resembling a Times typeface was an IBM Selectric and those letters don't have the Times cut Mr. Rather is defending. To further the point of the ease of telling forgery typed documents Mr. Yan stated, "Even to a layperson, the Selectric Golfball settings would seem looser (i.e. the type is not so close together)."

Still Mr. Rather claims that other documents from the White House have superscript. "Superscript letters," Mr. Yan shared, "on old typewriters were either (a) in the same size but raised or (b) were separate, selected letters in a cut that made them visually the same weight. The 60 Minutes documents have superscript letters that could only have been proportionally and mathematically reduced on a computer."

Finally according to Mr. Yan the defenders of these documents make "very fundamental errors, they can be argued against by any first-year design student studying typography. They also seem to be skewing the issue away from the typeface, which the one matter that effortlessly categorizes CBS documents as counterfeit."

Didn't the Kerry camp demand of President Bush to unequivocally denounce the 527 Swift boat ads? Why is it when the Swift boat Vets book was released multiple news organizations and ranting bobbled headed media puppets cried, "that’s not fair" and demanded the Bush administration to "denounce" the ads? Wasn't there even a call for investigating the ties between the Bush campaign and the Swift boat Vets? Don't the Swift boat Vets have free speech rights and the right to divulge what they deem the truth? Where is the media's cry for justice and full investigation into these forged documents? Where indeed is a call for journalistic honesty Dan Rather and CBS? Answer the American people CBS, Dan Rather, and the other Democrats sailing on the sea of lies. The double standards being played out by so many here is appalling. What happened to the news story over Sandy Berger being caught with files conveniently stuffed down his pants and tucked in his socks? The same thing that will happen with these forged documents- it will all be conveniently drowned and never fully exposed for what it is- lies. You know something? That all really stinks- badly. The media and their hyenas, so innocent and saintly, hushing up when we need to tell the truth.

Dan Rather and CBS these typos are on your face. You can't wipe away the facts or the ink. The imprint of truth has already become permanent. It's time to read the transcripts of the liberal media clearly, and expose their biases of, "anyone but Bush." The American people are tired of hearing what happened back then. We want to know what the candidates running are going to do today and tomorrow and we can't find out if forged documents are going to be the toy boat the liberals want to play with.



Visit: http://www.right2think.8m.com
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?