In 2004, Dan Rather broke a story on 60 Minutes that claimed George W. Bush had gone AWOL from his National Guard Unit. The story fell apart almost immediately when bloggers were able to reproduce identical copies of the documents in Microsoft Word. It was obvious that the documents had not been created on a 1960s typewriter but on a 2004 computer. As the story came crashing down, it came out that the 60 Minutes producer of the story, Mary Mapes, had contacted the Kerry campaign and offered her source to it; this was not the action of a disinterested reported but rather a partisan hack. Mapes was fired in the wake of the story and Dan Rather's career ended shortly thereafter. Even so, both Rather and Mapes asserted that the story was true even if the documents were forgeries.
Next month, Robert Redford will portray Dan Rather and Cate Blanchet will be Mary Mapes in the movie adaptation of Mapes memoir on the subject. Rather has seen the film and was quite pleased. Between the fact that it is based on Mapes' memoir and Rather's glowing review, how accurately might it reflect my thumbnail sketch? I bet the collusion between Mapes and the Kerry Campaign won't appear in the film. It will probably re-litigate the AWOL Bush story, again claiming the story is true despite the falsity of the documents that 'prove' it. Mapes and Rather will be shown as heroes and the bloggers who exposed their specious story the villains.
What this means is that it is okay for the media to lie and fabricate as long as it is for a good cause, such as opposing the election of a Republican. To apologize for having to fire her - for cause, no less - the liberal establishment will now lionize her. How many who were too young or politically unaware in 2004 will swallow Mapes' retelling whole? Hollywood has a habit of making these revisionist or selective history movies that invariably reflect well on Democrats and badly on Republicans.
No comments:
Post a Comment