BTW: I’d be interested in your opinion of Palast.

Roll on, true believer. Everything is going to be all right.

Only one person says that Mapes ever used the word “unimpeachable” to describe her source. That person’s account is contradicted by the account of three other people who were part of that conversation.

Yet you have stated as an unqualified fact that Mapes said “unimpeachable source.”

If you bother to read Mapes book, it is clear that she is aware that Burkett had been subjected to a right-wing smear campaign — but she felt comfortable with him as a source of documents because of his overwhelming sense of personal ethics. Based on that, I don’t think she would have described Burkett as “unimpeachable” when there are so many other phrases that she could have used (like “completely reliable”).

My point here is that people make unqualified claims are Rather and Mapes that they cannot substantiate — these claims get repeated because no one ever bothers to challenge them. Most of what most people think they know about the “Killian memos story” is either dead wrong, or distortions of the truth.

I could find no record of either Mapes or Rather using the words “unimpeachable” to describe their source for the documents. CBS News did issue a press release with that phrasing (it should also be noted that one of four people — but only one of four — who were on a conference call claim that Mapes used the word “unimpeachable” to describe her source. ) Nevertheless, the right wing is full of website where you can find claims that both Rather and Mapes used that term.

Which suggests that Rather and Mapes using the words “unimpeachable source” is one more example of the mythomania surrounding this whole issue — but feel free to prove me wrong on that, and provide a non-wingnut link that cites either of them using those words at a specific date and time.

Doesn’t describing the then unnamed Bill Burkett as an unimpeachable source preclude any consideration of Mapes having acted in good faith?

Maybe I’m missing something here. Was Bill Burkett an unimpeachable source in your opinion?

Curiously enough, the editor of Online Journal took umbrage at the imprecise way that the CBS report had portrayed their work. Linda Starr was no blogger but “an Online Journal assistant editor whose work mainly involves research, compiling the news alerts sent to the Online Journal Mailing List and appearing as a guest on various radio and webcast programs” and OJ itself was no online newsletter but “globally read online publication—or zine, if you wish.”

Oh well. Our inadequate vocabulary for the emerging digital media fails us once again.

You say Mapes — who like Rather has done brilliant journalism in her career, which makes this so unfortunate — is being pilloried unfairly for screwing up. But come on, she doesn’t really admit the truly serious errors in this story. She’s still saying that the standard should be that someone has to prove the documents phony, when that violates common sense and (at least my) journalistic principles.

Let’s agree to disagree on this.

The premise of the Killian documents was that they were personal memos and not stored in the military records.

what you perceive as my “defense” of Mapes has nothing to do with my role as the person who pointed Mapes to Linda Starr — the person who pointed Mapes to Burkett. Mapes (and other journalists) had been asking me about rumored “other documents” for week/months. Despite the fact that I’d been told directly on numerous previous occasion by Starr that she’d seen additional documents, I never disclosed that to anyone. Only after Starr stated publicly, in her blog, that she had seen additional document did I say anything to Mapes about them — and only in response to a question. In other words, Starr’s claim was a matter of public record — and it was only when it was a matter of public record that I mentioned it to anyone.

What bothers me is that Mapes acted in good faith — and was crucified for screwing up. Journalists screw up all the time, and get away with it. Hell, close to 3800 Americans might still be alive today if the entire journalistic (with a few notable exceptions) hadn’t screwed up — Mary Mapes mistake didn’t cost anyone their lives. Howard Kurtz and Michael Dobbs can make stuff up out of whole cloth in an article attacking Mapes credibility — and can still keep their jobs.

People think that Mapes does not acknowledge making mistakes — but she does. She also, however, argues that she acted in good faith, and that she was treated unfairly, and to the Dan Gilmors of the world, that is unacceptable.

***********

The simplest way to do that would have been for an FOI request for those particular files.

unfortunately, the reported source “Killian memos” was not official documents, but Killian’s personal files– which of course are not subject to an FOIA request. Bush’s own military records do back up the narrative described by the Killian memos.