IS ANYONE STILL LISTENING TO MARY MAPES?
TKS
jim geraghty reporting
*Sigh*. Getting bothered by Mary Mapes at this late date is a bit pointless, but it will be interesting to see who buys her book, who reviews her book, and who stands by her after all that we have learned.
I am struck by a few thoughts in the excerpt released so far:
<<<
All these Web sites had extensive write-ups on the documents: on typeface, font style, and peripheral spacing, material that seemed to spring up overnight. It was phenomenal. It had taken our analysts hours of careful work to make comparisons. It seemed that these analysts or commentators — -or whatever they were — -were coming up with long treatises in minutes. They were all linking to one another, creating an echo chamber of outraged agreement.
I was told that the first posting claiming the documents were fakes had gone up on Free Republic before our broadcast was even off the air! How had the Web site even gotten copies of the documents? We hadn’t put them online until later. That first entry, posted by a longtime Republican political activist lawyer who used the name “Buckhead,” set the tone for what was to come.
There was no analysis of what the documents actually said, no work done to look at the content, no comparison with the official record, no phone calls made to check the facts of the story, nothing beyond a cursory and politically motivated examination of the typeface.
>>>
*Sigh*, again. Mary, you ignored your own experts, lied about what they said, claimed they verified documents when they didn't. And it's proportional spacing, not peripheral. (Tell us again how smart you are and how ignorant your critics are.) "Seemed to spring up overnight"? The LGF comparison to Microsoft Word showing an exact match pretty much took... oh, minutes and minutes, I figure.
"How had the web site gotten copies of the documents?" Well, Buckhead, if I recall correctly, watched the CBS program featuring the documents, and was familiar with National Guard memos from the 1970s. And he was familiar with Microsoft Word. And he could tell the difference. You see, he has these complicated data analysis devices called "eyes." You know, the ones that you insist are lying.
"There was no analysis of what the documents actually said." Because they're fake, you dumb [expletive deleted]. There is no point in looking for subtexts in hoaxes.
tks.nationalreview.com
freerepublic.com |
