I have seen a copy of this letter. First off: it boggles my mind that those seeking to prove it was a forgery had to look so deep as to try to determine whether it was written on a word processor using technology unavailable in 1972.
I could see it right off the bat with my own two Mark-1 eyeballs. As an Air Force veteran of the time period in which the letter was supposedly written, as soon as I saw it, I had to ask:
1. Why was it not on Air Force letterhead? It WAS an official document.
2. Are we supposed to believe the mailing address of the unit typed across the top of the page -- INSTEAD of being on letterhead) really WAS a post office box of six consecutive numbers?
3. What does the term "Memo to File" mean? Having written enough of these things, I have only seen the term "Memo for Record" used.
4. A letter with such potential for career ruination would have a block for the individual who was the subject of the letter to reply something to the effect of "Receipt acknowledged" and a signature block -- in this case "GEORGE W. BUSH, 1lt, USAF" But none of this was present.
5. The date was in the wrong format. I have received countless form, letters, etc. from 6 Nov 69 when I enlisted until 31 July 87 when I got out, I NEVER got a letter with a date similar to "04 May 1972." "4 May' for sure, but not "04 May."
So I must ask: with these mistakes so easy to find, is there any truth in 'Truth?'
I could see it right off the bat with my own two Mark-1 eyeballs. As an Air Force veteran of the time period in which the letter was supposedly written, as soon as I saw it, I had to ask:
1. Why was it not on Air Force letterhead? It WAS an official document.
2. Are we supposed to believe the mailing address of the unit typed across the top of the page -- INSTEAD of being on letterhead) really WAS a post office box of six consecutive numbers?
3. What does the term "Memo to File" mean? Having written enough of these things, I have only seen the term "Memo for Record" used.
4. A letter with such potential for career ruination would have a block for the individual who was the subject of the letter to reply something to the effect of "Receipt acknowledged" and a signature block -- in this case "GEORGE W. BUSH, 1lt, USAF" But none of this was present.
5. The date was in the wrong format. I have received countless form, letters, etc. from 6 Nov 69 when I enlisted until 31 July 87 when I got out, I NEVER got a letter with a date similar to "04 May 1972." "4 May' for sure, but not "04 May."
So I must ask: with these mistakes so easy to find, is there any truth in 'Truth?'
2
One of my biggest problems with New York Times movie reviews has always been that they ignore craft. A terribly crafted painting or musical composition wouldn't be reviewed favorably, but badly made films often are. What's bad in "Truth," oddly enough is the acting. When Dennis Quaid and Robert Redford are on screen - and only then - the picture is tolerable. But the usually stellar Ms. Blanchett is undirected; her accent is all over the place and one never believes she understands what she's saying or that she's ever seen an actual journalist, in life or in cinema. And most of the cast is as bad as she is. It is fair, when reviewing a movie, to compare it to others "of its kind." Does Mr. Holden really believe this clunker is on a par with "The Insider" or "All the President's Men?"
2
Or "Spotlight"? I wanted to love this movie but (although I'd consider "clunker" too harsh) must agree with comments above--especially Blanchett's accent, which threw me out of my suspension of disbelief countless times. The credits revealed that the film had been made in New South Wales, Australia. Maybe if it had been made in the United States the accent issue would have been corrected.
Okay. For all those who say the documents were fake - so what? Are the charges real? Did BIG money get George Bush, Jr. safely stowed in the Texas National Guard along with his aristocratic Texas boy buddies? Did he EVER show up for training or duty? Did OUR taxpayer dollars pay to train him as a pilot when there were experienced pilots clamoring to join the TNG? Did he change to another state's National Guard so he could work on a political campaign - and still get paid by the NG? Did he EVER have a job review? Prove it. Let's see the documents that prove it.
11
Ridiculous. Make a case against someone, the burden of proof is on you.
2
I saw this movie - "Truth" - last night. The Bush coverup is what I think of every time I hear the "new" anchor, Scott Pelley, say "THIS is CBS." No, Mr. Pelley, "Truth" is CBS then and now. The major media is controlled by a few individuals and corporations VERY firmly in the top 1% global financial elite who want only to protect their "uber-wealthy" species. Sorry, boys and girls. The "Truth" is no longer hidden and the vast majority of Americans finally understand the myths we are fed by the major news outlets every day. OUR votes will reflect that on November 8, 2016 and WE will demand that OUR newly elected leaders break up the few media companies along with banks and other "industry hogs". Thanks to all the actors, producers and others, and especially to Robert Redford and Cate Blanchett, for their courage and skill in bringing us the "Truth".
4
I will always believe Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. He was AWOL from his presidency. The truth will surface someday. Maybe his dad will tell us. But the evildoers in this movie are CBS. Maybe there was a manipulation to benefit Kerry, surely mistakes were made, but the public execution of a team who brought us one of the seminal pieces of journalism is a shame on CBS. No wonder they hate this movie.
5
What are you talking about? "Maybe there was a manipulation to benefit Kerry, surely mistakes were made..." Indeed. Good reason to fire them.
1
It is fine you BELIEVE THIS. But FAITH is not JOURNALISM.
Journalism must have a higher standard, or it is worthless.
Journalism must have a higher standard, or it is worthless.
Read the Thornburgh Report, it turns out Rather and his team didn't do their homework. The documents were forgeries. The movie was based off of one of those CBS people fired, Mary Mapes who happens to be the Producer of the film who ironically rewrites the truth and coincidently portrays "the truth" in her favor. I find it difficult for Stephen Holden to refer definitive evidence of forgery as a justification for labeling individuals who believe that documents in reference to "conspiracy theorists" are similar to the "Warren Commission" (need to substantiate yourself more than just a simple opinion, sir). If there was substantial evidence, why did CBS fire 4 of their employees? If you care enough about the truth, look into all the evidence for yourself because I guarantee you that it probably doesn't come from Hollywood. Just food for thought...
1
You tube has plenty of video material on interviews with principals and their secretaries from that era, which, in fact, support the Rather/Mapes posit that GW was indeed AWOL, and never disciplined for his unauthorized absences from the Texas National Guard. Of course, one can find interviews with third parties that are surrogates for the 'Texas Nat. Guard is without fault and never played favorites when it came to providing a hiding place for those elites seeking to avoid a draft into Viet Nam'.
What Rather and Wapes failed to realize is that the previously independent CBS News Division which had made its reputation through the unflinching integrity of Ed Morrow, had been compromised by parent company VIACOM's head, Sumner Redstone and CBS's Corp. Pres. Leslie Moonves who were indisposed to stand by the news division's fact-finding investigations if they ruffled the feathers of the Whitehouse, and did indeed interfere with allowing such News Div. investigations on the air.
60 Minutes has In fact, taken to, during the off season between June to September, to taking previously aired segments, recombining them, and listing the episode as 'New'. 60 Minutes has become a shell of itself in terms of providing any consequential and revealing investigations.
What Rather and Wapes failed to realize is that the previously independent CBS News Division which had made its reputation through the unflinching integrity of Ed Morrow, had been compromised by parent company VIACOM's head, Sumner Redstone and CBS's Corp. Pres. Leslie Moonves who were indisposed to stand by the news division's fact-finding investigations if they ruffled the feathers of the Whitehouse, and did indeed interfere with allowing such News Div. investigations on the air.
60 Minutes has In fact, taken to, during the off season between June to September, to taking previously aired segments, recombining them, and listing the episode as 'New'. 60 Minutes has become a shell of itself in terms of providing any consequential and revealing investigations.
6
Please tell me how you are so certain of what you say when you do not have any proof that what you try to refute isn't the truth?
The Thurnburg Report was compiled by a group of Conservative-leaning lawyers some of whom had ties to Karl Rove. The documents were not proven to be forgeries; they were just not authenticated because they were copies of originals. The research on Bush's AWOL and the conclusions that were drawn were compelling and the preponderance of evidence pointed to the conclusions that were drawn. CBS buckled under direct pressure from Rove and Company. The film is telling today because the media is once again under attack from Conservatives, who don't wish to be challenged on their questionable statements and plans that don't add up or can't be verified.
2
"...portrays network television news as a grim corporate culture obsessed with remaining above the political fray and maintaining an attitude of imperial detachment." Oh so it really is fiction.
whichever side of the aisle you're on, i hope movies like this continue to be made to show that the fix is in, and the more awareness about generic abuse by power elite the better.
9
especially by our gov.
by which you mean corporatocracy.
2
"A sad ending to a brilliant career." Brilliant -- yet Mapes never worked again (authorship of Truth notwithstanding). Yet she was described as the family breadwinner. Was she deemed so toxic that ALL her brilliance, all her experience in major broadcast news was suddenly worthless? Maybe because she lived in Texas? Her forced retirement from the business just seems to me like CBS buried her alive. Was staying unemployed a choice, if anyone knows? Her own disillusionment, perhaps?
1
She worked again, but not in television. I worked for the network news agencies during this period, and once your reputation was tarnished by something such as this, no other network would touch you. There was simply too much at stake. I saw others blackballed as well. In fact, the only network producer/anchor in this period to my knowledge to turn his career around was Geraldo Rivera, who for a while was persona non grata in the news industry after his Marilyn Monroe/Kennedy story for 20/20. Of course, today, we're living in a different time and place and journalists and anchors caught lying or misrepresenting go on to have steady, long careers.
1
All the talk about Microsoft Word. Do you remember Word Perfect? Remembered having to learn Word Perfect and then it disappeared. Good sequel to the Truth.
2
I don't know how faithfully the movie reproduced the documents Mapes used in 2004, but when I saw the film, my FIRST reaction was that they looked fake--far too clean. The documents were supposedly composed in the 70s, where? A military base, I would think. Back then, an IBM Selectric or a "daisywheel" printer would have been the state-of-the-art for typewriters. (Certainly no manual typist could type with the evenness of an electric). Whether a military base would have had either is doubtful, but for the sake of argument, they should have gotten one and tried to reproduce the type. And did they scour Killian's correspondence only for the "superscript th"? How about finding another, bona fide document from him at that time? If this was indeed Killian's writing style, you could find the same words and compare the spacing, font size, overall appearance, etc. There should not have been a mad rush after the broadcast to authenticate the typeface.
I'm in the newsmedia myself, and a couple of times in my career (in Texas, interestingly enough) I had people try to "con" me into stories that didn't pan out. This stuff really happens. I do think Mapes, Rather et al got thrown under the bus on this one by CBS, but for me, the film did not make a convincing case that the documents were real, only that they could have been.
I also think that even if they were real, it wouldn't have mattered. Kerry ran such a poor campaign that he was destined to lose anyway.
I'm in the newsmedia myself, and a couple of times in my career (in Texas, interestingly enough) I had people try to "con" me into stories that didn't pan out. This stuff really happens. I do think Mapes, Rather et al got thrown under the bus on this one by CBS, but for me, the film did not make a convincing case that the documents were real, only that they could have been.
I also think that even if they were real, it wouldn't have mattered. Kerry ran such a poor campaign that he was destined to lose anyway.
3
IBM introduced the original Selectric in 1961. I was on a number of military bases in the 70s, and even in that backwards universe, we used Selectrics.
By the early 70s, I was doing temp jobs as a typist. I also took typing in high school, where we had IBM Selectrics.
So yes, there were signs this document was totally fake. You CAN make a supercript "th" but it involves moving the paper up a tad and then back down. It looks a bit awkward. It does NOT look like a true printer's superscript -- or one done on an MS Word document.
The spacing is also different, as it is "mechanical" and not "kerned". Those are typesetting terms, but surely there were specialists to check this out at SIXTY MINUTES.
My biggest surprise is that NOBODY thought to just find an older secretary, someone who was around in 1968-1973 and ASK THEM: does this look authentic? Because that secretary would have learned on a Selectric and then retrained on Word Processing software -- they would know INSTANTLY that it was a fake.
So yes, there were signs this document was totally fake. You CAN make a supercript "th" but it involves moving the paper up a tad and then back down. It looks a bit awkward. It does NOT look like a true printer's superscript -- or one done on an MS Word document.
The spacing is also different, as it is "mechanical" and not "kerned". Those are typesetting terms, but surely there were specialists to check this out at SIXTY MINUTES.
My biggest surprise is that NOBODY thought to just find an older secretary, someone who was around in 1968-1973 and ASK THEM: does this look authentic? Because that secretary would have learned on a Selectric and then retrained on Word Processing software -- they would know INSTANTLY that it was a fake.
1
When the CBS story unraveled, I was convinced by the font argument that in political zeal Rather and Mapes overreached. In her final stand before the CBS panel of inquiry, Blanchette as Mapes states: Do you really think a forger -- who recreated in verified, period detail the internal rules, relationships, and lingo of the Texas Air National Guard -- would then type all that up on Microsoft Word? I came away from the movie convinced that Dubya's record was indeed damning of him.
Also, I concur with the review that Blanchette was absolutely riveting -- and would add that her performance is certainly worthy of an Oscar nomination.
Also, I concur with the review that Blanchette was absolutely riveting -- and would add that her performance is certainly worthy of an Oscar nomination.
7
"I came away from the movie convinced that Dubya's record was indeed damning of him." Jeepers. Read about it a little, see the wikipedia article at least. Don't be convinced by a movie where the moviemakers can say anything they want; they are even less restrained than 60 Minutes was.
People make mistakes. That how criminals are caught all the time.
Most documents are typed by secretarial staff. So a forger might know all the "rules" of the military but NOT know how a 1960s era typewritten page looked. People are so used computer documents today, they have literally FORGOTTEN this.
To me it seemed like an entirely human, normal error to make.
Most documents are typed by secretarial staff. So a forger might know all the "rules" of the military but NOT know how a 1960s era typewritten page looked. People are so used computer documents today, they have literally FORGOTTEN this.
To me it seemed like an entirely human, normal error to make.
At a screening of the "Truth" at the New School, Rather and Redford both spoke afterward about the consequences of what occurs when a story, despite the public's perception, contains two basic facts, but because of a mutual agreement of the Bush campaign and CBS brass, has been discredited to alter the "Truth".
Through family influence, Bush became a member of an elite "Champagne" Squadron whose members comprised the scion of the elite and powerful. While serving, it is fact Bush was essentially AWOL from his post, though no "official" records show that. The Bush campaign convinced the corporate heads at CBS was flawed, and it was quashed.
As Redford pointed out, recalling his involvement in making "All The President's Men", a similar purge by the Nixon Administration was pursued against Graham's Washington Post. Woodward and Bernstein were still in the initial phase of their investigation, but Ben Bradlee held firm. He backed the still wet behind the ears Woodstein against the protestations of many veterans reporters at the Post, some whom questioned if the story was so important why isn't The New York Times covering it. Redford noted Woodstein faced tremendous obstacles, dead ends, denials, and attempts to discredit their reports of the Watergate Affair. Redford's observation was that over the course of four decades investigative reporting has gone the way of the hard copy newspaper. Both struggle to survive.
DD
Manhattan
Through family influence, Bush became a member of an elite "Champagne" Squadron whose members comprised the scion of the elite and powerful. While serving, it is fact Bush was essentially AWOL from his post, though no "official" records show that. The Bush campaign convinced the corporate heads at CBS was flawed, and it was quashed.
As Redford pointed out, recalling his involvement in making "All The President's Men", a similar purge by the Nixon Administration was pursued against Graham's Washington Post. Woodward and Bernstein were still in the initial phase of their investigation, but Ben Bradlee held firm. He backed the still wet behind the ears Woodstein against the protestations of many veterans reporters at the Post, some whom questioned if the story was so important why isn't The New York Times covering it. Redford noted Woodstein faced tremendous obstacles, dead ends, denials, and attempts to discredit their reports of the Watergate Affair. Redford's observation was that over the course of four decades investigative reporting has gone the way of the hard copy newspaper. Both struggle to survive.
DD
Manhattan
7
Or a different explanation: Woodward and Bernstein were pursuing a true story, and their bosses backed them up. Mapes and co. were trying to throw an election with a false story, and when their bosses realized it, they dropped them. As it should be.
1
This movie slowly leads you to the sickening conclusion that behind the scenes powerful interests can shape public reality and woe be it to anyone that challenges them. The Orwellian dread that pervades the film demonstrates that even in a democracy powerful people can shape the truth to their liking and ruthlessly dispose of anyone that tries to set the record straight. Blanchett is the best actress we have today. There is no one who can give a more nuanced performance. There is never a wasted facial expression or verbal inflection. Her acting is seamless. At the end the word expressed by Rather (Redford) "courage" is put to good use and his parting short hand advice to Ms. Maples (Blanchett) to FEA is apt.
2
Holden avoids the fact that this film seems to be censored from being able to advertise its existence on CBS and other network broadcast television stations. In an unprecedented turn, PBS television has picked up the mantel of free expression, and allowed the 'Truth' trailer to be aired several times each day in the past several weeks.
It is that fact, that condemns CBS, NBC, and ABC to the moral corruption to which they have sunk in their pettiness and blind obedience to the sponsors of their corporations and their shareholders. One wonders how airing a difference of opinion could upset sponsors such as:
GEICO, Scott's, Ford, Walgreen's, Pfizer, Fidelity, Kellogg, Proctor & Gamble, Nestle, General Mills, Bristol Myers Squibb just to name a few
(See complete list from a teaparty weblink no less, below):
https://miamitwpteaparty.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/list-of-sponsors1.pdf
You may notice that Charlie Rose, who readily interviews the director and casts of upcoming films has somehow forgotten to do so with Redford and Blanchett. Gee, I wonder if his so called professional journalist credentials have also been morally compromised by dint of his CBS news employment affiliation? Dan Rather should be sitting where Rose is, busy stroking Nora O'Donnell.
It is that fact, that condemns CBS, NBC, and ABC to the moral corruption to which they have sunk in their pettiness and blind obedience to the sponsors of their corporations and their shareholders. One wonders how airing a difference of opinion could upset sponsors such as:
GEICO, Scott's, Ford, Walgreen's, Pfizer, Fidelity, Kellogg, Proctor & Gamble, Nestle, General Mills, Bristol Myers Squibb just to name a few
(See complete list from a teaparty weblink no less, below):
https://miamitwpteaparty.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/list-of-sponsors1.pdf
You may notice that Charlie Rose, who readily interviews the director and casts of upcoming films has somehow forgotten to do so with Redford and Blanchett. Gee, I wonder if his so called professional journalist credentials have also been morally compromised by dint of his CBS news employment affiliation? Dan Rather should be sitting where Rose is, busy stroking Nora O'Donnell.
2
The real test of bravery and call to duty happened on 9/11/01. Instead of flying directly back to Andrews AFB, our president chose a remote location in Nebraska. That says it all.
The definition of chutzpah: W getting a cushy National Guard spot, and his whereabouts being in question during his term of service. And his supporters attacking John Kerry about his service in Viet Nam.
John Kerry was awarded medals for heroic service. His political enemies spent enormous sums to lie about his service. It was as shameful a tactic as I can remember. W disappeared for stretches of time from wherever he was stationed- rumor had it that he was off drinking somewhere.
I don't know if there are limits on what the GOP will say or do to get the power of the Presidency. And that was certainly true of the Bush family in 2000 and 2004.
John Kerry was awarded medals for heroic service. His political enemies spent enormous sums to lie about his service. It was as shameful a tactic as I can remember. W disappeared for stretches of time from wherever he was stationed- rumor had it that he was off drinking somewhere.
I don't know if there are limits on what the GOP will say or do to get the power of the Presidency. And that was certainly true of the Bush family in 2000 and 2004.
17
God help us if Jeb gets is allowed to move to Pennsylvania Ave.
How many little Bushes are there anyway? Where is the end to this plague of self entitlement and self righteousness from Barbara's & George's conceited brood?
How many little Bushes are there anyway? Where is the end to this plague of self entitlement and self righteousness from Barbara's & George's conceited brood?
5
It's now late Feb. 2016 and we seem to be safe from that eventuality! ...at least for this generation of Bushes.
While reading others' comments, I was surprised at how many on the right were absolutely certain the documents were fake but did address the possibility the "fake" documents' contents were true.
At the end of the film, it's stated on screen that the committee did not find any political bias on the part of the news team, but it does not state what their report actually contained. What was the "really bad" part Mary Mapes was warned to expect?
At the end of the film, it's stated on screen that the committee did not find any political bias on the part of the news team, but it does not state what their report actually contained. What was the "really bad" part Mary Mapes was warned to expect?
2
But this was 15 years ago! Today's political media world is ruled by blogs and social media and this story probably wouldn't have counted for much. Just a few days ago The Times ran a story about the high incidence of news photographers who "stage" their shots, a practice strictly forbidden. But think about it: journalism is the only field in which competition drives down the quality of the product, whether it's print or electronic media. How sad.
4
Journalism is hardly "the only field in which competition drives down the quality of the product." Cheap products often drive out good ones. "Price points" that attract consumers determine the quality of the product.
1
The center core of the story holds: George W. Bush, son of the president, was AWOL from duty at the Air National Guard. That fact was covered up, uncovered, then discredited by the Bush Campaign, as was his DWI charge, though in the end both incidents are correct. Mapes and Rather were swift-boated and CBS News jettisoned them just as swiftly when the pressure from the Bush campaign mounted a concerted effort demanding that CBS News "take care" of the problem should they want access in the future.
Those of privilege have greater responsibilities to society than the Lumpen Proles. Some acknowledge that and act accordingly asking no special treatment. Others, like Dubya, choose to exercise their status and curry favor. They who are to the manor born must lead by example if they want to earn respect from those whom they lead. It is leadership defined.
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and so it should be no surprise to anyone that under the leadership of George W. Bush, he and his Administration left US with a bad taste in our mouths.
DD
Manhattan
Those of privilege have greater responsibilities to society than the Lumpen Proles. Some acknowledge that and act accordingly asking no special treatment. Others, like Dubya, choose to exercise their status and curry favor. They who are to the manor born must lead by example if they want to earn respect from those whom they lead. It is leadership defined.
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and so it should be no surprise to anyone that under the leadership of George W. Bush, he and his Administration left US with a bad taste in our mouths.
DD
Manhattan
10
Of course there's no evidence of any of this... aside from some forged documents. But no-one has proved that negative so the tinfoil hats remain firmly affixed.
3
The ostensible reason for considering the documents forged is the use of proportional fonts in the text of the document, and the uninformed assertion that proportional font type face did not exist at the time. That was and is a falsehood. IBM certainly had produced typewriters with daisy wheels that used proportional fonts like Times New Roman for example.
1
Jeepers. Read the wikipedia article; there are mountains of evidence that the documents were forged, and literally no reason to think otherwise. Coming up with some crazy way to produce them doesn't make them genuine.
There there is no mystery here, no deep and dark truths that remain shrouded in secrecy. The documentary evidence was forged and there isn't any other evidence. That's all she wrote, boys.
6
Even if so, forged by whom? For what purpose?
3
Are journalistic film critics expected to be familiar with the basic facts underlying films, such as "Truth", that deal with recent historical events? Apparently, in the case of Stephen Holden, the answer is no. At the core of the 60 Minutes broadcast of September 2004, were a group of documents, alleged by Dan Rather to have been written on a typewriter in the early 1970's. Within days it was convincingly demonstrated that they had instead been written using Microsoft Word, with a New Times Roman font. Microsoft Word only became available in 1983. Because of the haste to put the story on the air, no good faith attempt to "authenticate" them was carried out. Mr. Holden darkly speaks of "mysteries" connected with the broadcast. I would like to suggest one. Was Mary Mapes duped by Bill Burkett, surely one of the most unreliable sources who ever lived, or did she actively conspire with him to produce the forged documents? That could possibly be the raw material for a compelling sequel to "Truth".
7
After having seen the movie, I think a much more compelling film can be made documenting the many crimes of the Bush Administration, not the least of which was the invasion of Iraq under entirely false pretenses. But in order to tell that story, the media would have to be depicted as bunch of gullible, superficial lickspittles who ended up jumping on the bandwagon. No studio would touch it.
While watching the film, it kept occurring to me what a small story it was, in the larger scheme of things. It's given the Full Hollywood Treatment: golden lighting, bestowing upon Cate Blanchette a luminescence throughout, even when she's downing a bottle of white wine; the mood music, which tells us exactly what to feel and exactly when we should be feeling it; and even, at the end, when Robert Redford, I mean Dan Rather, steps down from his perch, a standing ovation by his co-workers. This, too, has become a staple in Hollywood films. Given the disparity between the matter of the veracity of the documents Ms. Mapes had in her possession vs. the depredations of the Bush Administration in the Middle East, the whole thing would have played much better as a black comedy a la "Dr. Strangelove," Toss a couple of journalists on the bonfire while Bush and his merry band of nihilists destabilize the Middle East while putting American soldiers' lives at risk and murdering many thousands of soldiers and civilians. Who'd believe it?
While watching the film, it kept occurring to me what a small story it was, in the larger scheme of things. It's given the Full Hollywood Treatment: golden lighting, bestowing upon Cate Blanchette a luminescence throughout, even when she's downing a bottle of white wine; the mood music, which tells us exactly what to feel and exactly when we should be feeling it; and even, at the end, when Robert Redford, I mean Dan Rather, steps down from his perch, a standing ovation by his co-workers. This, too, has become a staple in Hollywood films. Given the disparity between the matter of the veracity of the documents Ms. Mapes had in her possession vs. the depredations of the Bush Administration in the Middle East, the whole thing would have played much better as a black comedy a la "Dr. Strangelove," Toss a couple of journalists on the bonfire while Bush and his merry band of nihilists destabilize the Middle East while putting American soldiers' lives at risk and murdering many thousands of soldiers and civilians. Who'd believe it?
4
If one were tasked with coming up with a standard metric for self-deluding nonsense, they could start with the part of this review where Stephen Holden compares those who are aware that the "Killian memos" were the clumsiest of forgeries, typed up in MS Word and passed off as documents produced on a typewriter in the 70's, to the JFK conspiracy theorists of his own political tribe. That cute attempt at re-framing things could then be compared to the elaborate conspiracy theories of Bush/Rove hatching the whole thing from their underground bunker in a risky gambit aimed at 'poisoning the well' featured below. One imagines the typical 'Readers' Picks' commenter shouting, "Yea! They're the *real* conspiracy nuts!" while adjusting the aluminum foil beanie atop their heads.
3
And yet, in truth, that is not what happened, imagine what one will.
2
Title of this review is metaphor for the relationship the movie seeks to describe.
As well, one wonders if the real sinker of Ms. Mapes' career was the flawless story, about Abu Ghraib. Motive doesn't always perfectly synchronize with means of opportunity, after all.
As well, one wonders if the real sinker of Ms. Mapes' career was the flawless story, about Abu Ghraib. Motive doesn't always perfectly synchronize with means of opportunity, after all.
3
The reason this issue elicits so much rabid slobbering from the right-wing echo chamber has nothing to do, of course, with accuracy or fact; it's shamefully clear they have no interest in or capacity for either. What gets them foaming is the exposure and confirmation of the truth that is abundantly clear to anyone who examines the Bush era through intellect and reason vs. through fear and emotion: conservative 'leadership' hawks are chicken hawks. Furthermore, in their obsession with Rather and in their paranoia about the news media, they have nurtured to the evil of 'con news' (such as Faux) and the disaster of the misinformed electorate.
14
Wow, a movie review in the New York Times that's actually, and primarily, about the film in question. I understand that Stephen Holden is considered the third person on the reviewing totem pole at the Times, so, of course, this review begs the question: Why didn't A. O. Scott or Manohla Dargis take the assignment?
What's refreshing about Mr. Holden's writing, and this review especially, is that he is keenly aware of what Times readers need from a movie review. He writes about story, characters, direction, acting, and atmosphere with intelligence and still manages to avoid being pretentious or airy.
Holden's reviews contain an important and welcome immediacy, this one included. It's wonderful to read a writer about film who writes for the present, not how history and eventual criticism of critical writing is going to judge him.
Clearly Holden isn't overly concerned about having his pieces appear in future anthologies, which is a good thing. Frankly, I think his commentaries are the choices that history and editors of anthologies will judge in a positive way. Holden's reviews are good because they're alive with a love of cinema, not considerations of future attention.
What's refreshing about Mr. Holden's writing, and this review especially, is that he is keenly aware of what Times readers need from a movie review. He writes about story, characters, direction, acting, and atmosphere with intelligence and still manages to avoid being pretentious or airy.
Holden's reviews contain an important and welcome immediacy, this one included. It's wonderful to read a writer about film who writes for the present, not how history and eventual criticism of critical writing is going to judge him.
Clearly Holden isn't overly concerned about having his pieces appear in future anthologies, which is a good thing. Frankly, I think his commentaries are the choices that history and editors of anthologies will judge in a positive way. Holden's reviews are good because they're alive with a love of cinema, not considerations of future attention.
13
Touche.
1
I never found the story hard to believe. Harder to believe is that it was deemed worthy of such towering risk.
If in fact George Bush and his people were the clandestine hand behind these documents as many in the comments suggest, then possibly he wasn't the "village idiot" most make him out to be. Because surely, a "dummy" couldn't conspire so surreptitiously.
1
The Bush Administration stopped at nothing to discredit Rather and his team.
We all know George W. was a "daddy's boy" who was able to "escape" into the Air National Guard in lieu of deploying to RVN..like so many other brave airmen. George W. went to a squadron which flew interceptors...and none of those were in RVN and as such, impossible to deploy no matter what.
Then George W. went essentially AWOL to work on a Congressional electoral bid in Alabama. Most Guard members would of been thrown out of the unit, but George W. with his fathers connection allow George W. to escape any personnel retribution.
In short, George W. Bush was a coward...a man who hide behind his famiy connection, influence and power politics.
George W. is a disgrace to himself and to his country.
And lastly, I sincerely hope the faceless souls of those KIA in Iraq visit him and his cronies for lying to the American people sacrificing so may good and honorable men and women.
We all know George W. was a "daddy's boy" who was able to "escape" into the Air National Guard in lieu of deploying to RVN..like so many other brave airmen. George W. went to a squadron which flew interceptors...and none of those were in RVN and as such, impossible to deploy no matter what.
Then George W. went essentially AWOL to work on a Congressional electoral bid in Alabama. Most Guard members would of been thrown out of the unit, but George W. with his fathers connection allow George W. to escape any personnel retribution.
In short, George W. Bush was a coward...a man who hide behind his famiy connection, influence and power politics.
George W. is a disgrace to himself and to his country.
And lastly, I sincerely hope the faceless souls of those KIA in Iraq visit him and his cronies for lying to the American people sacrificing so may good and honorable men and women.
32
Blah, blah, blah. Rather and Mapes were still put to pasture/fired after the evidence for their bombshell proved to be fiction. THIS cannot be changed. Say, has Mapes ever worked in TV or Rather for anybody reputable (al-jazeera doesn't count, but then again, neither does CBS).
7
Whatever you do, don't let the facts get in the way of your hatred of George W. Bush. Mapes and Rather relied on poor forgeries in an attempt to smear Bush and, in the process, influence the election. If Fox News had tried that it would have been shut down.
6
GW Bush committed plenty of actual sins that could be PROVEN factually.
Get him on THOSE. Don't rely on fake documents, hearsay and left wing spite.
Get him on THOSE. Don't rely on fake documents, hearsay and left wing spite.
Most comments herein claim the documents were fake. They sight "google" and other supposed credible resources as evidence. The problem with that is we have come to rely on sources of a highly suspect nature. We now view web sites with the veracity of the Gospel. And therein lies the rub.
In this fog, facts and the "Truth" become opaque. Those who worked the story at CBS News were aware it might be a red herring designed to backfire on them, especially after Rathers's on-air confrontation with H. W. Bush some years back. They moved cautiously. Numerous redundant sources were checked and confirmed before going to press.
The Bush campaign was ready. They countermanded Mapes and Rather's, citing the documents as frauds, and a scheme concocted by CBS to bring down Bush. The story they spun and won the day with was the lie. The story reported was true. The original story, that George W. Bush was AWOL from his Air Guard service in Alabama, and it was covered up, was lost in the mayhem. Instead, the scandal" surrounding Mapes and Rather became the headline. Accordingly, scapegoats were found, and would be sacrificed. The heads of Mapes and Rather were proffered to curry favor with the powers that be. The "Truth", for what it's worth, was lost to power politics, a scenario of late which has now become natura secunda.
A sorrowful decline from the days of Murrow's Boys. The fault indeed lies with us. Good night and good luck.
DD
Manhattan
In this fog, facts and the "Truth" become opaque. Those who worked the story at CBS News were aware it might be a red herring designed to backfire on them, especially after Rathers's on-air confrontation with H. W. Bush some years back. They moved cautiously. Numerous redundant sources were checked and confirmed before going to press.
The Bush campaign was ready. They countermanded Mapes and Rather's, citing the documents as frauds, and a scheme concocted by CBS to bring down Bush. The story they spun and won the day with was the lie. The story reported was true. The original story, that George W. Bush was AWOL from his Air Guard service in Alabama, and it was covered up, was lost in the mayhem. Instead, the scandal" surrounding Mapes and Rather became the headline. Accordingly, scapegoats were found, and would be sacrificed. The heads of Mapes and Rather were proffered to curry favor with the powers that be. The "Truth", for what it's worth, was lost to power politics, a scenario of late which has now become natura secunda.
A sorrowful decline from the days of Murrow's Boys. The fault indeed lies with us. Good night and good luck.
DD
Manhattan
29
Beautifully written DD, by perhaps someone in the know. I agree completely with your assessment. Those of us who still hold romantic notions about the impact of great journalism in the world, must regularly come to face to face with all the enemies of those beliefs. In this case, there is no question in my mind the enemy was the Bush Administration, and CBS. I remember no other time in my life when the American government was as repressive. The movie is superb. The acting is stellar. It's a movie which comes along once in a great while.
1
The forged documents used a superscript that was not available on the typewriters of the day. For example, a typewriter would type "101st," while the forgery had the "st" in tiny letters above and to the right of the number (ironically I can't type the superscript in this comment). Only a computer available long after the 60's could type that way. That's why the forgery was so immediately and easily recognized. No fog, no red herring, just bad journalism that ignored the truth.
2
The documents were printed on a personal computer in Microsoft Word, a technology that did not exist at the time they were supposedly written. So either someone had a time machine or else they were fake. End of story.
2
I have my own take on this event. In my thinking,CBS was very cleverly led down a path that involved a trap that snapped shut when they bought into the story. Far fetched you think? I was always puzzled when the Bush supporters pounced on the fact that the typewriter in the papers turned out not to supposedly exist at the time and they had this "proved" almost before the CBS ink had dried. It was to pat for me. Someday we will know the REAL truth and I think it will be closer to the CBS version.
12
The people who immediately destroyed the credibility of the documents were not "Bush supporters", the were people who had used Microsoft Word. Some years prior to the broadcast I was an Air Force officer who read (and edited) many official documents. The Killian documents were not formatted in the way that an Air Force Colonel, or his secretary, would have done.
5
Courtesy of the Village Voice promotion, I saw the film on Tuesday night. I agree with Holden's review, but did not like how much of the film looked.
The film was dim. Everything depicted indoors with the lights on seemed darker than in every day life. Also, even with great looking stars and sets, everything seemed very flat, like the 3 dimensionality of every day life was crushed up for the two dimensions of the movie screen.
The film was dim. Everything depicted indoors with the lights on seemed darker than in every day life. Also, even with great looking stars and sets, everything seemed very flat, like the 3 dimensionality of every day life was crushed up for the two dimensions of the movie screen.
I am pleased this film has been made and I am pleased the reviewer rates it highly. What happens in the US to a significant degree affects what happens in the rest of the world. Your choice of President shapes our lives and although we have no say over who you choose many like me are keenly interested in your electoral process.
I hope this film generates a thoughtful discussion on why and how Dan Rather was undone.
As I understand it the deception was a highly sophisticated operation. Bill Burkett was convinced the documents were genuine. And even though he hated George W Bush he was both sincere and in a way a decent man. Sadly it is likely that his decency undid him. As promised he destroyed the original documents to protect the fictitious ‘Lucy Ramirez’ and by photocopying the documents he provided a explanation as to why there would be no fingerprints. In all likelihood there would have been no fingerprints and had Bill Burkett not photocopied the documents suspicions would have been raised.
There are so many clues and a pattern in this case to raise questions about motives. For example, how come Buckhead was so certain that the documents were fake within minutes of the screening? He is a lawyer not an expert in matching typefaces despite handling a case or two. The lawyers I know are more cautious. A quick call to one of their mates and they might have an authoritative answer in a few hours – not minutes . . .
[email protected]
I hope this film generates a thoughtful discussion on why and how Dan Rather was undone.
As I understand it the deception was a highly sophisticated operation. Bill Burkett was convinced the documents were genuine. And even though he hated George W Bush he was both sincere and in a way a decent man. Sadly it is likely that his decency undid him. As promised he destroyed the original documents to protect the fictitious ‘Lucy Ramirez’ and by photocopying the documents he provided a explanation as to why there would be no fingerprints. In all likelihood there would have been no fingerprints and had Bill Burkett not photocopied the documents suspicions would have been raised.
There are so many clues and a pattern in this case to raise questions about motives. For example, how come Buckhead was so certain that the documents were fake within minutes of the screening? He is a lawyer not an expert in matching typefaces despite handling a case or two. The lawyers I know are more cautious. A quick call to one of their mates and they might have an authoritative answer in a few hours – not minutes . . .
[email protected]
5
A well-timed anti-Republican docudrama for the 2015/16 election season. There is no Democratic payback story to match most Republican payback stories.
2
To set the record straight, to be anti-republican these days, one doesn't need to be a movie- goer. Reality accomplishes that real well.
6
Uh, well - read the pro-movie comments here. Any connection to reality visible in the conspiracy theories here?
There was a lot of evidence that George W. Bush missed much of the training he was supposed to attend, and that he suddenly stopped flying without any documentary reasons as to why. Military records that would have settled the question were mysteriously missing. There was a story there and it needed to be followed up.
But while Mapes and Rather were preparing a report, a couple of documents appeared, anonymously, and they ran with them, thinking it was the smoking gun that supported the conclusion they made *based on a lot of other evidence*
Within minutes of the story airing, anonymous commenters on right wing discussion sites were questioning the "kerning" and other obscure details about the documents. And of course, the documents turned out to be forgeries after all, and Mapes and Rather had not questioned them enough.
So the next day, instead of talking about Bush's questionable military record, the story was all about the documents. And once Rather and Mapes resigned (or were fired) nobody was willing to pick up the story and report any facts.
Almost as if the documents were deliberately sent so that the story could be discredited before anybody thought about it.
So yes, proving the documents forgeries did not prove that the rest of the story wasn't true, but that was the effect they had. Now nobody believes there is anything to Bush's skipping out on his military responsibilities. You can see that in the comments.
But while Mapes and Rather were preparing a report, a couple of documents appeared, anonymously, and they ran with them, thinking it was the smoking gun that supported the conclusion they made *based on a lot of other evidence*
Within minutes of the story airing, anonymous commenters on right wing discussion sites were questioning the "kerning" and other obscure details about the documents. And of course, the documents turned out to be forgeries after all, and Mapes and Rather had not questioned them enough.
So the next day, instead of talking about Bush's questionable military record, the story was all about the documents. And once Rather and Mapes resigned (or were fired) nobody was willing to pick up the story and report any facts.
Almost as if the documents were deliberately sent so that the story could be discredited before anybody thought about it.
So yes, proving the documents forgeries did not prove that the rest of the story wasn't true, but that was the effect they had. Now nobody believes there is anything to Bush's skipping out on his military responsibilities. You can see that in the comments.
17
So, do you think it would have been wise to at least investigate the evidence more thoroughly, or do advocate lazy journalism? Had they had the evidence, then at least we'd be talking about it. They didn't have any substantive evidence, and when presented some, ran with it.
2
The documents came to Mapes directly from a well known long time Bush hater / Democrat partisan so they idea that they were some kind of clever Republican plant in order to discredit any further stories about Bush's military service is ridiculous.
3
And it would not take much cleverness to figure out that the best person to plant forgeries would be with "a well known long time Bush hater / Democrat partisan"
1
I always thought Rather was set-up, possibly by the Bush camp, with documents that were a copy of the real ones. The documents rang true but the forgery was obvious and it was meant to be.
7
The question that remains unanswered is why Dan Rather was scapegoated for the careless investigation of his producer Ms. Mapes. Who hired her? Unless it was Dan Rather, I don't see why he should have been held responsible.
CBS News holds itself out as a bastion of journalistic standards. Yet, the objectivity it ostensibly practices towards its staff remains questionable, as Lara Logan found out.
CBS News holds itself out as a bastion of journalistic standards. Yet, the objectivity it ostensibly practices towards its staff remains questionable, as Lara Logan found out.
DDtKA,
Mary Mapes had taken serious risks to break the Abu Ghraib story. Dan was her correspondent. He trusted her, and had been proven right to do so with that one. When this story broke, for the first few days he repeatedly stated on air that he stood by Mary's research and believed in the documents. He was loyal to his foot soldier and it cost him his reputation and position at CBS News.
I won't even touch LL. Not worth the time.
Mary Mapes had taken serious risks to break the Abu Ghraib story. Dan was her correspondent. He trusted her, and had been proven right to do so with that one. When this story broke, for the first few days he repeatedly stated on air that he stood by Mary's research and believed in the documents. He was loyal to his foot soldier and it cost him his reputation and position at CBS News.
I won't even touch LL. Not worth the time.
1
As Elizabeth Warren has said, the game is rigged. You and I--and 'truth'--we don't stand a chance.
26
I guess the worst attack on American soil in history, one illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, two unfunded wars, the destruction of our economy and a plethora of other crimes against humanity and the American people simply aren't enough to discourage defenders of George W. Bush and his two disastrous terms in office (after losing the 2000 election and being appointed to office by the Supreme Court.)
88
No wonder the Republicans are so stewed about the prospect of even considering a Supreme Court appointee by Obama to replace Scalia. What if the infamous "recount" happened again? Oh yes, and next week's abortion case, etc. etc., too. But this was really The Big One.
The implication that there is still any debate about whether the report aired by CBS was based on authentic documents is preposterous.
* The documents were fake.
* The source of the documents, Bill Burkett, was widely known in Texas -- and described in easily accessible published accounts in major newspapers -- as a deranged Bush hater who had written in a blog many previous demonstrably false stories about the Bush when he was governor.
These aren't opinions. They are facts easily gathered by anyone willing to put in an honest hour on Google or Lexis.
All this was known or should have been known to Mapes. Any movie that exonerates her for incredibly sloppy and possibly intentionally false journalism bears no relation to the truth.
Any review that implies the movie may be other than a fairy tale spun for true believers does a disservice to honest movie goers.
* The documents were fake.
* The source of the documents, Bill Burkett, was widely known in Texas -- and described in easily accessible published accounts in major newspapers -- as a deranged Bush hater who had written in a blog many previous demonstrably false stories about the Bush when he was governor.
These aren't opinions. They are facts easily gathered by anyone willing to put in an honest hour on Google or Lexis.
All this was known or should have been known to Mapes. Any movie that exonerates her for incredibly sloppy and possibly intentionally false journalism bears no relation to the truth.
Any review that implies the movie may be other than a fairy tale spun for true believers does a disservice to honest movie goers.
15
Whatever.
Dubya was the biggest goober on the planet and a horrible president.
If you want to talk about a story that "bears no relation to the truth," let's talk WMDs and yellow cake uranium.
Now THAT story was a fairy tale on a grand scale.
Dubya was the biggest goober on the planet and a horrible president.
If you want to talk about a story that "bears no relation to the truth," let's talk WMDs and yellow cake uranium.
Now THAT story was a fairy tale on a grand scale.
45
Don, you are so correct on this. One has to wonder, and i say this with deep sadness, about the mental acuity and health of someone such as the reviewer who so patenttly obviously had an agenda and did no journalistic research whatsoever. Holden's previous reviews on movies that carried a patently conservative message never missed an opportunity to deride. it is one thing to agree or disagree with the movie maker's sympathies; it is wholly another to treat a piece of such historically dishonest narrative as if it is truth. The left's paranoia at this story - originally uncovered and disproved by a Liberal blogger - and others like it, that if something does not go their way or they are held to account and exposed in dishonesty that it is due to "corporate" and/or "right wing" government forces" should, again, be recognized as the national mental heath issue that it is.
4
Don
Sometimes ideology can get in the way of facts.
Sometimes ideology can get in the way of facts.
4
Mr. Holden (and, perhaps, the film, which I have yet to see) uses an old device here: the false dichotomy.
"...there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation."
By implication, if that extreme accusation isn't true, then the extreme opposite must be: that they did nothing wrong.
Nonsense. Mapes and Rather didn't twirl their mustaches and set out to tell a lie. But they were eager dupes for a demonstrably falsified story that fell right into their ideological comfort zones. That's a different kind of failure, but a failure all the same.
There's not a lot of nuance to this. The documents were forged. No one had Microsoft Word in 1973.
If a similar film were to cast a gauzy glow of martrydom around the people who "swift-boated" John Kerry, would Mr. Holden take it half as seriously? Apart from which team's ox gets gored, how would that be different?
"...there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation."
By implication, if that extreme accusation isn't true, then the extreme opposite must be: that they did nothing wrong.
Nonsense. Mapes and Rather didn't twirl their mustaches and set out to tell a lie. But they were eager dupes for a demonstrably falsified story that fell right into their ideological comfort zones. That's a different kind of failure, but a failure all the same.
There's not a lot of nuance to this. The documents were forged. No one had Microsoft Word in 1973.
If a similar film were to cast a gauzy glow of martrydom around the people who "swift-boated" John Kerry, would Mr. Holden take it half as seriously? Apart from which team's ox gets gored, how would that be different?
12
"If a similar film were to cast a gauzy glow of martrydom around the people who "swift-boated" John Kerry, would Mr. Holden take it half as seriously? "
As one who has read Mr' Holden over the years, I can answer the obvious. No. He wouldn't. He never has.
As one who has read Mr' Holden over the years, I can answer the obvious. No. He wouldn't. He never has.
2
This is a movie review, not a conspiracy analysis. They way some commenters are attacking only serves that there is some truth to the story, fake documents or not!!
12
R4L: Actually, no evidence for the truth of the story (that Bush disappeared from his duty) has been adduced. And I'm no GW Bush fan. I'm just disappointed that the NYT is somehow swallowing this apologia for bad journalism.
6
This movie is propaganda designed to falsify the historical record for the benefit of liberal politics.
5
Wouldn't have been nice if G.W. bush and his dissembling vice-president
had "stepped down" after lying to the nation about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
had "stepped down" after lying to the nation about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
35
Another commenter who cannot handle the obviuos story at hand.
3
The country had the opportunity to reject them in 2004.
1
I would rather see a well made film putting the lie to the
Republicans' disgusting "swiftboat" campaign in the '04 election cycle.
The Republicans have made dirty campaigning their hallmark,
but that was surely among their ugliest efforts. It is gratifying
that in addition to his exemplary military service, John Kerry has continued to
honorably and ably serve his country in the U.S. Senate and as Secretary
of State. We should count our blessings.
Republicans' disgusting "swiftboat" campaign in the '04 election cycle.
The Republicans have made dirty campaigning their hallmark,
but that was surely among their ugliest efforts. It is gratifying
that in addition to his exemplary military service, John Kerry has continued to
honorably and ably serve his country in the U.S. Senate and as Secretary
of State. We should count our blessings.
58
Stopped reading at "Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination...."
Ummmmm....how about the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives, which concluded there were conspiracies to kill both JFK and MLK?
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html
Does Stephen Holden not know about this? Or is he ignoring it?
Ummmmm....how about the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives, which concluded there were conspiracies to kill both JFK and MLK?
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html
Does Stephen Holden not know about this? Or is he ignoring it?
6
6
Great link!
It is frankly stunning that a review such as this one that displays such ignorance of easily ascertained facts could appear in the NY Times. The real "truth" is that the key evidence was ham-handedly forged and that Bush-hating Rather and Mapes disregarded all evidence of this forgery and then lied repeatedly about it. With very little effort, the investigation by CBS (CBS! - hardly a right wing network) readily established this. To compare people who are aware of these simply facts to Kennedy assassination conspiracy advocates - as Holden does - is lunacy. To suggest these events involves some mystery that may never be solved - as Holden does - is journalistic incompetence of the highest degree.
12
Yeah, everyone knows bigfoot did it.
1
Long before this story, the media roundly condemned George H.W. Bush for brandishing a bag of cocaine powder he said was sold in “the shadow of the White House” on national television to demonstrate how brazen the drug trade had become. It was really cocaine, it was really sold near the White House, and it was confiscated in a bust that had been set up to provide an authentic prop for the President. That was the rub; this back-story somehow tainted the President’s message, even though it was substantially true. Which is more ridiculous? The Shock! Shock! of the media? Or the absurd lengths the White House went to for a convincing prop?
The Mapes-Rather saga is an instance of the same moral confusion. The substance of their story was true – and electorally crucial – and it was backed by solid verification. But the documents provided were faked. The mistake was to feel the story hinged totally on the authenticity of a representation of the evidence.
News has devolved into an art form, not a mode of inquiry, and it wants realism, a term of art, even if it already has reality, other true independent evidence. Which is more ridiculous? The Pharisaic scandal of the George W. Bush White House and the craven caving of the corporate media, who so failed us in the run-up and follow-up to the Iraq invasion? Or the need for a bloody shirt to wave before a jury? Truth is not necessarily a great visual.
The Mapes-Rather saga is an instance of the same moral confusion. The substance of their story was true – and electorally crucial – and it was backed by solid verification. But the documents provided were faked. The mistake was to feel the story hinged totally on the authenticity of a representation of the evidence.
News has devolved into an art form, not a mode of inquiry, and it wants realism, a term of art, even if it already has reality, other true independent evidence. Which is more ridiculous? The Pharisaic scandal of the George W. Bush White House and the craven caving of the corporate media, who so failed us in the run-up and follow-up to the Iraq invasion? Or the need for a bloody shirt to wave before a jury? Truth is not necessarily a great visual.
16
Why am I getting the feeling from Mr. Holden's review that he basically believes the things about Mr. Bush as reported by Ms. Mapes and Mr. Rather, even though those 'facts' were thoroughly and irredeemably trashed over a decade back? Since this reporting was done in the heat of the 2004 presidential race and with tremendous possible consequences to the election, it was surely their absolute duty to investigate any such allegation(s) to the very core of their foundation(s) before going public with what was, in the end, garbage journalism. This was far worse than the norm because it involved Mr. Rather, who was a veritable icon of journalistic truth for most people at the time, and whether or not these two CBS people deliberately skewered their report for political reasons, while an interesting consideration that the Republicans (not just conservatives) did pounce on, the main reason for their dismissal was surely not that (CBS being anything but a bastion of conservative thought, action and reporting), but the embarrassment caused the network by two people who were expected to do their jobs properly and instead just went with the 'scoop' aspect of their bogus story and consequently caused a great deal of soul-searching in the media (although still not enough of it). For all practical purposes, they betrayed the public by betraying what more impartial and/or responsible journalists have always regarded as a sacred trust.
11
Before seeing the movie, which apparently is presented from Mapes point of view, readers may want to at least thumb through the report that caused CBS news to fire her. It is posted online and can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf
It sets forth in great detail the overwhelming evidences that the memos were fake and is a devastating expose of Rather's and Mape's incompetence and/or mendacity.
It sets forth in great detail the overwhelming evidences that the memos were fake and is a devastating expose of Rather's and Mape's incompetence and/or mendacity.
8
As I recall, the real issue is whether George Bush was Absent WithOut Leave.
Would it not be quite easy to determine exactly where George Bush was at the time in question by a review of his telephone and credit card records?
Would it not be quite easy to determine exactly where George Bush was at the time in question by a review of his telephone and credit card records?
4
I am not sure that Iphones were that advanced at the time.
3
"Would it not be quite easy to determine exactly where George Bush was at the time in question by a review of his telephone and credit card records?"
It certainly would be, and that's how we know he was AWOL.
It certainly would be, and that's how we know he was AWOL.
AT&T did not archive phone calling records for years back then. You would probably have to go to NSA to get them.
1
Isn't this a movie review, and doesn't Holden begin by saying that it "conveys a convincing illusion of veracity"? I for one am less interested in hearing other readers' political opinions on Rather and Mapes and more interested in the qualities that make a great film - in this case, the writing and the acting, notably the performance of the extraordinary Cate Blanchett, who can do almost anything and do no wrong in the process. She isn't portraying Mary Mapes, she's playing "Mary Mapes" but perhaps some of you don't understand the difference. "Blue Jasmine" wasn't really about Ruth Madoff, either.
Go see the movie and come back with your thoughts on it as a film, not your opinions on CBS and Andrew Heyward and Dan Rather's political agenda.
Go see the movie and come back with your thoughts on it as a film, not your opinions on CBS and Andrew Heyward and Dan Rather's political agenda.
27
The movie is based on lies. I don't care to see it, thank you.
1
I really don't know why someone hasn't organized a film festival that would feature all the wonderful art that was produced on the heroics of comrade Stalin and the Fuhrer! Certainly we should overlook their mildly negative characteristics and admire the artistry. Couldn't agree with you more.
Non-fiction movies that portray living historical characters have a higher burden than Woody Allen comedies, especially movies entitled "Truth".
1
The so-called "National Guard" alleged "memos" from the "1960s" were comical, crude, thoroughly debunked and discredited forgeries created on twenty-first century Microsoft Word software. Bill Burkett, the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes "source" for the self-described "documents" first said that the "documents" were "mailed" to him by an "anonymous" so-called "source". Then Burkett said that they came from "George Conn". Then Burkett said that a "dark-skinned" "Lucy Ramirez" gave them to him. Has anybody ever found "Lucy Ramirez"?
5
Even horrible people can be victims of a smear. Bush was a horrible president in numerous crucial respects and, like Cheyney, a "chickenhawk" draft dodger--but the investigation of the reporting made it clear that the documents were forgeries.
It is surprising--and disturbing--that a Times critic would have such a naked political agenda and so little concern--much less knowledge--of the underlying facts and would celebrate biased, incompetent journalism.
I am not sure even Fox News has such blatantly biased cultural writing.
It is surprising--and disturbing--that a Times critic would have such a naked political agenda and so little concern--much less knowledge--of the underlying facts and would celebrate biased, incompetent journalism.
I am not sure even Fox News has such blatantly biased cultural writing.
10
Probably not, given that Fox is illiterate.
1
This episode brought about the "Fake but Accurate" meme.
Sure .. the documents were fake .. but what they showed was accurate.
The problem for Ms Mapes was that she was "sure" these documents were "accurate" even when they could be easily be shown to be fake, the source a flake.
The lesson .. find better evidence .. and take a look at who is giving it to you.
Sure .. the documents were fake .. but what they showed was accurate.
The problem for Ms Mapes was that she was "sure" these documents were "accurate" even when they could be easily be shown to be fake, the source a flake.
The lesson .. find better evidence .. and take a look at who is giving it to you.
10
The reviewer seems to think Mary Mapes and Dan Rather might not have been lying. Hogwash. The documents underpinning their story were so obviously fake that even TV journalists should have seen through them. Yet Mapes and Rather used them to try to sway a presidential election. This episode is one of many that have convinced most Americans that the media industry, particularly including Hollywood, cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
13
"The documents underpinning their story were so obviously fake that even TV journalists should have seen through them."
Incredibly, this sentence is not referring to the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq.
Incredibly, this sentence is not referring to the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq.
25
It's too bad Jerome Corsi wasn't out there with his beyond-reproach research team, aka "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," digging up the irrefutable truth about this incident. Sadly, they were busy researching the irrefutable truth about John Kerry's service in Vietnam, which was in no way meant to influence the 2004 election.
2
I think that what Mapes and Rather did was shameful and their firing was well deserved, but never underestimate the power of self-delusion. They SO wanted the documents to be real that they ignored and discounted all evidence to the contrary. This makes them dumb and partisan and overambitious (what a double victory if they could have pulled it off - a journalistic scoop to swing an election AND to swing it in your preferred direction) but not necessarily willful liars. Of course, such gross negligence is just as bad as intentionally lying but they are not quite the same thing.
1
Important to keep in mind that while Rather and Mapes were unable to demonstrate conclusively -- before deadline -- that their evidence was solid, material establishing that George W. Bush gained favorable treatment as a member of the Air National Guard eventually proved credible.
54
So the document were fake but accurate? Would you accept this same standard in a court of law? Is it OK for the attorneys in a case to type up invented documents so long as their content is the "truth"? Or is this a special double standard only for politicians belonging to a party not your own?
1
I wish Edward Snowden or Wikileaks would clear this up once an for all. I for one believe that while the documents were not authentic, the story likely was.
22
...and I believe a giant tomato created the earth - I have fake documents that prove this.
Fake anything does not serve as a supporting factor.
Fake anything does not serve as a supporting factor.
4
"Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination"
There are film makers and reviewers who are not satisfied with the Thornburgh-Boccardi report.
There are film makers and reviewers who are not satisfied with the Thornburgh-Boccardi report.
11
Glad to see a review that gives benefit of the doubt to W's fake military experiences. The entire episode seemed another Right Wing setup, in line with the Swift boating of John Kerry. The Republicans have always believed that their ends justify whatever means they can concoct. See Nixon, Atwater, Rove, Cheney, et al. Also glad to hear that the movie is well done and worth seeing. Been looking forward to a quality list of "true stories." Jobs doesn't seem to fly. But Bridge of Spies and this one do. Waiting for the Bobby Fischer flic.
21
"In the creepiest scene, Ms. Mapes is interrogated by a panel convened by CBS, whose members treat her with barely disguised contempt."
If you read the panel's report (Google it) you will find that the documents were indisputably false and that Mapes lied to her bosses about it. So if in real life they showed contempt for her, maybe that's why.
If you read the panel's report (Google it) you will find that the documents were indisputably false and that Mapes lied to her bosses about it. So if in real life they showed contempt for her, maybe that's why.
21
CBS, once the Tiffany Network, in particular CBS News, had the rep for having the best network of news gathering reporters turned broadcast journalists par excellance. From Murrow's Boys through Cronkite and Rather, CBS News was head and shoulders above the rest when it came to being a trusted pillar of journalistic integrity.
What a sad decline CBS News and all broadcast networks have suffered over the decades, often bordering on parody. We now are witnesses to tripe emanating from cable news networks on a daily basis. Is it any wonder Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had such a wealth of material to pluck their Fake News from? The punch lines write themselves.
Congrats to all those involved with the telling of the "Truth", bringing a short-term memory audience up to date with the tale of how CBS News failed us. This film poses the question to an increasingly cynical public: How can we the people begin to discern fact from fiction, truth from propaganda when those whom we count on to bring us the truth cave-in to the powers that be intentionally keeping the people in the dark about news which if it came to light may influence the election of a president?
The incident portrayed in "Truth" indeed was a black mark on the folks at Black Rock.
DD
Manhattan
What a sad decline CBS News and all broadcast networks have suffered over the decades, often bordering on parody. We now are witnesses to tripe emanating from cable news networks on a daily basis. Is it any wonder Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had such a wealth of material to pluck their Fake News from? The punch lines write themselves.
Congrats to all those involved with the telling of the "Truth", bringing a short-term memory audience up to date with the tale of how CBS News failed us. This film poses the question to an increasingly cynical public: How can we the people begin to discern fact from fiction, truth from propaganda when those whom we count on to bring us the truth cave-in to the powers that be intentionally keeping the people in the dark about news which if it came to light may influence the election of a president?
The incident portrayed in "Truth" indeed was a black mark on the folks at Black Rock.
DD
Manhattan
12
Boozy journalists working on shaky stories to bring down important people under the contrived pressures of a newsroom, pictures of Leonard and Bernstein on their office walls. This is a game where the cost of failure should be very high.
7
"pictures of Leonard and Bernstein on their office walls"
Would you prefer they hang pictures of James and Levine or Arturo and Toscanini?
Would you prefer they hang pictures of James and Levine or Arturo and Toscanini?
7
@Neal - Hear! Hear! In my salad days as a reporter, I had vanity pictures of Joanne and Woodward hanging proudly in my cube. Not to mention a dollar bill containing a portrait of George Washington and a big box of Post cereal.
If the cost of failure were as high as GBC from Canada insists it should be, Scooter Libby wouldn't have been accepted as a Fall guy in the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame case; rather Bob Novak and Dick Cheney would be serving life sentences for treason. But that prospect was never discussed among all those relentlessly scrupulous GWB cheerleaders in their punditry supporting the $2 trillion "off-the-books" invasion with no purpose, or during their branding of anyone opposed as un-American. Only evil liberals can be deliberately treasonous and un-American.
If the cost of failure were as high as GBC from Canada insists it should be, Scooter Libby wouldn't have been accepted as a Fall guy in the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame case; rather Bob Novak and Dick Cheney would be serving life sentences for treason. But that prospect was never discussed among all those relentlessly scrupulous GWB cheerleaders in their punditry supporting the $2 trillion "off-the-books" invasion with no purpose, or during their branding of anyone opposed as un-American. Only evil liberals can be deliberately treasonous and un-American.
3
Assertions are not truth, necessarily, regardless of how badly you want them to be so. Rather et al let their hatred of GW Bush color their interpretation of facts. They lied. You can put all sorts of caveats around that statement but the real fact in this story is that they lied and that CBS was complicit.
So why this movie? When the facts don't stand we appeal to professional storytelling? The villain of the piece should, if justice is served, be Dan Rather. His claim that "we knew it to be true" was the cry of every despot that silenced and destroyed opposition extralegally.
This is a slimy mess and should be ignored by Americans who still have a concern for truth and journalistic integrity.
So why this movie? When the facts don't stand we appeal to professional storytelling? The villain of the piece should, if justice is served, be Dan Rather. His claim that "we knew it to be true" was the cry of every despot that silenced and destroyed opposition extralegally.
This is a slimy mess and should be ignored by Americans who still have a concern for truth and journalistic integrity.
16
The "mystery" was solved. The documents, being the only "evidence" offered by the CBS story, were fake. End of mystery. If "fake but accurate" Dan and Mapes were such heroes, why didn't they investigate the source of the fakery? This view is even more fake but inaccurate.
16
To write this review Holden had to engage in the willing suspension of disbelief and ignore copious amounts of evidence to the contrary. The delusional Mapes and Rather were only half right in their "fake but accurate" claim. t's unfortunate Redford is willing to try another revisionist history bomb; and bomb it will.
15
On top of that, this a very dull and dry movie -- it is meaningless unless you are old enough to remember it and followed the original story. EVEN THEN, it is dull and lifeless. A waste of some very fine actors, especially Cate Blanchett (whom I love!).
Just think about "All The President's Men" -- that's a masterpiece in comparison.
Just think about "All The President's Men" -- that's a masterpiece in comparison.
What a review! A movie that rewrites history saying "don't believe your eyes, we really know what happened!" Every reporter knows to check to the facts! When the Burkett letter is proven a forgery the accusations fall apart! All that is left is the attitude that anything is alright if it helps prevent the reelection of President Bush.
18
Some stories are too good to check.
1
The participants were "high" on the belief that they had finally -- FINALLY -- found the "smoking gun" to destroy GW Bush....and in the light of the truly nasty "swift boating" that destroyed John Kerry. It was just so delicious and perfect, that they didn't stop to do due diligence and really check the evidence. They saw themselves as heroes in a Woodward and Bernstein mode. (Heck, the very presence of Robert Redford alludes to the film about Watergate.)
Except....it was all fake. So instead of concentrating on the REAL flaws of the Bush administration....they made 60 Minutes and lefty politics look like embittered fools.
Except....it was all fake. So instead of concentrating on the REAL flaws of the Bush administration....they made 60 Minutes and lefty politics look like embittered fools.
The law firm hired by CBS found numerous reasons that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the documents were fake. Mary Mapes and Dan Rather were villains, using fake documents to swing an election.
22
The true shame is that they didn't succeed and the war criminals were re-elected.
8
"David in Cal," Many knew that "W" unlike his father had skirted his military service ... so, the best way to make it a non issue is to set up a scam ... a false paper trail ... and give it to Mapes and Rather. And, then using font size which would discredit CBS (which their "friends at fox said was part of the so-called Liberal media. Brilliant and politics as usual. Ergo, evil ... but it surely was effective.
6
"“Truth” doesn’t try to resolve mysteries that may never be solved or to drum up paranoia for the sake of extra heartbeats."
Rubbish. The truth IS known, its just not presented in this film. Mapes and Rather were rightly fired and discredited for unethical journalistic behavior. That's the truth. The only thing that's still in question is who forged the papers Burkett gave to Mapes. The rest of this sorry tale is well known and well documented. Just not by this film.
Rubbish. The truth IS known, its just not presented in this film. Mapes and Rather were rightly fired and discredited for unethical journalistic behavior. That's the truth. The only thing that's still in question is who forged the papers Burkett gave to Mapes. The rest of this sorry tale is well known and well documented. Just not by this film.
25
There is some reason to believe that the Bush campaign fed those documents to Mapes. Had that been proved before the election, George Bush would have been a one-term President. I would have liked to have seen the movie investigate this aspect of the documents. Of course, as others have remarked, whether the documents were faked or not is irrelevant to the central issue of the 60 Minutes story: whether George Bush received preferential treatment to avoid Vietnam service and whether he reneged on his obligations to his National Guard unit. Both of those were amply corroborated without the documents in question.
1
Unfortunately when the "smoking gun" is a forged document....you have made yourself look like a fool and any other serious allegations you may bring, will also look spiteful and petty and fake.
1
Mr. Holden's review underlines the pitfalls in all docudramas. The better the docudrama the more the appearance of a documentary. Documentaries themselves have evolved into advocacy journalism often playing fast and loose with the facts. The title "Truth" is an artifice that shrouds the difficulty all journalists face. Most of us faced with claims of "truth" have learned to raise our antenna to a higher level of skepticism and an increasingly difficult search for facts. Will the audience for this film accept fiction as fact? Will Ms Blanchett's performance be accepted as the real Ms Mapes?
1
I guess it never occurred to the reviewer that Mapes and Rather are the "power" and the bloggers who caught their deception were the real heroes for standing up to power and exposing their abuses. The only "Truth" is that Rather and Mapes had a political story they wanted to tell and were willing to use obvious forgeries when the facts did not back up their narrative. That's why they were fired. It wasn't for journalistic bravery, it was for journalistic hackery.
23
"I guess it never occurred to the reviewer that Mapes and Rather are the "power""
I guess it never occurred to Q22 that the Bush dynasty, the administration in office and the entire GOP might be more powerful than Mapes and Rather.
I guess it never occurred to Q22 that the Bush dynasty, the administration in office and the entire GOP might be more powerful than Mapes and Rather.
6
They didn't bust Rather and Mapes. That honor went to a few sharp bloggers who smelled a rat.
1
A convenient untruth - perpetrated to maintain the progressive story line. This attempt to rewrite what actually happened makes Oliver Stone look like a careful historian.
17
"Bob F.," In Texas there was a consensus that "W" had been assigned to the Champagne Unit and went AWOL for about a year. Many media outlets (e.g., the Boston Globe, the WP, and many others had written about it prior to the 60 MINUTES report by Rather and Mapes. Then, instead of concentrating on what "W" did ... the authenticity of ended all discussion by other media outlets. Fin!
The media which used to use news divisions on a sustaining basis with a wall between news and corporate concerns ended ... and, has worsened markedly since.
The media which used to use news divisions on a sustaining basis with a wall between news and corporate concerns ended ... and, has worsened markedly since.
2
@David: CONSENSUS is not fact. It is not journalism. IT IS NOT NEWS.
When the right uses the same kind of innuendo and "everyone knows that..." against Obama or Clinton or HIllary....you can clearly see how it is biased and twisted. Well, it goes both ways. And what it mostly shows is how pathetically slanted most of what we read and see and hear is.
When the right uses the same kind of innuendo and "everyone knows that..." against Obama or Clinton or HIllary....you can clearly see how it is biased and twisted. Well, it goes both ways. And what it mostly shows is how pathetically slanted most of what we read and see and hear is.
1
Anyone who was around during the Viet Nam era knows there was a mile long waiting list to enter the National Guard. I didn't need CBS to tell me Bush used family privilege to "serve" in the National Guard, the irony of course is the Bush-Cheney team started using the N.G. for foreign adventures.
55
I think you are probably right. I also think that MANY affluent people used this as a way to escape military service in Vietnam (rather than run off to Canada).
But you can't put it on a NEWS SHOW with just allegations and insinuations.
Also, it's not just conservatives who did this. Liberals did it. Middle of the roaders did it. Bill Clinton did not serve in Vietnam. Bernie Sanders did not serve in Vietnam. It was not just GW Bush.
But you can't put it on a NEWS SHOW with just allegations and insinuations.
Also, it's not just conservatives who did this. Liberals did it. Middle of the roaders did it. Bill Clinton did not serve in Vietnam. Bernie Sanders did not serve in Vietnam. It was not just GW Bush.
1
I recently watched "Kill the Messenger" for the first time, not even aware it had been made. It was extremely powerful, and depressing, since it forcefully reveals the seeming futility of trying to uncover corruption in high places, let alone fixing it. Gary Webb, a dedicated investigative reporter, was literally destroyed by his own efforts to "tell the truth". If this movie is even better, I'll be even more depressed about this country, and the liars and miscreants who run it.
12
I was a member of the NY Air National Guard from 1968 to 1974 and was familiar with my orders typed by an IBM selectric typewriter. I watched Dan Rather's special report and immediately recognized that the Orders displayed on the TV screen by Rather were obvious fakes. Rather and Mapes let their loathing of Bush impair their judgement
13
Got any proof of that?
Also, the documents in this case were copies of copies. Mapes admits that she doesn't have any idea where they came from or who handled them. Therefore they are worse then useless.
Also, the documents in this case were copies of copies. Mapes admits that she doesn't have any idea where they came from or who handled them. Therefore they are worse then useless.
4
It was even worse than that. The Texas ANG used blurry old hand me down Olympia manual typewriters that looked NOTHING like these documents.
1
"dogpatch," This was an intricate and manipulative setup by the Bush team to cover the many rumors that were around at the time concerning "W"'s Vietnam War evasion and being AWOL behavior.
THOUGH I HAVE NOT SEEN "TRUTH" AS YET . . .
...and do not consider myself to be a conspiracy theory person ... well, unless I see credible evidence. I have thought for a long time that longtime CBS reporter and anchor Dan Rather and his producer were indeed "fed to the wolves."
CBS is a publically held corporation and has to report to the stockholders ... and needed some fall people ... because the Rove/Bush W./Murdoch FOX team would have gone after them ... and in a capitalist media organization (well, any corporation which is dependent on stock prices and quarterly revenue reports ... who is more important ... an anchor and his producer or the corporation, its assets profits and its shareholders.
Even when William Paley owned CBS ... even he reigned in Edward R. Murrow who left the network ... and had to work for the government.
Mr. Rather and Ms. Mapes had to be sacrificed especially in the age of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.
...and do not consider myself to be a conspiracy theory person ... well, unless I see credible evidence. I have thought for a long time that longtime CBS reporter and anchor Dan Rather and his producer were indeed "fed to the wolves."
CBS is a publically held corporation and has to report to the stockholders ... and needed some fall people ... because the Rove/Bush W./Murdoch FOX team would have gone after them ... and in a capitalist media organization (well, any corporation which is dependent on stock prices and quarterly revenue reports ... who is more important ... an anchor and his producer or the corporation, its assets profits and its shareholders.
Even when William Paley owned CBS ... even he reigned in Edward R. Murrow who left the network ... and had to work for the government.
Mr. Rather and Ms. Mapes had to be sacrificed especially in the age of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.
17
WOODWOOD and BERNSTEIN had the support of both the editor and publisher of the WP; while RATHER and MAPES were thrown to the wolves due to the new political atmosphere of CBS.
1
This review oddly doesn't mention that (1) in real life,the documents were shown with pretty convincing evidence to be fake, and (2) Mapes & co. negligently ignored indications of the fakeness as they prepared the 60 Minutes piece. Shouldn't that inform our reception of the movie?
15
And yet there is no evidence that contradicts those "fake" documents. George W. Bush was in fact assigned to a safe "champagne unit" and spent enough time AWOL to earn any ordinary service member a court martial.
4
@Neal: but journalism demands a higher standard of proof than allegations.
I was no fan of George Bush's, but I was profoundly shocked that 60 Minutes would use faked documents and xeroxes, and did not do due diligence to substantiate this story.
Given that it was just before the election, it DOES look like a smear campaign (whether that was intentional or not) -- and in retaliation for the "swiftboating" of John Kerry.
I was no fan of George Bush's, but I was profoundly shocked that 60 Minutes would use faked documents and xeroxes, and did not do due diligence to substantiate this story.
Given that it was just before the election, it DOES look like a smear campaign (whether that was intentional or not) -- and in retaliation for the "swiftboating" of John Kerry.
1
So, those who put credence in the report on "Rathergatate" prepared by a former U.S. attorney general and former head of the A.P. are to be likened in the paper of record to JFK truthers. Not surprising, but very sad. Were Mr. Holden and his editors unaware of this report, or where they aware but chose to ignore its findings? They may want to read this:http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/rather-shameful_1039561.html?nopager=1
10
How fortunate for us all that The Weekly Standard has no partisan political agenda. I haven't felt such relief since the Iraqis greeted us as liberators with flowers and candy.
3
In this film two aspects of all our lives are pitted together: "Truth" vs. survival. Yes, the advent of 60 MINUTES changed broadcast news from a sustain responsibility to the realization that it could make money. The days of the preeminence of the glory days of objective news ... most especially on CBS' long history of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite and... was usurped as executives change news to newsotainment and expected ratings and revenues.
Enter Marilyn Mapes (producer for 15 years) and on air Dan Rather. The executives at CBS (a division of Viacom -- the huge corporation which CBS is just part of and its pending legislation in Washington to hold on to many TV owned and operated TV and radio stations.... as they needed G. O . P. approval under "W."
So the glory days of CBS/News and other broadcast networks were sacrificed for the bottom line ... as n the "Truth" was taken over by corporate profits.
Cate Blanchett and Robert Redford do a more than credible job as play Ms. Mapes and Mr. Rather.
All of us are faced in our lives with such situations. And the powerful almost always win.
This film did not make money and no CBS or Viacom outlet allowed any advertising for "Truth." As to why? The answer is obvious.
"Truth" is a truly great moral lesson for all of us as it seems to tell the truth.