The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

11 April 2006

Mary Mapes, Carl Bernstein, Why We Use Unnamed Sources


Mapes Blasts Limbaugh, Bernstein Backs Anonymous Sources

More than a year after the CBS Evening News "Rathergate" phony documents scandal, has former producer Mary Mapes moved on?

After a heel-digging appearance at a three-day media conference on the campus of Middle Tennessee State University, no seems a safe answer.

In fact, it's official: Mapes is stubborn as a mule.

From John Mashek at US News and World Report:

Mary Mapes, the CBS producer who was fired over her role in a 60 Minutes II story about George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, said profiteering had taken over at television networks at the expense of news. Mapes defended her professionalism in the controversy, indicating that a rush to run the story played a role in the errors admitted by CBS.

Mapes implied that she took the fall, along with other female operatives, while the male executives at the network escaped with their jobs intact. Of course, Dan Rather, who had to humble himself for the mistake, left the network anchor chair a few months later.

In response to questioning from Wallace Westfeld, a former producer and executive at NBC News, Mapes ridiculed some critics of her reporting and authenticating. Of Rush Limbaugh, she said : "I don't need to be lectured on ethics from a much married, obese, drug addict."

That's right: Rush Limbaugh is the problem, not Mary Mapes and her phony documents! When all else fails, why not resort to calling El Rushbo fat?

With the left, it works every time! No need to argue points: my opponents are overweight, what more do I need to say?

At Newsbusters, Tim Graham adds:

It might help Mary's attempts at humor if they came anywhere close to reality. Limbaugh hasn't been "obese" for years now. Perhaps she's forged her own version of Rush.

Equally interesting was a discussion featuring Watergate legend Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post, where the use of unnamed sources was vigorously defended:

Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame at the Washington Post defended the use of anonymous sources. He said the first 100 stories he and Bob Woodward wrote contained no sources and incurred the wrath of Nixon administration apologists in those turbulent days.

"Without those unnamed sources, there never would have been a scandal," he said.

He was initially angered by it, but Bernstein now defends President Gerald R. Ford for pardoning Richard Nixon. Although it may have cost Ford his presidency in the 1976 race with Jimmy Carter, Bernstein said the nation had to put aside the crimes of Nixon and his aides and move on.

In Bernstein's view, the misjudgments by the current administration of George W. Bush in Iraq would never have been exposed without a vigilant press and anonymous sources. That exposure of wrongdoing, he explained, seems to always fall to the press, which then takes a beating for it.

Since the Radio Equalizer regularly takes abuse for using unnamed sources, isn't it interesting to see one of the left's journalistic icons defending the practice?

What Air America's unhinged defenders really believe: it's okay for lefty newspaper reporters to engage in the practice, but not conservative bloggers.

And by the way, conservative bloggers are fat.

Why don't we name our sources? For the same reason Woodward and Bernstein didn't: to protect them.

As professional broadcasting insiders, they risk not only the loss of their positions, but even potential physical abuse by one or two unstable, otherwise unemployable characters that somehow manage to thrive at Air America Radio.

Just as the Washington Post team relied on increasingly disgusted individuals who could no longer tolerate the sleaze they were observing, Air America also has at least a few honest insiders.

Too bad the company is more concerned with hunting down leaks than with cleaning up its unsavory act.

Without this help, the public still would know little, if anything, about the sleazy Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club scandal, where $875,000 in taxpayer grants were instead diverted to the liberal radio network.

Nor would we know much about the increasingly partisan nature of Air America's operations, now focused almost entirely on 2006 Democrat campaigns, rather than making money as a supposedly for-profit corporation.

To those who will defend Enron-like corporate antics just becuase the company provides leftist radio programming, what's clearly most important is the physical appearance of their enemies.

What does that say about the state of their political movement?

Thanks for your continued and vital Radio Equalizer support, via Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately order!

AAR Spin: David A Lunde for the Radio Equalizer


  • if you folks get a chance, i think you should check out this article. there some interesting developments in here....

    you have to cut and paste it because i don't know how to do make a link.

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 11 April, 2006 13:43  

  • "if you folks get a chance, i think you should check out this article. there some interesting developments in here...."

    It's a link to a story about Bush's poll numbers.

    My question is, "so what?"

    No matter whether his polls are in the basement or through the roof, Bush is out in two years, so who cares?

    By Blogger RedCard, at 12 April, 2006 09:47  

  • not just bush's poll numbers, but poll numbers that show that more americans favor democrats than republicans. and that speaks volumes for what will happen in november.

    and to answer your idiotic "so what?" - the number of people favoring dems right now is higher than it has been since the mid 80's. if you don't think that hurts you, think again. the stuff about bush isn't all that important, but the other numbers are.

    republicans and republican supporters have become the fringe of american politics.

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 12 April, 2006 15:43  

  • Outlaw:


    If polls say more people prefer Democrats to Republicans, then you should be happy and I already said I don't care, so why the name calling? And no, it doesn't hurt me at all; I've survived Democrats running things before, and I suppose I can survive it again. Frankly considering the state of politics and political discourse today, I don't think it matters who's in charge.

    By Blogger RedCard, at 12 April, 2006 16:09  

  • Bush's poll numbers were in the 40s during the entire 2004 election and everyone (his opponents) said that it was inconcievable for him to win the election.

    Democrats come up with reasons every election that tout why Republicans are going to lose. Eveb on election day in 2004, alleged exit polling supposedly cinched the election for John Kerry. Oops.

    The fact is that the same problems that have been trouble for Dems for the past couple of election cycles still exist: no positive messages (anybody but...doesn't work), defeatism, no substantive solutions...If the best Dems have to run on is that people aren't happy with Republicans, they still have their work cut out for them.

    Even polling I have seen doesn't confirm a sure thing for Dems. Hillary (the supposed frontrunner) loses in most polls, even against an unamed Republican opponent.

    Don't put too much faith in election polling.

    By Blogger OttO, at 12 April, 2006 16:32  

  • didn't realize you were so sensitive. but i didn't call you an idiot, i referred to your comment as idiotic. there is a difference. an intelligent person can make an idiotic comment, and i never said or implied that you, personally were an idiot.

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 12 April, 2006 16:33  

  • otto, you're going to cause a tornado with all of that spinning.

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 12 April, 2006 16:35  

  • Brian had asked about the state of the Left's movement.

    Why doesn't someone from the Left just say in the most straightforward manner possible what it is they believe is good for the country? If that is hard-core socialism, then why not say it loud and say it proud?

    By Blogger eLarson, at 12 April, 2006 16:55  

  • Liberal Outlaw:

    That was substantive. If you're going to spend the energy to respond to me, why not actually respond?

    By Blogger OttO, at 12 April, 2006 22:43  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger