Hollywood can't handle the truth - AKA Dan Rather's Biggest Whopper Hits the Screen

[maxparrish]

I have a particular interest in the practice of Hollywood historical revisionism, the attempts to create new political myths by rewriting history. There has been quite a few examples, (e.g. Oliver Stones many works) but Rich Lowry, writing in Jewish World Review, illuminates on a particularly laughable new one:

In their perversely titled film, Robert Redford plays Dan Rather and Cate Blanchett plays Mary Mapes, the erstwhile CBS News anchor and producer who collaborated on a spectacularly flawed September 2004 story about George W. Bush's National Guard service. Their report should be taught at journalism schools for a long time to come as an object lesson in how not to attempt journalism.

Rather and Mapes sought to prove that Bush got his spot in the National Guard through political favoritism and then went AWOL. They rushed to air with a story that was too good -- i.e., too potentially damaging to Bush -- to check. It fell apart under the slightest scrutiny, although Rather and Mapes continue to maintain that they got it right. Given their dogged resistance to all contrary evidence and their attachment to their pet theory, a better title for the movie would have been "Truthers."

John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson, writers at the Power Line blog that did so much to unravel the story at the time, recall how the report was deconstructed in a piece for The Weekly Standard.

The independent investigation commissioned by CBS concluded that there was no reason for Bush to need to rely on a political favor to get into the Guard, since it needed pilots. And the purported documents demonstrating Bush was AWOL were a disaster.

The source of the documents, Bill Burkett, repeatedly changed his story about how he had come into possession of them. First, he said that they showed up in the mail; then, that he got them from a man named George Conn; finally, that an alleged woman named Lucy Ramirez hooked him up with a "dark-skinned man" at the Houston Livestock and Rodeo Show (why not go all the way and say he found them on the grassy knoll?).

The characteristics of the documents were consistent with Microsoft Word, not a typewriter in the early 1970s, and whoever wrote them made basic mistakes, like referring to an officer who had already retired. CBS had no choice but to summarily fire Mapes and ease Rather out of one of the most prized seats in journalism. This wouldn't seem to be natural material for spinning a tale of reportorial glory, but the revisionist machinery of the left has done more with less.
...
In a better world, the bloggers who exposed the malfeasance of these seemingly untouchable mandarins of the media would be the ones to get the feature-length film. Not only did they uncover the truth -- to borrow a term -- they were plucky underdogs whose exertions to prevail against a broadcasting behemoth signaled the beginning of a new, more democratic era in the history of the country's media.

...What CBS couldn't defend, the Hollywood left now seeks to rehabilitate.

Ahhhh the Hollywood left, the gift that keeps on giving.


Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1015/lowry101315.php3#S3F0du5k5X7Ez6SD.99

 

[untermensche]

They got one story wrong.

Retracted the whole thing as soon as they learned they were had.

The horror!!!

 

[maxparrish]

They got one story wrong.

Retracted the whole thing as soon as they learned they were had.

The horror!!!

So you make a movie about that?

 

[dismal]

They got one story wrong.

Retracted the whole thing as soon as they learned they were had.

Made a movie glorifying it 10 years later.<<<<<< point of this thread

 

[Tom Sawyer]

They got one story wrong.

Retracted the whole thing as soon as they learned they were had.

Made a movie glorifying it 10 years later.<<<<<< point of this thread

But it's not the point of the movie, which is what the OP gets wrong.

The film is a character drama and it's how the various people interact and how they grow and develop as individuals over the course of the story that matters. Yes, they make mistakes but it's the reactions to these mistakes that matter, not the details of the mistakes.

Whether they're writing news stories and not properly checking the facts or fighting Nazis and not realizing that their unfounded trust in the Russian guy is going to get Little Bobby killed or competing in an Olympic sport and not understanding that the benefits of illegally doping up don't measure up to the costs when they get caught, the mistakes are no more than character building plot points to move things forward and, while they are a central part of the storyline, they're they're not the focus of the storyline.

 

[ksen]

They got one story wrong.

Retracted the whole thing as soon as they learned they were had.

Made a movie glorifying it 10 years later.<<<<<< point of this thread

sounds boring . . . I'll pass

 

[Keith&Co.]

They got one story wrong.

Retracted the whole thing as soon as they learned they were had.

Made a movie glorifying it 10 years later.<<<<<< point of this thread

sounds boring . . . I'll pass

I guess it depends on what, exactly, is being 'glorified.' That in the end, truth will out? Or that it's a darn shame the story didn't do more to damage Bush?

 

[dismal]

They got one story wrong.

Retracted the whole thing as soon as they learned they were had.

Made a movie glorifying it 10 years later.<<<<<< point of this thread

But it's not the point of the movie, which is what the OP gets wrong.

The film is a character drama and it's how the various people interact and how they grow and develop as individuals over the course of the story that matters. Yes, they make mistakes but it's the reactions to these mistakes that matter, not the details of the mistakes.

Whether they're writing news stories and not properly checking the facts or fighting Nazis and not realizing that their unfounded trust in the Russian guy is going to get Little Bobby killed or competing in an Olympic sport and not understanding that the benefits of illegally doping up don't measure up to the costs when they get caught, the mistakes are no more than character building plot points to move things forward and, while they are a central part of the storyline, they're they're not the focus of the storyline.

“It’s astounding how little truth there is in ‘Truth,’” a CBS spokesman said in response to Variety’s inquiry. “There are, in fact, too many distortions, evasions and baseless conspiracy theories to enumerate them all. The film tries to turn gross errors of journalism and judgment into acts of heroism and martyrdom. That’s a disservice not just to the public but to journalists across the world who go out every day and do everything within their power, sometimes at great risk to themselves, to get the story right.”

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/truth-cbs-news-dan-rather-bush-mary-mapes-1201610778/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Exactly what I'm saying. CBS is making the same mistake you are. The complaint is like saying that The Martian is trying to turn gross errors in NASA mission protocols into acts of heroism. While there were mistakes and errors in judgement made throughout the film, those mistakes are used to drive the plot forward and create tension and drama. They're not there to be the focal points of the film.

 

[maxparrish]

Exactly what I'm saying. CBS is making the same mistake you are. The complaint is like saying that The Martian is trying to turn gross errors in NASA mission protocols into acts of heroism. While there were mistakes and errors in judgement made throughout the film, those mistakes are used to drive the plot forward and create tension and drama. They're not there to be the focal points of the film.

As it has yet to be released to a general audience, I would suppose that few here have seen it. However, you seem to imply you have. Till the 16th, I (we?) must rely on other's impressions.

For example, an article at the Daily Beast headlines: "The Movie CBS and George W. Bush Don’t Want You to See". Based on Mary Mapes memoir, "this quest (only for the truth) led "60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes and veteran CBS News anchor Dan Rather to air the segment “For the Record,” which questioned President George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

The "chummy" team of fatherly Dan Rather and the truth seeking intrepid firebrand is eager for a juicy story. Mapes assembles her "crack team" including a colonel (Dennis Quaid), a professor (Elisabeth Moss), a researcher (Topher Grace), and Rather, assuming a hands-off role.

Bill Burkett (Stacy Keach), a former Texas Army National Guardsman, hands Mapes documents purportedly drafted by Bush’s commander, criticizing Bush’s service record and insinuating that he did not fulfill his 6-year commitment to the Guard. Burkett spins a yarn that he received the documents from Chief Warrant Officer George Conn of the Texas Air National Guard, who acquired them from Killian’s personal files.

Mapes presses to air on September 8, leaving only four days to verify the documents. They interview former Lt. Gov. of Texas Ben Barnes, who says that he personally recommended Bush for the TexANG; Killian’s pal Robert Strong, claim they ran other checks, and hired four document experts who couldn't agree.

The segment airs on 60 Minutes, and as soon as the gang’s done celebrating, the blogosphere erupts with claims that the Killian docs are forgeries, alleging that the spacing, font, superscript, etc. were all compatible with a document created using the current version of Microsoft Word. Mapes and Rather stand by the report, even producing follow-up segments defending the original piece.

After "chilling" insults and threats from enraged "trolls"...

A CBS-appointed panel to review the 60 Minutes segment is depicted in the film as the final insult, a show trial of sorts co-led by Dick Thornburgh, who served as Attorney General under Bush Sr. In another telling scene which is sure to rattle CBS, Topher Grace’s researcher experiences a Jerry Maguire-esque meltdown, accusing CBS of caving in to the demands of their parent company Viacom, who’ve targeted this story under pressure from the White House in order to curry favor with the administration. “You think Viacom wants the administration on their side?” he asks (more like tells).

Mapes is seen as a victim in all this—both of Burkett’s ruse and of the CBS brass, who throw her directly under the bus. The film’s finest scene sees Blanchett deliver a blistering monologue to the Thornburgh review panel detailing how difficult it would be to and how much inside information would be required to falsify the Killian documents.

Mapes is both hero and victim, and Rather an unrepentant mentor. To them, they should never have retracted it (and later at least one of them blamed it on a "Rove plot"...LOL).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-and-george-w-bush-don-t-want-you-to-see.html

So how accurate to the real history is this film?

 

[Jayjay]

Spoiler: it turns out Dan Rather was working for Hydra all along.

I for one don't care about movies being accurate to reality. JFK is a great movie, even if it is full of shit historically, for example. I probably won't see this one though because reality is limiting and it sounds like a rather boring plot, especially since we all know what's going to happen in advance.

 

[maxparrish]

Tom Saywer,

Another view provided by Hinderaker and Johnson, at Weekly Standard (link at bottom):

The Democrats and their allies were already primed to make disparagement of President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard - one of the leading themes of their campaign. Ms. Mapes (et. al.) most likely took the left "truthie" as merely needing confirmation and she had her juicy story - in the making since 1999. In fact, 60 minutes had scheduled a story attacking Bush and his service record, and the Kerry campaign who coordinated with the CBS were ready when the story was rushed to the air on the 8th. "Dubbed Operation Fortunate Son"... the Kerry campaign operation anticipated and then sought to maximize the impact of the CBS report."

Dan Rather and Mapes story opened with "a reference to the attack earlier that year on Kerry’s service by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who had served with him in Vietnam". But "Rather noted that President Bush had been criticized for his military service as well, both for avoiding Vietnam and for shirking his duties. In May 1968, Bush had joined the TexANG, where he was trained to fly the F-102 interceptor jet, no easy task. But CBS had come to bury Bush, not to praise him."

Touting the claims of Ben Barnes, the Democratic former speaker of the Texas house and lieutenant governor, the vice chairman of Kerry’s national finance committee and a top fundraiser for Kerry delivered. Barnes implied that he had pulled strings to get Bush into the TexANG.

Mapes and Rather produced several documents that CBS posted online that evening. "Online commenters almost immediately took issue with the authenticity of the documents. Atlanta attorney Harry MacDougald first alleged that the documents appeared to be fabrications created by a modern word processor, not typewritten documents from the old files of Killian as advertised. Many others followed up, and indeed the documents quickly proved to be word-processed forgeries. CBS was unable to identify a single witness to authenticate them. Rather’s source—Bill Burkett, a virulent Bush critic and former member of the Texas Army National Guard—finally confessed to the CBS anchor that he had lied about where he obtained the documents."

CBS held out for a few weeks but "coincident with Rather’s apology CBS commissioned an internal investigation. Former attorney general Richard Thornburgh and former AP head Louis Boccardi conducted the inquest. They interviewed witnesses and reviewed evidence. In early January 2005 they submitted their Report of the Independent Review Panel and posted it online, where it is still accessible and, as the reviews of Truth suggest, still required reading."

"The report notes that Burkett gave three explanations, whose implausibility increased in each successive version. He told one intermediary that the documents mysteriously materialized in the mail. He then told Mapes that the documents were provided to him by one George Conn, but that Conn would never admit to being the source. Mapes made virtually no attempt to contact Conn or to confirm this story, which Burkett later admitted was false. That was the state of Mapes’s knowledge when the story aired on September 8."

Here is the kicker, even after all the document fraud and the crazy stories provided by Burkett (including that his papers were hidden in a venison locker) "Mapes still pretends to believe Burkett. Drawing on the sense God gave them, the Thornburgh-Boccardi panel did not. Killian’s family, as it happens, said such files of his as Burkett purported to pass along never existed. The Thornburgh-Boccardi report drily observes: “It does not appear, based on information available to the Panel, that [Mrs. Killian] was asked whether her husband had personal files, used a typewriter or had a secretary.”"

In fact, "The Thornburgh-Boccardi report also notes that Mapes had learned in the course of her reporting that no influence was used to get President Bush into the TexANG. There was no line of aspiring pilots waiting to fly the difficult and dangerous F-102 in 1968. No pull was needed to secure Bush a spot to train as a pilot."

In fact...

Mapes had been pursuing the story of Bush’s National Guard service since 1999, longer than Captain Ahab pursued Moby Dick. In 1999 Mapes had interviewed witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the TexANG’s needs for personnel, including TexANG Brigadier General Walter “Buck” Staudt and Major General Bobby W. Hodges. They “told her that, contrary to Barnes’ statement, no influence was used to get Bush into the TexANG and that Barnes himself” was uncertain anyone had “gotten [Bush] in.” Mapes’s 1999 notes reflected Hodges having told her that the group was “hurting for pilots.” Rather himself had been told in 1999 that there were several open pilot slots when Bush enlisted. Yet “For the Record” peddled the false narrative that was to be advertised in the Operation Fortunate Son ad campaign—namely, that Bush had “jumped the line.”

Every good story needs a hero and a villain. Mapes is the hero of her own story, both the story told in the film and the memoir on which it is based. The film must get the old hate on for President Bush, of course, and it reserves some scorn for the blogs that helped expose her derelictions, but it serves up corporate CBS/Viacom as the villain. CBS/Viacom supposedly commissioned the Thornburgh-Boccardi investigation and fired Mapes in deference to the political powers that be (or were) for base commercial reasons. CBS terminated Mapes’s employment on January 10, 2005, following the submission of the Thornburgh-Boccardi report to management. Mapes quotes CBS News president Andrew Heyward telling her concisely: “[T]he report is out. It’s very bad. You’re being terminated.”

A reasonable person would conclude that Mapes was fired for appalling professional misconduct, which disgraced and betrayed her colleagues (including Rather) and the company for which she worked. If Mapes is the hero of Truth, we should note that Truth is a production of Mythology Entertainment. Truth—and the truth—are indeed out there somewhere.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/rather-shameful_1039561.html?nopager=1

Is that the movie you saw?

 

[Ford]

sounds boring . . . I'll pass

I guess it depends on what, exactly, is being 'glorified.' That in the end, truth will out? Or that it's a darn shame the story didn't do more to damage Bush?

I think the point of the thread is that you're supposed to be very angry that Hollywood made a movie. Anger at Hollywood making movies is a common theme among right wingers who haven't quite figured out that the best thing to do is ignore the fucking movie if it pisses you off so much.

Apparently we're all supposed to be extra special angry that this movie - which is a dramatization of actual events - strays from the actual events or puts them in a different light than what right wingers would like.

As if that doesn't ever happen in movies that are dramatizations!


I'd be willing to bet that when the new Trumbo movie comes out, wingers will be apoplectic if it doesn't portray Joseph McCarthy as an American hero, or dares put the "Hollywood Ten" in a good light.

 

[untermensche]

They got one story wrong.

Retracted the whole thing as soon as they learned they were had.

The horror!!!

So you make a movie about that?

Sure. It's got everything.

Betrayal, lies, a great fall.

Sounds like Hollywood to me.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Holy shit. Did Max give serious replies to my posts? That's even funnier than my posts.