Wolf Blitzer. He used to be a TV journalist (though
many would dispute me on that), but now he hosts
a talk show mislabeled as a news program.
Anyhow, earlier today I figured my blood pressure
wasn't high enough, and I thought I'd leave CNN on
in the background while I looked a few things up on
the web.
Big mistake.
Mary Mapes is the CBS news producer that ran with
the now famous Bush memos. You know, the ones the
lunatic Reich-wing were denouncing as forgeries within
hours of the CBS broadcast, and certainly before any
of the "independent" bloggers got a look at them.
Anyhow, the final & oh so "official" word on the memos
was that it was impossible to authenticate them. What you
never heard (and I give CNN credit for allowing this to
slip in) was that debunking them is just as impossible.
But I don't want to get into that. Nope. At issue here,
what pissed me off was "The Burden of Proof."
Say what you want about Mary Mapes, but if the bar was
set as high on prosecutors as it was (and is) on her, nobody
would every be convicted on any crime. Period. Not one
single murderer would ever be convicted. Period.
And I'll give you an example first, then explain how it
fits in with Mary Mapes.
Let's say Wolf Blitzer is on trial for murder.
"Wolf Blitzer is on trial for murder."
Anyhow, the evidence against him is 1) it was his gun
that was used to kill the victim. 2) Finger prints prove
that Wolf was in the room that the murder took place and
3) Wolf was the beneficiary of a rather large life insurance
policy, plus stood to inherit the second largest ball of
aluminum foil east of Denver.
Now lets "deal" with the evidence, starting in reverse:
Life insurance money? Big shiny thing? Well, heck, *Lots*
of people have life insurance, and they all have
beneficiaries. If being named the beneficiary in a life
insurance policy made people killers then half the nation
would be on death row. So let's throw that one out. Yup.
No sense in even considering it.
Next, the finger prints. So what? Are they trying to claim
that the only finger prints in the room belonged to Wolf
Blitzer? No? And if we assumed that a murderer was stupid
enough to leave behind finger prints, shouldn't we also
assume that one of the people who left behind those other
prints is AT LEAST as likely to be the murderer as our
Wolf Blitzer? And if we assume that the murderer IS NOT
dumb enough to leave behind finger prints, can't we also
assume that the last people we should ever accuse are those
whose prints were found? It's rubbish! That's what it is.
It's pure RUBBISH. We have to throw this evidence out,
too. Yup. Don't even let the jury look at it.
Finally we have the gun. Sure it's Wolf Blitzer's gun,
but what does that mean? It'll only work for Wolf Blitzer?
Is that it? Nobody else is capable of firing a gun but
Wolf Blitzer? Or is the claim that *Nobody* could ever
get at Wolf Blitzer's gun except for Wolf Blitzer? Is that
what they're trying to say? Ladies and gentlemen, priceless
works of art have been stolen -- the Mona Lisa had been
stolen before. But, we are to believe that, unlike treasures
of incalculable value, no one but Wolf Blitzer could have,
or should have, been able to reach his gun? And who
amongst us hasn't had something taken from us without
permission? We've had things stolen... things borrowed
without permission... it's happened to everyone -- every
last one of us has had things taken or used without our
knowledge. And the prosecution hasn't brought forward
any "Proof" that nobody else used Wolf's gun. So we
have to completely dismiss this foolish idea of accusing
Wolf Blitzer with murder, for no reason other than the
fact that he, like millions of other Americans, knows
how to fire a gun.
As there is no evidence at all against Wolf Blitzer,
"Case dismissed!"
*** *** *** ***
Now here's the deal with Mary Mapes. She's not allowed
to make her case. Yeah, maybe a lot of you "feel" she doesn't
have a case to make, and still others fear that she does, but
the women deserves an opportunity to at least make it.
And, no, she hasn't. Don't kid yourself. I don't care how
well informed you think you are, you haven't heard half
the story.
Anyhow, just trying to address one criticism -- and only
one -- Mary Mapes was pummeled on Wolf Blitzer's talk
show (dubbed "news").
Example:
MAPES: now have a document here from 1969 from the
Texas Air National Guard headquarters in Austin that has
proportional spacing. And I also have lots of documentary
evidence that this existed.
BLITZER: Let me read to you, Mary, the statement that
CBS News put out on November 8th as a result of the
publication of your book, "Mary Mapes' actions damaged
CBS News as an organization and brought pain to many
colleagues with whom she worked. Her disregard for
journalistic standards and for her colleagues comes through
loud and clear in her interviews and in the book that attempts
to rewrite the history of this complex and sad affair.
FREE CLUE: Facts trump opinions. Yes, the response from
CBS does sound rather damning, but it doesn't name, never
mind address, a single fact. In a sense, this is actually BELOW
my Wolf-Blitzer-on-trial example. Dismissing the evidence
would actually be a step UP for Wolf here. After all, he'd
at least have to acknowledge it.
Oddly, Mary Mapes tried to bring up the physical evidence
again, in response to Wolf's other guest (this is a talk show,
after all). Wolf's guest responded exactly the same way Wolf
responded:
MAPES: And the other thing, Howard, that is -- I mean, this
does bother me. I just showed you -- I read an article of yours
just this afternoon where you criticized a number of things
about these documents. And you did not quote the three analysts
that you talked to. And I also think you misinterpreted the word
"authenticate," as did many reporters.
MAPES: But you said that there was proportional spacing on
these documents. There was proportional spacing on other
documents in 1969, and I have evidence of that now.
KURTZ: Well, here's an article that I wrote in September of
2004, headline: "Rather Admits Mistake in Judgment; CBS
Was Misled About Bush National Guard Documents, Anchor
Says." So Dan Rather seems more willing to acknowledge
problems with the story than you do today.
Gee, Howard, that really made that piece of paper she was
holding in her hand vanish!
Seriously. Why even acknowledge physical evidence (never
mind address it), when you can quote one of your own
stories!
And if you think I've made too much of this, consider this
fact: Howard Kurtz ADMITTED that the case AGAINST
the documents hasn't been proven. His position was that
it couldn't be proven either way! Well, gee, that's not unlike
a murder trial. No *One* piece of evidence could ever
prove someone's guilt, not even a video of the murder
taking place! Seriously. Even THAT kind of evidence,
even something as solid as the crime taking place on
video isn't rock-solid "Proof."
What, you never saw a photo that looked *Just* *Like*
someone you knew? Or met someone who looked *Exactly*
like some TV star? But if you add a finger print... or some
DNA... something that placed the suspect at the crime
scene... in addition to the video... suddenly the two pieces
of evidence -- neither of which absolutely "prove" anything --
get stronger. It's how ALL THE PIECES of evidence fit
together that counts. And, in that sense, just looking at the
memos was itself inherently dishonest. It's a distraction.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/10/sitroom.01.html
.
|
