Mary Mapes Hits Bloggers and MSM in Upcoming Book--But What's With the Kurtz Excerpts?

"Faxing changes a document in so many ways, large and small, that analyzing a memo that had been faxed -- -in some cases not once, but twice -- -was virtually impossible. The faxing destroyed the subtle arcs and lines in the letters. The characters bled into each other. The details of how the typed characters failed to line up perfectly inside each word were lost."">Mary Mapes Hits Bloggers and MSM in Upcoming Book--But What's With the Kurtz Excerpts?: "--'Faxing changes a document in so many ways, large and small, that analyzing a memo that had been faxed -- -in some cases not once, but twice -- -was virtually impossible. The faxing destroyed the subtle arcs and lines in the letters. The characters bled into each other. The details of how the typed characters failed to line up perfectly inside each word were lost."

Ummm, this statement is inaccurate in SO many ways... It doesn't matter how many times you fax something, things such as individual letter size and alignment NEVER change. It takes a computer to do that...

Faxing cannot cause a word on one line to move onto a different line.

Faxing cannot cause the width of individual lines to become different respectively to each other.

Faxing cannot cause two letters to shrink and move up in line to appear to be a superscript (exactly where a superscript would go for that matter).

Faxing cannot change a font into a completely differently structured font (it can only make subtle changes in appearance).

Faxing cannot explain all the inconsistencies this person is trying to blame on faxing.


Oh, and this statement is funny...

--"To these people, there was no such thing as unbiased mainstream reporting, certainly not when it came to criticism of the president, no matter how tepid. To them, there was Fox News and everything else -- and everything else was liberal and unfair."

Looks like someone is jealous of the fact that they are no longer able to solely dominate people sources of news and information... And she says it like bloggers are the evil doers and they are the only source of truth... Like the bloggers have no right to say anything.

The bottom question I have to ask is: Why did they not bother to bring any of these inconsistencies to the forefront when reporting on the memo to begin with? Valid dissenters came to them to give them information, and they didn't even bother to talk to them at all. To be subjective is to look at both sides of the issue. The bloggers took a defensive stance because the media source was completely one sided, and purposely electing to IGNORE those who brought valid discention against THEIR story... Had they done their full jobs as journalists, this person would not have anything to complain about...

They elected to run with a one sided story and didn't even say "while we believe the story is true, we felt obligated to disclose..." Not only did they not feel obligated to disclose, they also didn't feel obligated to investigate...