On the radio this morning, I heard a snippet of an interview with an "unrepentant" Mary Mapes - you remember her, the now-fired producer of the 60 Minutes segment that ruined Dan Rather's career and put the blogosphere squarely in the spotlight?
Mapes apparently is under the impression that using "unsubstantiated" documents to back up a potentially scandalous story involving a sitting president mere weeks before the election is perfectly OK, and it's the responsibility of those who dispute their authenticity to prove them to be forgeries.
From the WorldNetDaily report on her ABC interview (emphasis mine):
Mapes tells ABC News she is continuing to investigate the source of the controversial documents. But she insists she had no journalistic obligation to prove their authenticity before the "60 Minutes II" report.
"I don't think that's the standard," she says.
Forget the fact that the guys at PowerLineBlog came as close as humanly possible to proving the documents to be forged, without being able to provide forensic evidence of who actually created them... Those who defend the remote possibility that they were literally authentic are stretching the bounds of reality.
Sure, the typeface that looks so much like Microsoft Word's default Times New Roman font in 12 point may have existed and been available in some expensive typesetting machines in the 1970's... and the Texas National Guard office may have had access to one... and someone might have used it to create a document that was done completely out of the standard format for military correspondence at the time... But remember Occam's Razor, folks. Go for the simplest explanation - they're fake.
What Mapes and those who defend her hang their hat on is that they believe the information contained in the documents is accurate, so whatever possible explanation that someone can dream up for all the discrepancies in format and typeface has to suffice because they must be real. And because she believes they are real, it's up to someone else to prove that they're not.
Statements like that are why Mary Mapes will never again work for a credible news organization. Nobody who wants to have any shred of public trust would risk having her do research.
Next...
Let me get this right out on the table up front. The vast majority of Americans would agree that gas prices suck right now. And by association, the costs of other goods and services are rising because everyone is stuck with these nasty gas prices. Our power company is trying to get a 20% rate increase right now, primarily because of the rising cost of energy - and I think that totally sucks. However, this Senate hearing where they're making the oil companies defend their right to make a profit? Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Yes, everyone is feeling the pinch of energy prices, and especially the poorer folks among us. But oil companies are in the business of providing a product and they, like everyone else in a capitalist society, have a right to turn a profit from providing that product. Sure, the numbers we're talking about are staggeringly huge - billions and billions of dollars. When you look at it percentage-wise, it's not outlandish at all.
ConocoPhillips pulled down a 7.7 percent profit margin in the third quarter. If you think 7.7 percent is too much, perhaps you think the federal government should regulate what percentage of profit a company is allowed to make?
Maybe it's just me, but I find that a frightening prospect. That's just too much government control over our lives. Hubby-head and I don't own our own business at this time in our lives, but we've considered that as a future option. If the government is allowed to meddle in private industry to that extent - capping a profit percentage, for instance - I'd hesitate to start a company. Sure, maybe they'd start with oil companies and other providers that they can justify regulating because of public need... but there's always that slippery slope looming ahead, and I've read Atlas Shrugged - have you?
I guess what I'm saying is that, while I would dearly love to have gas prices back down under $2.00 a gallon (or $1.50 a gallon - imagine that!) I would stop short of demanding the government take action to make that happen. Call me a libertarian if you wish, I won't mind.
Next...
Study Says There Is More S3x on TV.
In other news, the Pope is Catholic.
You know, if people didn't watch it, the networks wouldn't air it. And that's a fact, Jack.
What's on your mind today?
Recent Comments