The September 8, 2004, 60 Minutes broadcast is now the stuff of journalism classes. That night, Dan Rather reported that President Bush had received preferential treatment in the Air National Guard. The evidence: memos from a confidential source. But Rather was later forced to apologize on-air and eventually abandon his anchor chair. The report’s producer, Mary Mapes, was fired. But the journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib story hasn’t gone down without a fight. She piled it all into a book, Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power, published in December. I reached Mapes, who turns 50 this month, at her Dallas home to talk about the past and what’s in her future.
ROWLETT: One Internet site asks bluntly: “Mary Mapes, fall girl, con artist, or dupe?” Do any of those labels apply?
MAPES: I don’t think I’m any of those things. I think I’m a journalist who, along with a couple of other journalists, was the victim of a political corporate assassination.
You think of yourself as a victim?
I’m a survivor of a time in American politics and American journalism when the corporate owners of journalistic operations didn’t back up their people. And the politics was so vicious that they attacked people who were doing nothing more than simple reporting. I think we also suffered from working in an age when technology had just given birth to blogs that had become tremendously politicized, especially conservative blogs. And they, in concert with political operatives, just ripped CBS and some very good journalists’ reputations to shreds.
Your critics disagree. They say your methodology was flawed and you still just don’t get it.
In terms of my work on this story, we did not say that we had definitive proof that these documents were real. What we did was what reporters do in trying to divine the truth about things and even went a few steps further. We had document analysts look at them. I got confirmation on the story from people who were there at the time, including Bush’s commanding officer. Look, when we aired the Abu Ghraib pictures, I had information that these were the real thing, but I did not have people who actually snapped the pictures. In these stories, we had to go with our gut, with our journalism, and with the information that we had dug up.
But there was a difference in these stories.
The difference is that the document story came onto the scene at a time of tremendous political incivility, vitriol, and hateful propaganda and organizing against people. You know, when you question American policy, you get called unpatriotic. And I think we got caught up in something closely related to that.
But you knew that your primary source, Bill Burkett, was no friend of the president’s. Didn’t that give you a reason to doubt the validity of his documents?
Nobody serves as a source without having an axe to grind. But that doesn’t mean that a person is going to forge or fake something. What that means is that that person has a reason to come forward. I think Burkett’s motivation was that he didn’t like Bush, but there was no motivation on the part of the commanding officer of Bush’s unit who told me that those things were told to him by Killian. (Note: Lt. Col Jerry Killian is now deceased but was George W. Bush’s immediate superior, and the documents critical of Bush’s performance in the Air National Guard were largely attributed to him.)
So you still stand by the validity, the essence, of the report?
Absolutely I do. And I think anyone who knows anything about Bush’s service has to say that that was an accurate report.
If you had to do it again, would you approach the story differently now?
I think there were a number of things that we could have done differently. But what I keep coming back to is that the response to the report had less to do with the report itself than with what was going on in the country politically and corporately in terms of how journalists were doing their business and how people in charge of newsrooms were wanting journalists to behave. We did qualify and attribute. But those things make no difference at all to people who are out for blood, and they did not want this subject discussed.
So, are you still a target? What impact has that had on your life?
Well, I have a neighbor way down the street who won’t wave back when I wave at him, but that’s about all the impact it has. I have friends and relatives who are conservative, and I know they don’t feel that way about me. And the blogs are not real people. They are not people who sign their names. They’re not people who speak to you face to face. They don’t have the courage to do anything in the open. So it doesn’t affect me now, although a year and a half ago, when I was going through this, I had never been a target before and I’d never been talked about that way. And it actually made me worry about my family’s safety.
Was your 8-year-old son affected?
I think he knew that Mom was upset, but we didn’t try to explain politics, blogs, and journalism to him. We told him that mom was having problems with her job, and we tried to keep him as protected as we could. There were not a lot of histrionics around the house because I didn’t want my son to know how badly I felt.
Your husband is also a journalist. Did it affect him and his job?
Sure. I think he felt that his wife was being attacked very openly and he couldn’t defend her. It was hard. It was very unfair and it was difficult for both of us. But we have a sense of humor and a strong sense of who we are, the work we do, and what kind of people we are, and that carried us through.
Did you have a breakup with your father over this, as has been widely reported?
My father was a strawberry farmer. And he, sadly, like a lot of Americans, became an alcoholic and a pretty abusive character. My parents divorced when I was about 20, and I haven’t had much contact with my father since then. So I think that characterization is ridiculous and sad.
Back at CBS, other people lost their jobs. Do you feel at all responsible for what happened to your CBS colleagues?
I can’t say I feel responsible for it. I do believe that when this came up, Les Moonves—who was operating CBS News and CBS Entertainment and everything else—took this as an opportunity to displace Dan Rather, someone I think he had wanted to replace for some time. I don’t feel responsible for that or for the slick and devious way Les did that. I would do anything to change it because I think it was absolutely wrong. But I don’t think what I did led to it. I think Les was looking for a way to institute a number of changes at CBS News. You know, he told New York Magazine not too long ago that if he could, he would have naked news at CBS, like they have on cable in Britain and elsewhere, where the anchors remove their clothes. And Dan said thank God that is not going to happen to him.
And there was a ripple effect all through CBS News.
As a direct result of this story, four producers lost their jobs. Dan stepped down. And while that had been in the works for a while, I think it was speeded up by this, and Les Moonves used [the Guard report] as an excuse to make this happen. But I also think we’re seeing a remaking of CBS News in a way that Les wants. That means you are going to have fewer old people or veterans or grownups or whatever you want to call it. I think he wants a younger, prettier reporting force.
Are you still in contact with Dan Rather?
Oh, yes. We talk regularly. He is a very loyal person and a loyal friend, and I think the world of him. He is a helluva reporter, and I think people will come to realize and feel badly about how he has been treated. I don’t think it’s over for him. I think the arc of his career reflects where journalism has been and where it is going. And I don’t think it should make any journalist happy to see a man of his caliber disrespected in this way.
Your story aside, is CBS a Bush-hating, left-wing organization?
Well, not in the 16 years that I worked there. But some people seem to think they know better. It always amused me when people would talk about Dan Rather as a liberal. I worked a long time with Dan, and he is a very typical Texan. Dan, to me, is just one of those Texans who grew up poor, worked hard, and got lucky. He really made a name for himself in journalism, and I think he is someone who really cares about the least of us, and who cares about people outside Washington and New York. I was encouraged by CBS to live in Texas, to get outside the Beltway, and to get stories that were important to just regular folks and not just movie stars and politicians. I really think that this whole business about news bias is a political tool to negate stories.
And what about you? Are you a wild-eyed liberal?
You know, I came from Seattle, and I tell my friends that now I am more conservative. I don’t know if that’s 16 years in Texas, or becoming a parent, or just growing up. But like most Americans, I’m conservative about some things and liberal about others. I’m smack dab in the middle about most things.
Yet your critics say you did the Guard report because you had a political agenda and were helping the Kerry campaign.
Not true. I actually found Kerry to be a tremendously weak candidate, as a lot of Americans did. I don’t like to be involved in politics. I don’t even like covering campaigns because you are so surrounded by true believers and those people are not very interesting. I never tried to help Kerry. What I was trying to do was help my story. I’m a journalist. I have never had a yard sign or made a political contribution in my life.
Have you had any direct contact with the White House through all of this?
No I haven’t, although there’s a new book out where Karl Rove says he could tell by my body language that I was anti-Bush [laughing], which I found to be absolutely fascinating. I never thought I’d live to see the day when Karl Rove was discussing my body, but I guess now, it’s all happened. I can die now.
How do you think your book has been received?
I think it’s been received very well. I think there are a lot of Americans who are really concerned with American journalism right now. As Thomas Jefferson said, you can’t have a democracy without a free press. I don’t think you can have a democracy without good, hard-hitting, investigative journalism. I don’t know that we’ve had that in these last years. Things have gotten softer and softer and less important as to those things that people really need to know. Journalists today, particularly in television, spend far too much time talking about what’s happening with Brad and Angelina, and far too little time talking about what’s happening in Iraq and right here in this country. I’m also concerned about local TV news because I think there is too much emphasis on crime and not enough emphasis on the issues that are really important to the community.
Is the book selling?
I think it is. I haven’t gotten obsessed with sales figures, and I never thought it was going to be a top 10. But I think it’s important to people who want to know how media works, and what some of our concerns are in this country.
How do you see your future?
Well, I’m still writing it. I’m working on a paperback that’s coming out in November. Then, I’m hoping I can do some work in documentaries. I think our best journalism right now is coming out in longer-form work. I like that and I look forward to doing some of it.
Photos: Mapes: Dan Sellers; Rowlett: Tom Hussey
D Magazine contributing editor Tracy Rowlett is a news anchor and managing editor at CBS Channel 11.
