| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Charles Johnson quotes producer Mary Mapes’ lame excuses regarding Memogate:
Much has been made about the fact that these documents are photocopies and therefore cannot be trusted, but decades of investigative reporting have relied on just such copies of memos, documents and notes. In vetting these documents, we did not have ink to analyze, original signatures to compare, or paper to date. We did have context and corroboration and believed, as many journalists have before and after our story, that authenticity is not limited to original documents. Photocopies are often a basis for verified stories.
It’s astonishing that Mapes can pretend that the only objection to the documents is that they were photocopies. The fact that they used technology that was unavailable until the personal computer era is something she glosses over.
Yet the MemoGate report itself discusses the technology issues:
...[Document Examiner Emily] Will told the Panel that she had enough time with Mapes on the telephone to review the signature discrepancies reflected in her e-mail in addition to the potential problems she had noticed in the typography of the two documents. Will referred to the two documents in her contemporaneous notes as Q1 (the August 1, 1972 memorandum) and Q2 (the June 24, 1973 memorandum):
1. Is there suppose [sic] to be a letterhead? Note differences in th in 111 th in top line of letterhead and note lack of third line in Q2 letterhead.
2. Q2 has superscript th
3. Has the general appearance of a proportional spaced and proportional width font
4. Q2 has a comma in the date, which is not found in Q1 or any of the knowns Q2 does NOT look like a military document . . .
Will told the Panel that she informed Mapes that she wanted more documents for comparison and analysis, and Mapes told her that she would send them. Will was never sent any more documents.
This is telling:
Will also recalled that, when she started to discuss concerns regarding the content of the documents, Mapes cut her off. ... Mapes told Miller that she just wanted Will to look at the signature. Will told the Panel she regarded examining content to be part of her job in assessing a documents authenticity.
Mapes forbade Miller to look at anything in the document other than the signature. What producer who really wanted correct document authentication to be conducted would do that?
...Based on Wills recollection and her notes, it appears that Will raised the issue of proportional spacing with Mapes on Sunday. This topic would receive substantial attention in the Aftermath of the broadcast of the Segment. The Panel finds it significant that Mapes did not focus on this criticism and later would alert 60 Minutes Wednesday management only to the issue of the superscript th. (Page 84-85)
The Panel busts Mapes for hiding concerns regarding the technology used in the documents, from 60 Minutes Wednesday. Yet in her excuse as quoted above, Mapes pretends there were no such concerns.
Update 1-1-05—From Wizbang:
At some point you have to wonder what planet [Mapes] is on. She is clearly a member of the moonbat left. Anyone who has read the report – or even the parts I’ve posted here – knows she is either lying or sadly delusional. It really calls into question every piece she has ever done for CBS.
