The Pravda

Speaking of the decline of entertainment:

Robert Redford has signed on to play Dan Rather in Truth, a film based on the 2005 memoir Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power.

The book, written by Rather’s producer Mary Mapes, centers on the firestorm that erupted in September of 2004 after Rather reported that George W. Bush had received special treatment while serving in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, a report that was based on some documents that were suspected to be forgeries.

Suspected? The documents were such obvious forgeries that some of the liberal bloggers were the first to proclaim them as such. They were very evidently written on Microsoft office and printed on a laser printer. You can read Megan McArdle who goes point-by-point through CBS’s story and Mapes’ subsequent book pointing out that it was obviously a bad a story and any journalist who wasn’t sick the day they taught journalism in journalism school would have seen it. And any journalists who didn’t have her head three feet up her own ass would have realized her horrible mistake quickly:

You can argue that Mapes was missing key pieces of information. Only after the documents aired, for instance, did Killian’s secretary and others point out problems with the jargon used in the documents. With the time pressure she was under, it’s possible to argue — as I have — that Mapes made a forgivable mistake.

What happened next, however, was not forgivable. Even after all the problems were pointed out; even after Bill Burkett changed his story to say that he got his documents from the mysterious “Lucy Ramirez”; even after the typewriter expert Mapes had been unable to contact analyzed the documents and offered his opinion that they were very unlikely to have been written on the typewriters available at the time … even after all this, Mapes insisted that she was right about the documents, and everyone else was either the enabler or the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Of course, refusing to accept that you’ve made an enormous mistake is natural behavior. But at some point, you have to be able to see the obvious.

Other people could, which is why CBS retracted the story, why Mapes and Rather were pushed out, and why the consensus among journalists — from conservative magazines to Mother Jones — is that the documents were faked and Mapes was had.

Like Megan, I don’t think that Rather and Mapes were being evil, at least at first. I think it illustrates a subtle point about the liberal bias in the media: they don’t apply the skepticism to claims about conservatives that they apply to, say, claims that Bill Clinton raped someone. Rather and Mapes wanted to believe their story was true because they didn’t like Bush and we were in a close election.

Everyone has cognitive biases, which is why I sometimes wish the press would give up their pretense of objectivity. But once it became obvious the story was bogus, they crossed the line from gullibility to mendacity. And now Hollywood is going to make a movie glamorizing them starring one of the leads from All the President’s Men, a movie about a genuine journalistic investigation.

The thing is, I can confidently predict two things about this movie: it will be praised by the media and it will flop. This happens all the time with these liberal “issue” movies. There was The Contender, a movie so obviously about the Clinton scandals that Roger Ebert, in a five star review, decided the villain in the piece was Ken Starr. It was praised by critics and nominated for two awards. And it made $22 million because the public didn’t give a shit how “awful” Republican investigations of Clinton were.

Then, in the 2000’s, we had numerous films about the Iraq War: Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, Stop-Loss, etc. Each was praised and each flopped because the public didn’t want to watch them. The only movie that had even moderate success — The Hurt Locker — did so because it was apolitical (although I’m of the opinion that the Academy tapped it for Best Picture under the mistaken belief that it was an anti-war film).

There has been some success of political films in the documentary arena. But Fahrenheit 9/11 was the only one that made serious box office scratch and that almost entirely because it cashed in at precisely the right moment for anti-Bush bullshit.

This movie will flop. It will make about a hundredth of what that shitty Shade of Grey movie is going to make. Because no one wants to see a movie about how poor poor Dan Rather and poor Mary Mapes were really the good guys when they put obviously forged documents on the air to try to influence an election. No one wants to hear their excuse-making about vast right wing conspiracies.

Still … it’s a good illustration of how the Left, including the Hollywood Left, are still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Comments are closed.

  1. West Virginia Rebel

    There are really very few decent movies about the press and media in general. The exceptions (IMO) are All The President’s Men (also with Redford in a far more believable role) Absence of Malice, and Network (which looks more prophetic than ever).

    Thumb up 0

  2. InsipiD

    The reason that movies about the press suck is that the same companies that deal out the news are also in the entertainment business. They get warped into self-congratulatory masturbation fantasies that are just embarrassing to watch. It’s like catching somebody jerking off to their own picture…even though you didn’t do anything wrong, you’re still left feeling dirty.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Miguelito

    Well, since there really hasn’t been any real journalism in a long time… movies about the press would likely be boring as hell if they were 100% honest anyway. Just like most movies would be. How boring would a movie or show that was 100% accurate about, say hacking be? Or even probably 99.99% of spy work? Even movies based on actual events have to take “dramatic license” as they say, or edit/build-in fake tension to keep it from being sleep inducing.

    Thumb up 0