What do you think?
Rate this book
Truth And Duty: The Press, The President, And The Privilege Of Power
It was a great story. A true story. The kind of story any news producer would love to report, nail down and get on the air. And that's just what Mary Mapes and her producing and reporting team did in September, 2004, when Dan Rather anchored their report on President George W. Bush's dereliction of his National Guard duty for CBS News. The firestorm that followed their broadcast trashed Mapes' well-respected career, caused Rather to resign from his anchor chair a year early, and led to an unprecedented "internal inquiry" into the story--chaired by former Reagan Attorney General Richard Thornburgh.
TRUTH AND DUTY is Mapes' account of the often-surreal, always-harrowing fallout she experienced for raising questions about a powerful sitting president. It goes back to examine Bush's political roots as governor of Texas and answers questions about the solidity of the documents at the heart of the National Guard story as well as where they came from. Her book takes readers not just into the newsroom where coverage decisions are made, but out into the field where the real reporting is done. TRUTH AND DUTY is peopled with a colorful and vigorous cast of characters--from Karl Rove to Sumner Redstone, Bill Burkett to Dan Rather--and moves from small-town rural Texas to the deserts of Afghanistan, from hurricane season in Florida to CBS corporate headquarters Black Rock in New York City.
TRUTH AND DUTY is a riveting account of how the public's right to know--or even to ask questions--is being attacked by an alliance of politicians, news organizations, bloggers and corporate America. It connects the dots between the emergence of a kind of digital McCarthyism, a corporation under fire from the federal government, and the decision about what kinds of stories a news network can cover (human yes; political no).
An answer to Bernard Goldberg and the thunder from the right, TRUTH AND DUTY is always fast, sometimes furious, and often unexpectedly funny about the collapse of one of America's great institutions.
TRUTH AND DUTY is Mapes' account of the often-surreal, always-harrowing fallout she experienced for raising questions about a powerful sitting president. It goes back to examine Bush's political roots as governor of Texas and answers questions about the solidity of the documents at the heart of the National Guard story as well as where they came from. Her book takes readers not just into the newsroom where coverage decisions are made, but out into the field where the real reporting is done. TRUTH AND DUTY is peopled with a colorful and vigorous cast of characters--from Karl Rove to Sumner Redstone, Bill Burkett to Dan Rather--and moves from small-town rural Texas to the deserts of Afghanistan, from hurricane season in Florida to CBS corporate headquarters Black Rock in New York City.
TRUTH AND DUTY is a riveting account of how the public's right to know--or even to ask questions--is being attacked by an alliance of politicians, news organizations, bloggers and corporate America. It connects the dots between the emergence of a kind of digital McCarthyism, a corporation under fire from the federal government, and the decision about what kinds of stories a news network can cover (human yes; political no).
An answer to Bernard Goldberg and the thunder from the right, TRUTH AND DUTY is always fast, sometimes furious, and often unexpectedly funny about the collapse of one of America's great institutions.
371 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2005
42 people are currently reading
474 people want to read
About the author
Mary Mapes
4 books4 followersFrom Wikipedia: Mapes grew up with four sisters in Burlington, Washington.Her parents were Republicans.Her father, from whom she was estranged, was an abusive alcoholic. Mapes graduated from Burlington-Edison High School in 1974, and studied communications and political science at the University of Washington. In the 1980s she worked at KIRO-TV in Seattle. There she also met her husband Mark Wrolstad when she was a producer and he was a reporter. They married in 1987.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
January 15, 2023
A journalist must have a thick skin. I was told this by several of my co-workers when I went to work at a small suburban newspaper in 2000.
I was in my late-20s and excited to have a job that would utilize my writing skills. My four years of college and several thousands of dollars in student debt were finally paying off. After college graduation in ’95, I “squandered” my life working in the produce department at a grocery store and then a steel factory. I whiled away my evenings (and hard-earned cash) going to bars and nightclubs in Cleveland’s Flats district, a section of the city so hip and trendy that it killed itself within a decade. (Seriously, the Flats today are as dead as the city’s steel industry.)
I wasn’t too worried about the “thick skin” thing. I fancied myself a pretty tough cookie. It never once occurred to me that people who use terms like “tough cookie” are most likely killed and eaten in the world of journalism.
The first red flag that indicated to me that journalism may not be for me was when the mayor of a city I covered called me a “liar” and an “asshole” and accused me of “libel”.
It should be noted that, prior to this incident, I had the utmost respect for this mayor. While she had a reputation for being a ball-buster, I had never had any problems with her. She had done many great things for the city, including cleaning an entire section of the downtown area by tearing down seedy hotels and porn stores that were notorious for prostitution and drug dealers. She had subsequently brought in a ton of new businesses to fill in the new area, including a Dunkin’ Donuts, which I frequented often. Needless to say, she was kind of heroic, in my mind.
Unfortunately, as politicians are wont to do occasionally, she did some stupid things with money. Specifically, she lost some. To be fair, it wasn’t just her. It was a team effort that included the city treasurer and several of the council members that she was notoriously buddy-buddy with. The money---which was somewhere in the six digits---went missing from a rainy day fund.
One of the council members chastised the mayor during a council meeting, saying she had “raped the funds”. It was such a good line that my editor decided to use it in the headline. Probably not the wisest decisions on his part.
In any case, she called me the day the paper hit the stands and claimed that I had misquoted her, her quotes were taken out of context, or I had simply made shit up. What started out as a heated conversation quickly became, on her part, a ripping of a new asshole for me. It stung.
The problem was, I always took a mini-recorder with me to every meeting. I recorded every minute of every council meeting and then, after the meeting, I transcribed everything, word-for-word. I kept the tapes for just such occasions.
I told the mayor that I couldn’t have misquoted her and I certainly couldn’t have “made shit up” because I wrote everything verbatim from my recording of the meeting. This silenced her.
“I thought we were on friendly terms, Scott,” she said. “This story makes us look stupid and incompetent.”
I wanted to say I didn’t make you look stupid and incompetent, Mayor, you made yourselves look that way but I didn’t.
Instead, I said, “I’m really sorry, Mayor.”
She hung up. She refused to sit for interviews after that, and our relationship never really was the same. Neither was the relationship I had with the other council members who were on her “team”. Most of them clammed up permanently after that.
I wish I could say that I wasn’t affected by this, but I was. I found myself, soon afterward, in a chemically-imbalanced depressive episode brought on by stress and anxiety that involved sleepless nights, lethargy, and random bawling. Everyone I knew said that I needed to see a doctor and a therapist, which is what I did. I was given a prescription for happy pills and weekly “talk therapy” sessions.
*****
Mary Mapes, a former CBS news producer and journalist, has a thick skin. She has been called worse than “asshole” and “liar” by many people, but she shakes it off. She is the epitome of “tough cookie”.
In 2004, working for the TV show 60 Minutes Wednesday (a spin-off of the long-running popular Sunday night show), Mapes produced a show for Dan Rather which showed that President George W. Bush managed to avoid going to Vietnam thanks to pulled strings by his father, a Senator at the time. Bush served in The Texas Air National Guard instead, but, according to Mapes, evidence suggests that Bush wasn’t a very stellar Guardsman, shirking his duties and performing poorly. Rumors of rampant partying and drinking (which even Bush doesn’t deny) abounded throughout the Texas Air National Guard and throughout his many careers in Texas.
It was a good story, one that highlighted issues of racial and class privilege and inequality. It also went directly to the integrity and personality of Bush, his hypocrisy in sending thousands of young men to fight for this country in (another) pointless war while he himself didn’t have the guts to fight when called.
More importantly, it was a truthful story, one that was backed up by four long years of research and fact-checking on Mapes’ part.
In the end, though, it didn’t matter. Politics and money trumped the truth. Mapes was fired from her job.
She tells the story in her fascinating and disturbing memoir, “Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power”.
It’s appropriate that “The Press” comes first in her subtitle, as this book is first and foremost about how corporations are ruining journalism, especially television journalism.
“Journalism,” she writes, “particularly television, no longer does complex, complicated, or subtle very well. It rarely does real investigation. And God knows, journalism today has devolved into repeating more than reporting. If it’s online, it will soon be on the air. And the anchors and reporters broadcasting it are not checking out the facts in each case. They can’t. There is just no time in a world of twenty-four-hour-a-day news cycles, where a story erupts, gets beaten like a dead horse, and then gets dragged off-screen to make way for something new. (p.29)”
The days of Woodward & Bernstein and Watergate are long gone. A story like Watergate would never see the light of day. It’s simply not “sexy” enough for today’s glamour- and sex-obsessed TV landscape. It also can’t be summed in a 60-second soundbite, which most news stories are required to. Today’s news must compete with “Family Guy” and “The Bachelor”.
The best journalists today, according to Mapes, are working outside the system. Not that good journalism isn’t being done by the big networks or cable news shows, but most news conglomerates are owned by corporations, which own politicians, and they can squash any story that could embarrass them.
Journalists working outside the corporate news structure aren’t restricted by the Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes corporate bullshit. Unfortunately, mainstream media has developed such an awful reputation, most polls show that a majority (as in, more than half) of the general public receive their news from fake news shows like The Daily Show or Bill Maher or Internet websites such as the Huffington Post.
Mapes still believes in hard journalism: “[A]ggressive journalism... is the most important tool we have in this country to keep government honest, to keep people informed, and to keep democracy intact. Sometimes journalism is practiced in ways that make us proud, sometimes in ways that cause us profound embarrassment. But at its core, news gathering is a noble profession. (p.33)”
****
Mapes started gathering information about the Bush National Guard story even before Bush was inaugurated in 2000. Working in Texas, Mapes had heard the rumors and stories about Bush’s wild halcyon days during the Vietnam Era. His “stint” in the Texas Air National Guard was well-known, albeit somewhat vague. Campaign literature and biographies about Bush the Younger always insisted that he served with honor and that he was, eventually, honorably discharged. Stories abounded, however, that suggested otherwise.
It was well known that sons of the wealthy could---and often did---avoid tours of duty in Vietnam by serving in military units here in the states. Waiting lists for these units were often ridiculously long, and it was almost impossible to get into these units, but if your parents had the right connections and---more importantly---money, waiting lists could be bypassed.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served in Vietnam, said, in one of his autobiographies, “I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in the reserves and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country. (p. 60)”
At the height of Vietnam---1968---graduate school deferments were no longer an option for young men. Many of these men were hoping to find alternative ways to avoid being sent to Vietnam. The National Guard, for many, was a viable option, except that most Guard units were completely full, and many had extremely long waiting lists. The Texas Air National Guard was no exception.
While Mapes was never able to get an actual figure or a confirmation on any number, several high-ranking officers in the Texas Air National Guard at that time confirmed that the unit was completely full with a waiting list of somewhere between 150 and 200 names.
Deals, however, could be made, and strings could be pulled, especially if you were the son of a senator. This is what appeared to be the case with George W. Bush. Regardless of how he managed to get in, the fact remains that Bush was admitted into the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968.
Rumors abounded for years that during his stint, Bush had gone AWOL, that he was a wash-out, that he didn’t take his stint in the unit seriously, and, in fact, had a reputation for partying and drinking heavily when he should have been on duty. Keep in mind, too, that these rumors existed among those who even considered themselves friendly to the Bush family and long before Bush had any interest in politics.
In campaign literature and even his father’s biography, though, the story was always that Bush was an “air force pilot” and a good one. No hint of impropriety or dishonorable conduct exists in any pro-Bush literature. Of course.
Former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes once admitted to an audience of Vietnam veterans and their families that he “was ashamed that, while publicly touting the war as a just cause, he had privately helped young men avoid service in Vietnam. He said that he had helped President Bush and others avoid combat by helping them get into the much safer Texas Air National Guard, where their chances of being sent overseas without volunteering were virtually zero. Barnes added that he was sorry for his complicity in helping some people stay out of the war when so many other young men had no choice but to comply. (p.155)”
He later tried to deny these statements, but an audience member had secretly recorded it and put it on the Internet. The cat was officially out of the bag.
Then again, the cat had been out of the bag for years, as Mapes had, over the course of four years, interviewed dozens of people who could corroborate parts of the story. As a whole, Mapes never fully acquired a completely full picture, but she had gathered enough to constitute a worthy news piece that was both a harsh indictment of Bush’s behavior during the war years and a human interest piece about how some men utilized whatever advantages that they could---in Bush’s case, wealthy white privilege---to understandably avoid going to war.
What she knew was this: There was a year-long gap in the record of Bush’s service for the Guard. No one on record could verify that Bush was ever actually on base or actually performed his duty as a Guardsman. Indeed, the fact was that young Bush was busily working on the U.S. Senate campaign of Winton Blount, a family friend, when he should have been flying planes.
Mapes came into possession of several memos, one of which showed that Bush and another man were suspended from flying. It also stated that Bush was bounced back to a training plane. Reasons for all this were not cited, but the memos simply confirmed what was already official record.
When Mapes and her team compiled the story for 60 Minutes Wednesday, the memos were a small part of the story. She had no reason to doubt the memos’ authenticity, as they were in line with much of the information she had already gathered. There was absolutely no reason to think that they were forgeries.
Despite this fact, shortly after the story aired, so-called “experts” began springing up on conservative news media like FOX News claiming that the documents were forgeries, citing fonts and the use of superscripts to “prove” their theory that the documents were fake.
Never mind that the information in the documents were never disputed by anyone. The whole authenticity argument was, according to Mapes, a smokescreen to divert attention away from the fact that her story was, indeed, factual. Sadly, the smokescreen was a success.
Under pressure from CBS executives, Dan Rather resigned and Mapes was fired.
Mapes never really stood a chance against the corporate machinery that ran CBS News, whose sole interests were bottom line rather than truth-telling, and it is this that is the most significant take-away from “Truth and Duty”. Mapes’ book is not a Bush-bashing whine-fest, as some conservative critics have labelled it. They clearly miss the point.
I was in my late-20s and excited to have a job that would utilize my writing skills. My four years of college and several thousands of dollars in student debt were finally paying off. After college graduation in ’95, I “squandered” my life working in the produce department at a grocery store and then a steel factory. I whiled away my evenings (and hard-earned cash) going to bars and nightclubs in Cleveland’s Flats district, a section of the city so hip and trendy that it killed itself within a decade. (Seriously, the Flats today are as dead as the city’s steel industry.)
I wasn’t too worried about the “thick skin” thing. I fancied myself a pretty tough cookie. It never once occurred to me that people who use terms like “tough cookie” are most likely killed and eaten in the world of journalism.
The first red flag that indicated to me that journalism may not be for me was when the mayor of a city I covered called me a “liar” and an “asshole” and accused me of “libel”.
It should be noted that, prior to this incident, I had the utmost respect for this mayor. While she had a reputation for being a ball-buster, I had never had any problems with her. She had done many great things for the city, including cleaning an entire section of the downtown area by tearing down seedy hotels and porn stores that were notorious for prostitution and drug dealers. She had subsequently brought in a ton of new businesses to fill in the new area, including a Dunkin’ Donuts, which I frequented often. Needless to say, she was kind of heroic, in my mind.
Unfortunately, as politicians are wont to do occasionally, she did some stupid things with money. Specifically, she lost some. To be fair, it wasn’t just her. It was a team effort that included the city treasurer and several of the council members that she was notoriously buddy-buddy with. The money---which was somewhere in the six digits---went missing from a rainy day fund.
One of the council members chastised the mayor during a council meeting, saying she had “raped the funds”. It was such a good line that my editor decided to use it in the headline. Probably not the wisest decisions on his part.
In any case, she called me the day the paper hit the stands and claimed that I had misquoted her, her quotes were taken out of context, or I had simply made shit up. What started out as a heated conversation quickly became, on her part, a ripping of a new asshole for me. It stung.
The problem was, I always took a mini-recorder with me to every meeting. I recorded every minute of every council meeting and then, after the meeting, I transcribed everything, word-for-word. I kept the tapes for just such occasions.
I told the mayor that I couldn’t have misquoted her and I certainly couldn’t have “made shit up” because I wrote everything verbatim from my recording of the meeting. This silenced her.
“I thought we were on friendly terms, Scott,” she said. “This story makes us look stupid and incompetent.”
I wanted to say I didn’t make you look stupid and incompetent, Mayor, you made yourselves look that way but I didn’t.
Instead, I said, “I’m really sorry, Mayor.”
She hung up. She refused to sit for interviews after that, and our relationship never really was the same. Neither was the relationship I had with the other council members who were on her “team”. Most of them clammed up permanently after that.
I wish I could say that I wasn’t affected by this, but I was. I found myself, soon afterward, in a chemically-imbalanced depressive episode brought on by stress and anxiety that involved sleepless nights, lethargy, and random bawling. Everyone I knew said that I needed to see a doctor and a therapist, which is what I did. I was given a prescription for happy pills and weekly “talk therapy” sessions.
*****
Mary Mapes, a former CBS news producer and journalist, has a thick skin. She has been called worse than “asshole” and “liar” by many people, but she shakes it off. She is the epitome of “tough cookie”.
In 2004, working for the TV show 60 Minutes Wednesday (a spin-off of the long-running popular Sunday night show), Mapes produced a show for Dan Rather which showed that President George W. Bush managed to avoid going to Vietnam thanks to pulled strings by his father, a Senator at the time. Bush served in The Texas Air National Guard instead, but, according to Mapes, evidence suggests that Bush wasn’t a very stellar Guardsman, shirking his duties and performing poorly. Rumors of rampant partying and drinking (which even Bush doesn’t deny) abounded throughout the Texas Air National Guard and throughout his many careers in Texas.
It was a good story, one that highlighted issues of racial and class privilege and inequality. It also went directly to the integrity and personality of Bush, his hypocrisy in sending thousands of young men to fight for this country in (another) pointless war while he himself didn’t have the guts to fight when called.
More importantly, it was a truthful story, one that was backed up by four long years of research and fact-checking on Mapes’ part.
In the end, though, it didn’t matter. Politics and money trumped the truth. Mapes was fired from her job.
She tells the story in her fascinating and disturbing memoir, “Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power”.
It’s appropriate that “The Press” comes first in her subtitle, as this book is first and foremost about how corporations are ruining journalism, especially television journalism.
“Journalism,” she writes, “particularly television, no longer does complex, complicated, or subtle very well. It rarely does real investigation. And God knows, journalism today has devolved into repeating more than reporting. If it’s online, it will soon be on the air. And the anchors and reporters broadcasting it are not checking out the facts in each case. They can’t. There is just no time in a world of twenty-four-hour-a-day news cycles, where a story erupts, gets beaten like a dead horse, and then gets dragged off-screen to make way for something new. (p.29)”
The days of Woodward & Bernstein and Watergate are long gone. A story like Watergate would never see the light of day. It’s simply not “sexy” enough for today’s glamour- and sex-obsessed TV landscape. It also can’t be summed in a 60-second soundbite, which most news stories are required to. Today’s news must compete with “Family Guy” and “The Bachelor”.
The best journalists today, according to Mapes, are working outside the system. Not that good journalism isn’t being done by the big networks or cable news shows, but most news conglomerates are owned by corporations, which own politicians, and they can squash any story that could embarrass them.
Journalists working outside the corporate news structure aren’t restricted by the Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes corporate bullshit. Unfortunately, mainstream media has developed such an awful reputation, most polls show that a majority (as in, more than half) of the general public receive their news from fake news shows like The Daily Show or Bill Maher or Internet websites such as the Huffington Post.
Mapes still believes in hard journalism: “[A]ggressive journalism... is the most important tool we have in this country to keep government honest, to keep people informed, and to keep democracy intact. Sometimes journalism is practiced in ways that make us proud, sometimes in ways that cause us profound embarrassment. But at its core, news gathering is a noble profession. (p.33)”
****
Mapes started gathering information about the Bush National Guard story even before Bush was inaugurated in 2000. Working in Texas, Mapes had heard the rumors and stories about Bush’s wild halcyon days during the Vietnam Era. His “stint” in the Texas Air National Guard was well-known, albeit somewhat vague. Campaign literature and biographies about Bush the Younger always insisted that he served with honor and that he was, eventually, honorably discharged. Stories abounded, however, that suggested otherwise.
It was well known that sons of the wealthy could---and often did---avoid tours of duty in Vietnam by serving in military units here in the states. Waiting lists for these units were often ridiculously long, and it was almost impossible to get into these units, but if your parents had the right connections and---more importantly---money, waiting lists could be bypassed.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served in Vietnam, said, in one of his autobiographies, “I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in the reserves and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country. (p. 60)”
At the height of Vietnam---1968---graduate school deferments were no longer an option for young men. Many of these men were hoping to find alternative ways to avoid being sent to Vietnam. The National Guard, for many, was a viable option, except that most Guard units were completely full, and many had extremely long waiting lists. The Texas Air National Guard was no exception.
While Mapes was never able to get an actual figure or a confirmation on any number, several high-ranking officers in the Texas Air National Guard at that time confirmed that the unit was completely full with a waiting list of somewhere between 150 and 200 names.
Deals, however, could be made, and strings could be pulled, especially if you were the son of a senator. This is what appeared to be the case with George W. Bush. Regardless of how he managed to get in, the fact remains that Bush was admitted into the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968.
Rumors abounded for years that during his stint, Bush had gone AWOL, that he was a wash-out, that he didn’t take his stint in the unit seriously, and, in fact, had a reputation for partying and drinking heavily when he should have been on duty. Keep in mind, too, that these rumors existed among those who even considered themselves friendly to the Bush family and long before Bush had any interest in politics.
In campaign literature and even his father’s biography, though, the story was always that Bush was an “air force pilot” and a good one. No hint of impropriety or dishonorable conduct exists in any pro-Bush literature. Of course.
Former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes once admitted to an audience of Vietnam veterans and their families that he “was ashamed that, while publicly touting the war as a just cause, he had privately helped young men avoid service in Vietnam. He said that he had helped President Bush and others avoid combat by helping them get into the much safer Texas Air National Guard, where their chances of being sent overseas without volunteering were virtually zero. Barnes added that he was sorry for his complicity in helping some people stay out of the war when so many other young men had no choice but to comply. (p.155)”
He later tried to deny these statements, but an audience member had secretly recorded it and put it on the Internet. The cat was officially out of the bag.
Then again, the cat had been out of the bag for years, as Mapes had, over the course of four years, interviewed dozens of people who could corroborate parts of the story. As a whole, Mapes never fully acquired a completely full picture, but she had gathered enough to constitute a worthy news piece that was both a harsh indictment of Bush’s behavior during the war years and a human interest piece about how some men utilized whatever advantages that they could---in Bush’s case, wealthy white privilege---to understandably avoid going to war.
What she knew was this: There was a year-long gap in the record of Bush’s service for the Guard. No one on record could verify that Bush was ever actually on base or actually performed his duty as a Guardsman. Indeed, the fact was that young Bush was busily working on the U.S. Senate campaign of Winton Blount, a family friend, when he should have been flying planes.
Mapes came into possession of several memos, one of which showed that Bush and another man were suspended from flying. It also stated that Bush was bounced back to a training plane. Reasons for all this were not cited, but the memos simply confirmed what was already official record.
When Mapes and her team compiled the story for 60 Minutes Wednesday, the memos were a small part of the story. She had no reason to doubt the memos’ authenticity, as they were in line with much of the information she had already gathered. There was absolutely no reason to think that they were forgeries.
Despite this fact, shortly after the story aired, so-called “experts” began springing up on conservative news media like FOX News claiming that the documents were forgeries, citing fonts and the use of superscripts to “prove” their theory that the documents were fake.
Never mind that the information in the documents were never disputed by anyone. The whole authenticity argument was, according to Mapes, a smokescreen to divert attention away from the fact that her story was, indeed, factual. Sadly, the smokescreen was a success.
Under pressure from CBS executives, Dan Rather resigned and Mapes was fired.
Mapes never really stood a chance against the corporate machinery that ran CBS News, whose sole interests were bottom line rather than truth-telling, and it is this that is the most significant take-away from “Truth and Duty”. Mapes’ book is not a Bush-bashing whine-fest, as some conservative critics have labelled it. They clearly miss the point.
August 2, 2008
This was an excellent book. For the most part, the writing was engaging (only to be expected from someone who works in news), and the stuff that Mapes discussed (ranging from the purpose of journalism and journalistic ethics, to the effect of anonymity in blogs, to the privilege and clout associated with power) was really interesting and kind of frightening.
As far as I can see, the book served # functions:
1. It was Mapes's defense against all the negative press she, Dan Rather, and CBS got after breaking the Bush-Guard memo story. While parts of this defense seemed a little vindictive, self-serving, and annoying, another part of it made me feel very sorry for this woman, who seemed to have good intentions but got stuck in a very, very bad situation.
2. It was an attempt at bringing the Bush-Guard story to light again, in the way that it was meant to be brought to light in the first place: Not as a CBS scandal, but as a critical look at the President's questionable history in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam era.
3. It was a stringent warning about what might happen if you get on the wrong side of people who have lots of money and power. This was interesting to me... I feel like it kind of lowered my own naïvete to read this.
As far as I can see, the book served # functions:
1. It was Mapes's defense against all the negative press she, Dan Rather, and CBS got after breaking the Bush-Guard memo story. While parts of this defense seemed a little vindictive, self-serving, and annoying, another part of it made me feel very sorry for this woman, who seemed to have good intentions but got stuck in a very, very bad situation.
2. It was an attempt at bringing the Bush-Guard story to light again, in the way that it was meant to be brought to light in the first place: Not as a CBS scandal, but as a critical look at the President's questionable history in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam era.
3. It was a stringent warning about what might happen if you get on the wrong side of people who have lots of money and power. This was interesting to me... I feel like it kind of lowered my own naïvete to read this.
February 16, 2016
I read this book after watching the excellent movie on which it is based. It is well-written and heartfelt. Ms. Mapes was scapegoated and treated miserably by the corporate power at CBS. Dan Rather lost his job, too. She is an excellent journalist and she and Dan Rather told a story that needed to be told. Of course George W. Bush avoided going to Vietnam by getting a white, rich boy place in the Texas National Guard. And of course he didn't even stay to fulfill his phony service; instead went to help on a campaign. I believe the Karl Rove/George Bush/Republican lying machine concocted this entire business to make it look like W was a war hero, while slandering the real war hero, John Kerry.
February 4, 2015
I was very disappointed with this book. Being a former senior producer for CBS News and 60 Minutes, I was expecting a very insightful and interesting look into modern investigative reporting as well as the business of the news from the author. Instead, I found a very whiny and childish tirade against any and all of her critics throughout the years. Mapes' writing is quite juvenile and downright mean. Making fun of those 'backwards' folk who dare disagree. She never misses an opportunity to try and paint others (including interview subjects) as 'morons.' I find her disparaging remarks throughout this book to be incredibly offensive and am surprised by her lack of professionalism.
July 23, 2015
Well written compelling story of the Dan Rather debacle. I read this in advance of the movie
that comes out with Robert Redford this fall. Well worth it, if you are into politics.
that comes out with Robert Redford this fall. Well worth it, if you are into politics.
April 6, 2023
Mary Mapes era produtora do programa 60 Minutes, e Truth é o seu poderoso testemunho sobre o polémico episódio que colocou em causa a veracidade do serviço militar de George W. Bush durante a guerra do Vietname. A obra relata todo o caminho até esse episódio, desde pesquisas, entrevistas, análise de documentos, etc., e todo o forrobodó sem precedentes que lhe seguiu, que culminou no fim da carreira de Mapes e do histórico pivot da CBS, Dan Rather.
O livro oferece ainda uma parte muito interessante sobre outro episódio de 60 Minutes, também produzido por Mapes e que se tornou um escândalo a nível mundial ao revelar os abusos na prisão de Abu Ghraib.
Foi uma leitura muito interessante e, apesar dos temas pesados, a escrita fluída e muito jornalística de Mapes facilitou.
Fiquei muito indecisa entre as 3.5 e as 4 estrelas.
3.5/5
O livro oferece ainda uma parte muito interessante sobre outro episódio de 60 Minutes, também produzido por Mapes e que se tornou um escândalo a nível mundial ao revelar os abusos na prisão de Abu Ghraib.
Foi uma leitura muito interessante e, apesar dos temas pesados, a escrita fluída e muito jornalística de Mapes facilitou.
Fiquei muito indecisa entre as 3.5 e as 4 estrelas.
3.5/5
March 28, 2016
After watching the movie "Truth" starring Cate Blanchett & Robert Redford I was intrigued enough to read the book. The movie is based on the book and is a dramatic re-creation of news anchor Dan Rather's fall from grace, after erroneously reporting that President George W. Bush received preferential treatment that kept him from serving in Vietnam. The book is written by and is more about Mary Mapes, an executive producer for "60 Minutes" that worked with Dan Rather. While I don't doubt the story as Mary tells it, she does not come across as a likable person. I do recommend the movie over the book if you have interest in the topic.
March 25, 2010
I had been curious about Bush II's adventures in the Texas Air National Guard for years and was hoping to find out the real story as to his whereabouts when he was supposed to be in Alabama.
That didn't happen, but Mary Mapes did provide a first-hand, behind-the-scenes account of her role as producer the Bush/Guard story for CBS that led to her firing and the removal of Dan Rather as anchor of the Evening News.
The fascinating aspect of this book was its recap of the tactics employed by the radical right (talk shows, blogs, FOX News). Not a pretty picture, but effective.
That didn't happen, but Mary Mapes did provide a first-hand, behind-the-scenes account of her role as producer the Bush/Guard story for CBS that led to her firing and the removal of Dan Rather as anchor of the Evening News.
The fascinating aspect of this book was its recap of the tactics employed by the radical right (talk shows, blogs, FOX News). Not a pretty picture, but effective.
November 21, 2015
Terrific read
Good and necessary reading for anyone who cares about news and what passes for news. Straightforward telling of the Bush-National Guard story, the work that went into it, and the people involved. Far right conservatives and NeoCons caused immense trouble, spineless CBS bosses disregarded their journalists because of their love for money (and fear of the Bush White House), but Mary Mapes has the last and best word ....honesty. This book shows clearly what happens when we forget the reasons for the existence of news organizations....truth.
Good and necessary reading for anyone who cares about news and what passes for news. Straightforward telling of the Bush-National Guard story, the work that went into it, and the people involved. Far right conservatives and NeoCons caused immense trouble, spineless CBS bosses disregarded their journalists because of their love for money (and fear of the Bush White House), but Mary Mapes has the last and best word ....honesty. This book shows clearly what happens when we forget the reasons for the existence of news organizations....truth.
September 4, 2016
How bizarre that there are people in the world who think that John McCain's and John Kerry's war records are worth challenging but George Bush's is beyond reproach and that Bush didn't receive preferential treatment when he was offered a place in the National Guard.
Mary Mapes's account is credible and convincing, and I respect her tremendously as a journalist. I just wish she'd worked with a much better editor. I kept encountering sections where lines and even whole paragraphs seemed in the wrong order, and too many points are repeated.
Mary Mapes's account is credible and convincing, and I respect her tremendously as a journalist. I just wish she'd worked with a much better editor. I kept encountering sections where lines and even whole paragraphs seemed in the wrong order, and too many points are repeated.
November 6, 2015
Whatever you think of the 60 Minutes Bush National Guard broadcast, Mary Mapes's book is worth the price of admission for anyone who wants to learn about how the sausage gets made in broadcast news, at least in the years preceding her public humiliation by CBS/Viacom. Mapes is unsparing in her observations about herself, her network, and the work of a news producer while demonstrating her commitment to the mission of investigative reporting.
July 5, 2019
This book is about three topics: the reporting of the "Bush Guard" story (memos purporting to document president Bush's lack of service in the Texas Air National Guard), the backlash from the right wing bloggers, and CBS's caving, apologizing, and hanging its staff out to dry, that cost author Mary Mapes and correspondent Dan Rather their careers.
The reporting story makes a good case that the story deserved airing and further discussion. The credibility of the story hangs on the documents (which as photocopies cannot be completely verified, but which survive the instant criticism from the blogs), the "meshing" in which the documents fit, and the comments from guardsmen and others present at the time, all of which fit together into a believable, if not provable story.
The backlash from the right wing blogosphere is a by now a familiar trope, but Mapes lays out how the themes and messages were accepted uncritically by the rest of the mainstream press, in a travesty of journalistic standards.
The book details the internal investigation by an "independent" panel of lawyers, and lays out the case that CBS caved prematurely, apologized, and sought a way to distance itself from the story in order to play nice with the Bush administration for financial reasons, thereby undermining honest reporting on future investigative reports.
The movie is a more accessible version of these three stories, but the book, while a bit long and repetitive at times, lays out much more of the backstory, and sets the context of impact on future journalism. It helps illustrate the origin of the political division we face today, with "alternative facts" for every controversial story, and the public not well served by a lack of trusted organizations able to deliver a singular truth for the country and world.
An important, provocative, and depressing read.
The reporting story makes a good case that the story deserved airing and further discussion. The credibility of the story hangs on the documents (which as photocopies cannot be completely verified, but which survive the instant criticism from the blogs), the "meshing" in which the documents fit, and the comments from guardsmen and others present at the time, all of which fit together into a believable, if not provable story.
The backlash from the right wing blogosphere is a by now a familiar trope, but Mapes lays out how the themes and messages were accepted uncritically by the rest of the mainstream press, in a travesty of journalistic standards.
The book details the internal investigation by an "independent" panel of lawyers, and lays out the case that CBS caved prematurely, apologized, and sought a way to distance itself from the story in order to play nice with the Bush administration for financial reasons, thereby undermining honest reporting on future investigative reports.
The movie is a more accessible version of these three stories, but the book, while a bit long and repetitive at times, lays out much more of the backstory, and sets the context of impact on future journalism. It helps illustrate the origin of the political division we face today, with "alternative facts" for every controversial story, and the public not well served by a lack of trusted organizations able to deliver a singular truth for the country and world.
An important, provocative, and depressing read.
November 25, 2017
As someone who worked in local tv news for many years, this book probably hit me differently than most of you. Most of my career was spent at KOIN-TV, the CBS affiliate in Portland, OR as a videotpae editor. I was privileged to work with some very fine journalists. One reporter and one photographer I worked with both made it to CBS News.
Mary Mapes said some very kind and very true things about videotape editors, but that is not why I liked the book. It gave me a highly detailed look at the tremendous amount of work that goes into investigative news stories. I was deeply impressed with the way both 60 Minutes programs stuck to their own code of "conduct" so to speak. For example: when the subject of an interview answered a question, his/her answer was aired in full, as was the question. Thus, no question or response was ever taken out of context.
Some who have posted reviews feel Mary was "whining". I disagree. At the outset, she details how the right wing vilified her and took apart the story, with NO facts whatever on their side, and hiding behind the names they chose for their internet attacks. She makes it clear that with this book she was fighting back. She did an excellent job of that. Did we need to read about other stories she produced? Probably not, although the Abu Ghraib story was another example of uncovering an important story and the tremendous work it involved.
I did not see the movie based on this book and likely won't. It may be a good movie, but the trailers I've seen have me convinced I would spend the entire time watching it and think, "Robert Redford as Dan Rather?" Nooooo.
Mary Mapes said some very kind and very true things about videotape editors, but that is not why I liked the book. It gave me a highly detailed look at the tremendous amount of work that goes into investigative news stories. I was deeply impressed with the way both 60 Minutes programs stuck to their own code of "conduct" so to speak. For example: when the subject of an interview answered a question, his/her answer was aired in full, as was the question. Thus, no question or response was ever taken out of context.
Some who have posted reviews feel Mary was "whining". I disagree. At the outset, she details how the right wing vilified her and took apart the story, with NO facts whatever on their side, and hiding behind the names they chose for their internet attacks. She makes it clear that with this book she was fighting back. She did an excellent job of that. Did we need to read about other stories she produced? Probably not, although the Abu Ghraib story was another example of uncovering an important story and the tremendous work it involved.
I did not see the movie based on this book and likely won't. It may be a good movie, but the trailers I've seen have me convinced I would spend the entire time watching it and think, "Robert Redford as Dan Rather?" Nooooo.
March 15, 2018
In addition to the many reviews - Mapes's writing skill well reflects her skill as a producer. Her sense of organization for how to tell what happened surrounding the 60 Minutes II, Bush-Texas Air National Guard story and subsequent fallout can be found in the way the book is laid out. Her evidence runs the gambit of her personal feelings, her experience in journalism, the information of her and her research team's findings, snippits from the many interview themselves that went into the story, and solid, educated judgment. There is humor, heart, insight, sound reason and argument backing up a very human story that is analogous to the state of journalism now as it was leading up to Bush's re-election. The one thing that still remains alongside Mapes's hard work, unfair treatment, and a prescient account of the rising anti-female blogosphere, is the lack of accountability by Bush and his administration, specifically concerning Bush's service. While many would perhaps yearn to use this story as a kind of foreshadowing of Bush's war crimes, public idiocy and memorable chortle, Mapes sticks to the story at hand and ousts the partisan hackery behind legal language, not by the Bush administration, but CBS. The story is greater than one man or his administration and a reminder of decisions from the Vietnam War. Both Mapes's story, and specifically workings of the Bush-Guard story, offer insight to the complicity and fear of actors privy to power and corruption on a variety of national levels.
April 27, 2018
I saw this movie a couple years ago, but have had the book on my 'to-read' shelf for quite a while. Obviously, you're getting one side of the story here, but I found Mapes to be credible and liked that she even provided some of her 'evidence' in appendix form. It was an interesting read especially at this time in history - what she saw happen in 2004 seems so minor now compared to what is happening in politics and journalism now. It's unfortunate that her experience was really a harbinger of things to come. My only complaint was that the book felt very repetitive and overly dramatic in parts. It made me wonder if she wrote this when the wounds were still a little too fresh. But I appreciated her effort to tell an important story nonetheless.
April 9, 2020
Mapes tells about a powerful story about the responsiblity US citizens have to hold themselves and their country to a higher standard.
While I will say that she tends to hop on a soap box, for the most part Mapes focuses on the power of reporting and being a social advocate. She is a prime example of the fallout that can occur when a country is so divided they can't hear over their own angry, hate-filled shouts.
I think that even if someone is skeptical about her stances, they should read it anyways to gain a better understanding of people from "the other side." Because, in the end, we are all from the same side, the human side.
While I will say that she tends to hop on a soap box, for the most part Mapes focuses on the power of reporting and being a social advocate. She is a prime example of the fallout that can occur when a country is so divided they can't hear over their own angry, hate-filled shouts.
I think that even if someone is skeptical about her stances, they should read it anyways to gain a better understanding of people from "the other side." Because, in the end, we are all from the same side, the human side.
January 10, 2022
This book documents the transition from one world to another, from a world where facts were relevant and could still prove things and change people's minds to a world where opinions and facts are largely considered equivalent. Ms Mapes expresses outrage at what happened to her, and rightly so, but her outrage seems almost quaint now. She carefully and eloquently explains why the choices she made were the right ones under the circumstances, but unfortunately her arguments are nuanced and at times complex, and she presents her arguments to a world where it's just so much easier to believe your gut or the accept the trending opinion. I think you're too good for this world, Ms Mapes.
July 1, 2017
"July 1, 2017 – Finished Reading
July 1, 2017 –
60.0%
July 1, 2017 –
50.0% "How does a reporter deal with the material and what's the suspense in the office?
..."
July 1, 2017 –
50.0% "1:38:06"
June 30, 2017 –
50.0% "Again but this time we are talking about CBS TV Show, it wants us to know the whole secret of specific documents they reveal something unique which the public doesn't know."
June 30, 2017 –
50.0% "1:15:06"
June 30, 2017 – Started Reading"
- This work is about journalism, secrets, military and George Bush can you handle all this material?
July 1, 2017 –
60.0%
July 1, 2017 –
50.0% "How does a reporter deal with the material and what's the suspense in the office?
..."
July 1, 2017 –
50.0% "1:38:06"
June 30, 2017 –
50.0% "Again but this time we are talking about CBS TV Show, it wants us to know the whole secret of specific documents they reveal something unique which the public doesn't know."
June 30, 2017 –
50.0% "1:15:06"
June 30, 2017 – Started Reading"
- This work is about journalism, secrets, military and George Bush can you handle all this material?
November 22, 2025
A wonderful read that highlights disparities in privilege and entitlement. It also showcases disinformation with politics and money overshadowing the truth.
May 19, 2015
I listened to the audio version of this book, narrated by the author, which may have added some verbal nuance lacking in the written form.
The book is an attempt by Mapes to set the record straight on the matter of CBS apologizing to the world for the story alleging that George W. Bush blew-off his Air National Guard duty after having pulled strings to get into the unit in the first place.
Mapes was the reporter who did most of the digging into the story so that Dan Rather could air it on 60 Minutes. Both got fired, their professional careers in ruins.
Two key observations here:
(1) The preponderance of evidence she uncovered makes a strong case that she was right about Bush. But her eagerness to "go public" got the better of her before she had an iron-clad case and key sources on tape. Then she complains that just a few hours before airing the story upper management edited-out crucial parts of the story that would have added significant credibility. She wanted to be a "team player," she says, so she capitulated.
(2) She comes across as a reporter who, once she had her teeth into a story, would run over her own mother to be first to go public with it, no matter what. Better to be first, in her book (says me), than the most accurate, most reliable.
A third of the book is self congratulation about other big stories she had broken (such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal), a third is about the process of digging up the dirt on Dubya, and a third is about the spinelessness of CBS and Viacom upper management in (not) defending the story after it came under scathing attack by right wing bloggers.
All in all, a sad story, but also a candid snapshot of modern day TV news media at work. It's not pretty, or even particularly noble. I'm not sure Mapes did herself or her reputation much good by writing this. She might better have kept quiet.
The book is an attempt by Mapes to set the record straight on the matter of CBS apologizing to the world for the story alleging that George W. Bush blew-off his Air National Guard duty after having pulled strings to get into the unit in the first place.
Mapes was the reporter who did most of the digging into the story so that Dan Rather could air it on 60 Minutes. Both got fired, their professional careers in ruins.
Two key observations here:
(1) The preponderance of evidence she uncovered makes a strong case that she was right about Bush. But her eagerness to "go public" got the better of her before she had an iron-clad case and key sources on tape. Then she complains that just a few hours before airing the story upper management edited-out crucial parts of the story that would have added significant credibility. She wanted to be a "team player," she says, so she capitulated.
(2) She comes across as a reporter who, once she had her teeth into a story, would run over her own mother to be first to go public with it, no matter what. Better to be first, in her book (says me), than the most accurate, most reliable.
A third of the book is self congratulation about other big stories she had broken (such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal), a third is about the process of digging up the dirt on Dubya, and a third is about the spinelessness of CBS and Viacom upper management in (not) defending the story after it came under scathing attack by right wing bloggers.
All in all, a sad story, but also a candid snapshot of modern day TV news media at work. It's not pretty, or even particularly noble. I'm not sure Mapes did herself or her reputation much good by writing this. She might better have kept quiet.
May 16, 2016
This is a stressful book to read. It paints a very pessimistic, albeit accurate, picture of journalism in America. I'm glad she stood up and told her side of this story, because she was clearly right, and she was callously sacrificed just to please the corporate executives of Viacom. I would hope her story prompts some kind of awakening about how journalism has been corrupted by money and greed. But it's been 10 years since this book came out and I don't think much has changed.
I only rated 3 stars because there are a lot of tangents in the first half of the book which don't really relate to the main point and I think should have been left out. Still worth reading, though.
One little nugget of gold towards the end:
"It's worth noting, at least briefly and without too much visualizing, that Rush Limbaugh's Vietnam-era deferment was actually for an anal cyst."
I only rated 3 stars because there are a lot of tangents in the first half of the book which don't really relate to the main point and I think should have been left out. Still worth reading, though.
One little nugget of gold towards the end:
"It's worth noting, at least briefly and without too much visualizing, that Rush Limbaugh's Vietnam-era deferment was actually for an anal cyst."
March 2, 2016
A tough slog, both because of the tedious, whiny, self-justifying manner in which Mapes recounts her story, and also because of the truly depressing experiences of censorship and corporate hypocrisy that she had to endure. Too bad that a worthy story did not benefit from the editorial process of which Mapes herself is quite capable.
April 25, 2016
The book from Truth. It's interesting... I think she had a true story, but the way it was shown was not convincing enough. She and her team paid dearly for it, cause for Bush it was important to discredit her.
Her show was cbs 60 minutes 2, and one of her coleagues was Dan Rather...
The movie was good too!
Her show was cbs 60 minutes 2, and one of her coleagues was Dan Rather...
The movie was good too!
March 26, 2009
Story about Mary Mapes story on Bush's National guard duty. How she researched it, and what happened after it appeared on 60 minutes. Shows how difficult it can be to tell the truth and the price that some people pay for doing so.
October 6, 2015
Favorite book of the year!
January 2, 2016
Horrified at the treatment of Mary Mapes by the government and other journalists once the movie came out.
December 12, 2016
Shame on Bush! What a sad person. What a pitiful president.
Read
December 8, 2012excellent, she really got a dirty deal from CBS, received Peabody award for story on Abu Graib
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews