Mary Mapes Twisted Logic

Found the link to this transcript at Ravenwood's Universe.

I find this bit, quoted by RU, just a little disconcerting.

KING: But there's nothing about the story you would change? In other words, even though they've said the documents were forged and...

MAPES: But no one has been able to prove they were forged...

...

KING: Do you believe right this moment they were not false?

MAPES: I believe no one has proved to me that they were false after more than a year.

KING: So you believe they were true ...

MAPES: I believe -- I know. It's an odd situation. I'm perfectly willing to believe they're false if somebody will just prove it.

KING: No one has proven it to you?

MAPES: No, they have not. Their criticisms last year really didn't reach the bar of proof at all.

No one has proven them false to her standards. But, I could have sworn that journalist were supposed to be the ones vetting the information for validity prior to reporting. I still haven't found any references to those documents being authenticated.

Then there's this:

KING: But wasn't the commission that investigated it, weren't they fair, weren't the independent?

MAPES: Well, I don't know, Larry. I mean if your work was being judged, wouldn't you like your work to be judged by people who did the kind of work you did? I mean I don't know what Dick Thornburgh knows about journalism.

I suspect he knows as much about it as I know about being a securities analyst or attorney, which is what the other attorneys were, securities specialists or internal corporation investigation specialists.

I think it was a very legalistic approach. You know they even said we had put Ben Barnes and his story on that he had gotten Bush in the Guard and he was sorry and they ruled that I shouldn't -- we should not have put that on because we couldn't prove it.

So let me get this straight, no one but a journalist can review your behavior, because they don't know anything about journalism? I suppose that could be a valid point if it was a journalist judging whether a mathematical proof was valid. But when reviewing process and reporting of facts, I don't see any validity in her statement. If you can't prove the information, it's just conjecture. Conjecture is for editorials, not news.

Or am I just expecting too much from the MSM?