Posted on 09/18/2004 2:02:15 PM PDT by thebride
September 18, 2004 Note to Custodian of Kinko's Videotapes: We Have a Time and Date Buried in an L.A. Times story on the CBS document scandal is this tidbit:
Emily Will, a professional document examiner in North Carolina consulted by the network to help assess two memos related to Bush's military service, said her copies showed a fax footer with a time stamp that read 6:41 p.m. Sept. 2. The header of the fax, which presumably showed information about the sender, referred to a Kinko's shop near Abilene, Texas.
What are we waiting for? We have the videotapes, the date, and the time! Break 'em out and let's see who it is!
Hey Bill Burkett -- do you have your hair-dying kit and your tickets to France ready?
Posted by Patterico at 12:47 PM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Celebrity Blog Sightings I've meant to mention some celebrity blogsightings (or bloghearings) for days. This is blogging "inside baseball" (what Xrlq calls "inside blogball"), so if you don't care about that stuff, skip to the next post.
Continue reading "Celebrity Blog Sightings"
When I saw Glenn Reynolds on Paula Zahn's show, they showed the Instapundit home page, and focused in on his blogroll. The name of my friend Justene Adamec was clearly visible to the audience.
And I heard fellow Bear Flagger Roscoe's Blog mentioned on Al Rantel's radio show on local station KABC.
Finally, I listen to Hugh Hewitt's show on the way home from work every day, and I find it absolutely crushing that I still haven't heard regular guest Captain Ed or sometime caller Beldar. But, I did hear Matthew Hoy of Hoystory.com call in -- and Hugh recognized his blog when he mentioned it. That was cool.
Matthew is newly on the blogroll, by the way, as is Tim Worstall. Check them out.
Hide extended entry
Posted by Patterico at 10:49 AM | Category: Blogging Matters | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
September 17, 2004 Limits of Permissible Voir Dire and RatherGate: A Confluence I am starting a jury trial next week. My major goal is generally to get rid of the loonies. Do you think it's permissible for me to ask potential jurors whether they think the CBS documents are authentic?
Posted by Patterico at 11:21 PM | Category: Humor | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
(Mostly) Complete History of RatherGate A Weekly Standard history of RatherGate titled What Blogs Have Wrought is an excellent recap of the evolution of the controversy -- but misses the contributions of TankerKC and Bill Ardolino from INDC Journal.
Posted by Patterico at 11:19 PM | Category: Media Bias | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Spinsanity on Alleged Cheney Scare Tactics Regarding Dick Cheney's alleged threat that we will be attacked if Kerry is elected, Spinsanity says:
If these pundits want to go after the Vice President, they owe the public a fair quotation so his words can be considered in context. Cheney's point is not necessarily as simple as they make it appear. Exactly. Posted by Patterico at 10:41 PM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
I've Had a Perfectly Wonderful Evening. But This Wasn't It. Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities nails my blogging attire.
Posted by Patterico at 10:33 PM | Category: Humor | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Scouring the Internet While the L.A. Times has been scouring Buckhead's posts on the internet, Michael Dobbs at the Washington Post has been scouring Bill Burkett's.
UPDATE: Captain Ed notes that the article suggests a connection between Burkett and the Kerry campaign.
Posted by Patterico at 10:03 PM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Another Shoe Drops The last CBS expert predictably says that the network has misrepresented his opinion.
Posted by Patterico at 09:13 PM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
The Grand L.A. Times Tradition of Putting Words in Someone Else's Mouth Recently I have noticed some similarities between the reporting of CBS News and that of the Los Angeles Times. Here's another.
You'll note that the current CBS defense is: okay, maybe Lt. Col. Killian didn't write these forged memos -- but if he had written such memos, they would look like these memos.
Former L.A. Times reporter Evan Maxwell passes along this observation:
Years ago, when I was with The LATimes, the newsroom guru was a fine reporter and great writer named Gordon Grant. Gordie was old-school. He broke in in Florida, worked in Chicago, and was a reporter in Europe during WWII. He lost an eye in combat. He was the real deal.
Gordie used to come up with brilliant stuff, great anecdotes and those gem-like quotes that captured a story perfectly. I used to sit next to him and once in a while, I'd say, "Gordie, I know this guy you are quoting here. He's not very bright. Are you sure he said this?"
Gordie would look at me and grin. Then he'd say, "Well, he would have said it if he had thought of it."
God Bless you, Gordie. Your spirit is still alive.
Indeed it is.
P.S. The problem with this practice is that, sometimes he wouldn't have said it.
Posted by Patterico at 05:59 PM | Category: Dog Trainer | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati Media Lies linked with Patterico pisses me off
Extra! Extra! Freeper Is Conservative! Read All About It! The L.A. Times has revealed the stunning news that Buckhead, the FreeRepublic.com commenter who first identified the font problems with the CBS documents, is -- steel yourself for the shock -- a conservative. Not only that, he's a "conservative activist." The incredible details are here.
UPDATE: Antimedia says I missed a chance to fisk the story. Luckily, Antimedia, I know that you've got my back.
Posted by Patterico at 05:49 PM | Category: Dog Trainer | Comments (8) | TrackBack (6) | Technorati DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS:Worldviews Behind The News linked with BuckHead and Bulver INDC Journal linked with Predictable LA Times Media Lies linked with Patterico misses a fisking Feste...a foolsblog linked with Hacks & Flacks The Interocitor linked with Deceive, Inveigle and Obfuscate Les Jones Blog linked with C BS. C BS Run. Run, C BS, Run (Part 7)
Patterico Opposes Congressional Hearings for RatherGate There has been a debate over whether Congress should investigate RatherGate, with Hugh Hewitt leading the pro-investigation forces, and Tom Maguire most prominently arguing against Congressional involvement.
The issue may be moot, as the Washington Post is reporting that the proposal has been rejected by the Chairman of the relevant House communications subcommittee.
I am pleased by this development, and -- as much as it pains me to disagree with my friends Hugh Hewitt and William Dyer -- would like to weigh in against the concept of Congressional involvement in this.
Continue reading "Patterico Opposes Congressional Hearings for RatherGate"
I am simply uncomfortable with the concept of Congressional oversight of the media. I didn't like it when Billy Tauzin threatened the networks with hearings over their calling Florida early in 2000 (although I agreed with him that the networks should not have done this), and I don't like it now.
I understand the argument. Hugh Hewitt argues that there is no other effective remedy -- that problems like this do not appear to be "self-correcting." CBS News has dug in its heels, and appears likely to remain defiant.
Historically, Hugh is right. Historically, there has been no real recourse when the media rakes someone over the coals unfairly. None. Defamation suits are all-but-impossible to win. Letters to the editor, if they are published at all, are often read by a fraction of the people who saw the original mistaken story. Corrections are read by even fewer people.
But is governmental oversight the answer?
I don't think so.
There are few things that the government does better than the marketplace. I don't think that policing the media is, or should be, one of them. I think that governmental involvement in such matters is fundamentally inconsistent with the ideals of the First Amendment, which is designed to keep government out of the media's hair.
Also, I think that the power of the internet is developing an increasingly effective mechanism for the redress of grievances against the mainstream media, as the CBS documents scandal has demonstrated.
I hasten to add that this mechanism is not yet as powerful as it may appear to bloggers. Those of us who receive much of our information from the Web tend to overestimate the impact of the blogosphere buzzing over a story. As my friend Cori Dauber recently reminded us, "there are an awful lot of people who don't read blogs." The only reason that the blogosphere scored such a success with the forged documents scandal is that it got the attention of big-time media outlets like ABCNEWS and the Washington Post.
That isn't always going to happen. And when it doesn't, blogs' impact is limited.
But, in conjunction with the rise of the blogosphere, there is an increasingly powerful conservative-leaning media, which pays attention to blogs even when the mainstream media does not. This media reaches a significant number of people. And when its facts are unrebuttable, the mainstream media sometimes pays attention.
It's not a perfect system. But it's working pretty well in the CBS scandal. And I think it's a damn sight better than getting the government involved.
Just my opinion. As Dennis Miller says, I could be wrong.
Hide extended entry
Posted by Patterico at 06:59 AM | Category: Media Bias | Comments (4) | TrackBack (3) | Technorati Secure Liberty linked with Congressional hearings on the media? - NO dustbury.com linked with Keeping Washington out of Rathergate Wandering Mind linked with I'm lost
September 16, 2004 Memo to Bill Burkett Next time use one of these. (Via Pejmanesque.)
Posted by Patterico at 11:01 PM | Category: Humor | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NYT Screws It Up Beldar reports that the NYT has falsely accused Scott McClellan of saying the forged CBS documents came from Kerry or the DNC.
Not content with one misrepresentation, the NYT says that, for every expert that says the CBS documents are forgeries, another expert supports them. Beldar says this claim "shows the NYT reporters suffer from a serious math impairment, or perhaps have had all their fingers and toes cut off."
Good stuff from my man in Texas.
Posted by Patterico at 10:55 PM | Category: Media Bias | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Allah Has Your Bill Burkett Updates Nobody is more on top of the Burkett story than Allah. He deserves every virgin he's got coming to him in the afterlife.
Posted by Patterico at 10:48 PM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Bear: Clean Up Your Traffic Rankings Page! I am pleased to be the 51st blog in traffic rankings on The Truth Laid Bear: Weblog Traffic Rankings. But I notice that there are a number of blogs who have more than one listing for a single blog. The Command Post has five! I have two (my blogspot page and my MT page) -- and I wrote the Bear months ago asking him to remove the blogspot page.
If the Bear cleaned this up, I could break into the top 50. Not that I, uh, care about such things.
Posted by Patterico at 10:39 PM | Category: Blogging Matters | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
More Evidence Against Burkett Captain Ed has the details.
Posted by Patterico at 10:33 PM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
The L.A. Times Prints Yet Another Blatant Falsehood in a Letter to the Editor The editors at the L.A. Times have done it again.
Continue reading "The L.A. Times Prints Yet Another Blatant Falsehood in a Letter to the Editor"
I am on record as saying that a newspaper should not print a letter containing facts its editors know to be false. The letters editor of the New York Times op-ed page is on record saying the same thing:
Letter writers, to use a well-worn phrase, are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. There is, of course, a broad gray area in which hard fact and heartfelt opinion commingle. But we do try to verify the facts, either checking them ourselves or asking writers for sources of information. Sometimes we goof, and then we publish corrections. And the L.A. Times appears to agree -- in theory -- if this correction is any indication: War casualty — In a Sept. 8 letter, Bradley Parker of Salt Lake City wrote that his brother was killed in Iraq "defending a Halliburton convoy near Basra." The Times is unable to corroborate the soldier's death and retracts the letter. Well, the L.A. Times goofed again today, when it printed a clear falsehood in this letter (second letter in the link): Let's keep this in perspective. Dan Rather may have unwittingly been the victim of forged documents in reporting on Bush's National Guard duty. But no one is disputing former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes' admission that he pulled strings to get the "fortunate son" of then-Rep. George H.W. Bush (R-Texas) into the Guard, leaving the less fortunate sons of ordinary mortals to serve, and die, in Vietnam. And no one has yet been able to account for the months of Guard duty the younger Bush failed to show up for while working in Alabama on the Senate campaign of one of his father's cronies, Winton "Red" Blount.
Harold N. Bass
Northridge
Read that carefully. Harold N. Bass of Northridge is entitled to his opinion that Barnes pulled strings for George W. Bush. But that's not what he said. He said that "no one is disputing" Barnes's claim that he pulled strings for Bush.
If anyone knows for sure whether Barnes's claim is true, it's George H.W. Bush. And what did he say earlier this month?
In a television interview last week, George H.W. Bush called reports that his son had received favored treatment "a total lie," adding, "Nobody's come up with any evidence, and yet it's repeated all the time." Does that sound like "no one is disputing" Barnes's claim?? Now, I am willing to give Harold N. Bass of Northridge the benefit of the doubt. Rather than assume he is lying, I will assume he is gravely uninformed.
But the Times editors don't have that excuse. The Bush quote above is from a story in the Los Angeles Times! The editors know damn well that the letter is false -- but they printed it anyway.
P.S. Should I write them about this? After all, they're ignoring me lately. If any of you want to take up the reins on this, that would be great. Don't write the Reader's Representative -- she doesn't handle complaints about the editorial page. You'll probably want to write Michael Kinsley by clicking on this link. (He has also been ignoring me.)
And tell him Patterico sent you! (On second thought, maybe you shouldn't. He'll ignore you too.)
If anyone sends him an e-mail, shoot me a copy, or paste its content in the comments.
UPDATE: A commenter notes that Barnes's own daughter also disputes his claim. That's two people! [Mentally imagine Sesame Street's "The Count" doing his counting laugh.]
UPDATE x2: Commenter Justene doesn't know what to make of Barnes's daughter. Apparently she backed down somewhat when she talked to Sean Hannity.
UPDATE x3: Via Beldar we learn that Col. Staudt's recent statements are not new. In July 1999, Col. Staudt told the Dallas Morning News:
If somebody like that came along, you'd snatch them up. . . . He took no advantage. It wouldn't have made any difference whether his daddy was chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. Three people!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! [That's another Count imitation, for those who aren't paying attention.]
Hide extended entry
Posted by Patterico at 09:18 PM | Category: Dog Trainer | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Brilliant! Bill from INDC has made sure that the Abilene Kinko's is preserving its videotapes.
Now that's thinking ahead.
He's also researching the relevant civil and criminal statutes.
Posted by Patterico at 07:49 PM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
The Power of the Jump™: It Depends on What the Meaning of "In Play" Is (Note: "The Power of the Jump"™ is a semi-regular feature of this site, documenting examples of the Los Angeles Times's use of its back pages to hide information that its editors don't want you to see.)
The Los Angeles Times has a front-page story today titled: Long a Republican Bulwark, a Growing Arizona Is in Play. Not until page A20 does the paper tell us what is meant by the term "in play":
A poll taken for the Arizona Republic and released last week showed Bush ahead of Kerry, 54% to 38%. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! Bush leads Kerry by 16 points, and the headline says a "Republican bulwark" is "in play." I got news for you, L.A. Times. In California, a recent Rassmussen poll shows Kerry leading Bush, 50% to 42%. That's a mere eight-point difference -- half the spread between Bush and Kerry in Arizona.
I look forward to your front-page article tomorrow: "Long a Democratic Bulwark, a Growing California Is in Play."
(Thanks to alert reader Tom V.)
UPDATE: Drudge says Bush is leading by 14 points, according to the Gallup Poll. [UPDATE: The AP agrees.] That's great news for Kerry. The whole country is in play!
(Cross-posted at Oh, That Liberal Media.)
UPDATE x2: Thanks to Mickey Kaus for the link! (Something about Mickey always brings out the exclamation points!) I hope first-time visitors who enjoyed this post will bookmark the site and return often. Unless you're sensitive about the L.A. Times, that is . . . the paper is a fairly frequent target here. (Hey, I'll stop picking on them if they promise to straighten up and fly right, as my dad used to say.)
UPDATE x3: Thanks to Lucianne for the link, and welcome to Lucianne's readers! I hope a few of you will check out my main page and come back often.
UPDATE x4: I see Hugh Hewitt made this point yesterday as well, before I did. I wish I had known, so I could have given him appropriate credit. (I wish Hugh would get an RSS feed. That would make it much easier to stay current with his observations.)
UPDATE x5: Hugh is, not surprisingly, very gracious.
Posted by Patterico at 06:46 PM | Category: Dog Trainer | Comments (12) | TrackBack (2) | Technorati The Spoons Experience linked with ARIZONA "IN PLAY" FOR KERRY? Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com linked with LA Times hides the ball
Double Standard? Hmmmmm.
So U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr., a Clinton appointee, has ordered the Pentagon to release any unreleased files about President Bush's National Guard service, to resolve a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the AP.
I don't know whether Judge Baer's ruling is correct. But I will remind you that Judge Baer is the nutcase judge who ruled in 1996 that police lacked probable cause to search a car based (in part) on the fact that four men had fled when they saw the police. Baer listed several examples of alleged police corruption, and explained in a written ruling that
residents in this neighborhood tended to regard police officers as corrupt, abusive and violent. After the attendant publicity surrounding the above events, had the men not run when the cops began to stare at them, it would have been unusual. Based on this reasoning, Baer suppressed 34 kilograms of cocaine and 2 kilograms of heroin -- about 80 pounds of narcotics altogether, worth about $4 million. (Baer later reversed himself.) Meanwhile, Judicial Watch has a lawsuit seeking John Kerry's military records, and the Navy has announced that Kerry's campaign has not released all its records -- despite a claim by John Kerry to the contrary.
Can't Judicial Watch find a partisan, brain-addled judge who can issue an order for the release of Kerry's records? Sheesh, even a decent judge might do it.
P.S. I'll admit that I'm looking at the big picture here, and that there may be procedural subtleties involved that would explain the disparate treatment. Let me know if you can enlighten me.
Posted by Patterico at 06:06 PM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
L.A. Times Continues to Ignore Contradictory Statements by Texans for Truth Spokesman As promised, this is my post about the L.A. Times knowingly omitting critical information about Texans for Truth, and its principal spokesman, Bob Mintz.
Continue reading "L.A. Times Continues to Ignore Contradictory Statements by Texans for Truth Spokesman"
As I told you four days ago, Mintz is the man featured in a commercial sponsored by the Texans for Truth. In the ad, Mintz says that he and his friends had not seen George W. Bush in his unit, and concludes: "It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size."
But as Tom Maguire originally observed, Mintz has admitted that he is not a smoking gun:
"I cannot say he was not there," Mintz said. "Absolutely positively was not there. I cannot say that. I cannot say he didn't do his duty." This quote severely undercuts the group's ad. In my previous post, I noted that the L.A. Times had run four stories mentioning the Texans for Truth group, none of which mentioned Mintz's previous quote. So, on September 12, 2004 (a little after 3 p.m.), I wrote an e-mail to the Times Reader's Representative, copied to Managing Editor Dean Baquet, notifying them of Mintz's previous statement. The Reader's Representative wrote back that same day, acknowledging receipt of the e-mail and saying that it had been "forwarded."
The paper has been on notice of Mintz's previous contradictory statement since at least September 12.
Since then, the Los Angeles Times has run two more pieces about the Texans for Truth group. Both specifically referenced that group’s advertisement, without mentioning that the man quoted in the advertisement has said he can't definitively back up the commercial's main point.
On September 13, Ronald Brownstein wrote a news analysis titled How Will Voters Handle the 'Truth' About Kerry and Bush? The piece specifically referenced the Texans for Truth ad:
Glenn Smith, the veteran Texas Democratic political operative who launched Texans for Truth, says the group raised $400,000 within 72 hours after unveiling its television ad last week in which a retired lieutenant colonel from the Alabama Air National Guard said he never saw Bush at a time the future president was supposed to be serving in the same unit. With that money, Smith says, the group may both expand the buy for that initial ad and air others questioning different aspects of Bush's Guard record. How hard would it have been to rewrite that paragraph to include the information about Mintz’s previous statement, like this: Texans for Truth unveiled its television ad last week in which a retired lieutenant colonel from the Alabama Air National Guard, Bob Mintz, said he never saw Bush at a time the future president was supposed to be serving in the same unit. Contrary to the implications of the commercial, Mintz has admitted to CBS News that he does not definitively know whether Bush fulfilled his duty. Nevertheless, Glenn Smith, the veteran Texas Democratic political operative who launched Texans for Truth, says the group raised $400,000 within 72 hours after the airing of the ad. With that money, Smith says, the group may both expand the buy for that initial ad and air others questioning different aspects of Bush's Guard record. I tried not to fly off the handle. It was a news analysis. It had run the day after I told the paper. I held my peace. On September 15, the paper ran a story on the donors to Texans for Truth, titled Writer Is Top 'Texans' Donor. Once again, the paper mentioned the ad, without mentioning the credibility problems of the man featured in that ad:
The group began running television ads Monday in five states — Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania — featuring a former Air National Guard lieutenant who said he never saw Bush while the president says he served on a Montgomery air base. That man has previously admitted to CBS News that he does not know whether Bush was there, saying, "I cannot say he didn't do his duty." Whoops -- I made up that last sentence -- just to show how easy it would have been to include. Now, I suppose that the paper could still be vigorously looking into this issue. But Mintz's contradictory quote is a matter of public record. Why not mention it when you mention the ad? After all, the paper never missed a chance to point out supposed evidence of prevarication by the Swift Boat Vets.
It is public knowledge that the paper has been told about Mintz's apparent contradiction. To this day, it remains unreported in the L.A. Times. And if the editors never mention it in their paper, I am going to do everything in my power to spread that news.
One of the greatest scandals of the CBS story was that Dan Rather ignored information provided to him before the fact that didn’t fit his story line. It started with Gary Killian's statement that he had warned CBS that the documents were fakes, and that there were people who would say his dad had respected Bush. The latest revelation is the two document experts who say they warned CBS that the documents seemed suspicious. In both cases, the network ignored the warnings, and indeed never even mentioned a word about them.
In the old days, it was easier to bury stories you didn't like. But now, with the internet, people notice.
John Carroll, please publish what you know about Bob Mintz's previous statements, which undercut his point in the Texans for Truth commercial.
Hide extended entry
Posted by Pa
Case in point: I made a few notes tonight of the more egregious examples of distortion in the "60 Minutes" piece with the secretary. But it's much easier to cruise the Net and link to posts that already made the same observations.
Continue reading ""60 Minutes" Tonight"
Allah seems to be the most on Patterico's wavelength -- noting some
things that weren't mentioned: Mrs. Knox's opinion that Bush is "unfit for office" and that he was "selected, not elected"; Killian's son's assertion that Mrs. Knox was a pool typist, not his father's personal secretary and thus not privy to the "facts" in this case; or the fact that Killian's son and wife were allegedly both interviewed by 60 Minutes before the original report aired last week and yet somehow their clips didn't make it into the segment. Rather did ask Knox what she thought of Killian's son saying that the memos don't reflect his father's opinion. Her response: "He has no way of knowing if it's true or not." Good enough for Document Dan! Allah also points out Ms. Knox's amazing recovered memory. Allah also has this brilliant post that establishes beyond any rational doubt that CBS had all 6 memos, but showed you only 4 -- for sinister reasons.
Other points:
Rather opens the segment by calling Knox "a credible witness." She then proceeds to speculate on everything under the sun. Where I come from, credible witnesses don't do that. Rather claims that the document experts CBS consulted continue to maintain the documents are genuine. Well, of the four experts named by CBS, three have denied authenticating the documents. That leaves one: James J. Pierce. So the question is: who is he? And what does he know that practically every other expert in the country doesn't?
Wow. Knox even speculates that the guy who forged the memos had access to the original memos -- but changed them enough so that he wouldn't get caught. Nothing so credible as rank speculation like that. Rather closes the broadcast by saying that nobody has challenged the "thrust" of the story. If anyone does, "rest assured" that he will report that as well. Oh, yeah, Dan. Just like I'm resting assured that you have reported all relevant facts known to date -- including the facts that didn't fit your story-line.
I'm resting assured, all right.
Hide extended entry
Posted by Patterico at 10:07 PM | Category: | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Forged Documents Traced to Abilene, Texas It sure would be nice if someone would figure out if forging the CBS documents was a crime. Then someone could see if they have enough evidence to get a search warrant for Bill Burkett's computer. Read more here.
UPDATE: Here is the case on Burkett -- before the Abilene Kinko's revelation.
UPDATE x2: Charles Johnson says Burkett has an account at the Abilene Kinko's. What do you want to bet he's there right now, furiously deleting stuff off the hard drive?
Note to Burkett: there are experts who can recover anything from a hard drive.
Posted by Patterico at 07:51 PM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
CBS Statement Apparently "coroborating evidence" is not the same as "corroborating evidence."
Posted by Patterico at 07:27 PM | Category: Media Bias | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
L.A. Times Whiffs the Forged Documents Story The lesson of the CBS forged documents scandal for the mainstream media is simple and straightforward: Don't hide the truth. Because if you try, your deception will be discovered, and your reputation will be irreparably damaged.
John Carroll, the editor of the Los Angeles Times, hasn't learned this lesson -- as is apparent to anyone who reads the paper's pieces today on the CBS document scandal.
Continue reading "L.A. Times Whiffs the Forged Documents Story"
The L.A. Times's reporting this morning on the document scandal is a distressing example of the paper hiding the truth.
Yesterday, ABCNEWS broke the biggest story of the scandal: two document experts (Emily Will and Linda James) had warned CBS -- in advance of the "60 Minutes" broadcast that featured the documents -- that they believed the documents might be phony. Not only did the network ignore these experts' warnings, it didn't tell its viewers that there was a question about the documents' authenticity.
Yet the L.A. Times doesn't mention the experts' warnings anywhere in the paper today, even though the paper prints two separate stories and one editorial on the issue of the scandal. Searches on the paper's website for the names Emily Will or Linda James reveal no relevant stories.
There is no defense for this.
Times editors cannot plausibly justify this omission as a valid exercise of editorial judgment. The CBS forged documents scandal is the biggest scandal in journalism since Jayson Blair, and last night's revelations were the most damning evidence yet. As Glenn Reynolds says: "I have to say, I've spent years criticizing the media and this still makes my jaw drop." As I said last night, the CBS News cover-up of these warnings suggests a reckless disregard for the truth -- a deliberate suppression of facts favorable to President Bush.
Nor can the L.A. Times editors convincingly argue that they didn't know about the document experts' allegations. After all, the paper ran a front-page story today about statements made by Lt. Col. Killian's former secretary Marian Carr Knox -- a confirmed Bush-hater who says that Bush was "selected, not elected." (H/t Xrlq.) To my knowledge, Knox's statements were first reported in the same ABCNEWS segment that reported the document experts' allegations. If the Times editors were aware of Knox, they must also have been aware of document experts Emily Will and Linda James, the people whose allegations demonstrate that Rather was not duped -- he duped his viewers.
This becomes all the more important when you realize that, without the documents, CBS News would have had no story. As a former L.A. Times staff writer named Evan Maxwell wrote me today:
[T]he simple fact is [CBS News] would not have had a story without those documents. Nobody else, including Barnes, said anything that was "news." Nobody said anything that "advanced the story," to use the old LATimes term. If they had trotted out all the other palaver, people would have yawned and said "Tell us something we didn't know." But with the documents, the story is renewed. With those scraps of paper, they had the smoking gun, they thought. So: the documents were critical, and CBS News had reason to believe they were false. And CBS News went with the documents anyway, all the while suppressing its experts' doubts. It's a blockbuster story. The Washington Post ran an entire article about it. The New York Times mentioned it. ABCNEWS reported it. And the L.A. Times ignored it.
Why? Why not report such an important story? I have a theory. Now that the Times is forced by overwhelming evidence to admit that the documents are forged, it has adopted the view that Rather was deceived. The paper's suppression of the experts' allegations allows the paper to push this point of view, without confronting the clear evidence to the contrary. Proof of my theory can be found in this misleading L.A. Times editorial from this morning, which makes the ridiculous assertion:
CBS News was had. It's hard to reach any other conclusion about documents that CBS and anchor Dan Rather have defended as revealing the truth about George W. Bush's military service. Actually, it's very easy to reach a different conclusion -- if you know the facts. If you know that CBS News was warned in advance that the documents were phony, the conclusion is inescapable: CBS News was not "had." CBS News "had" its viewers. Dan Rather was complicit in the fraud. The document experts' allegations prove it. So the Times editors suppress the experts' accusations -- and then argue that Rather was duped. This is breathtaking dishonesty. The final insult is the paper's interview today with Dan Rather. The headline says it all: Rather Rides Out Latest Partisan Storm.
That's two errors in just six words.
First, the "storm" is not a "partisan storm." As Steve at Begging to Differ says: "What is political about Times New Roman font?" To the contrary, this is a simple question of journalistic credibility.
Second, I think it's a leetle bit early to declare that Rather is going to ride out this particular storm -- unless they mean he's riding it out to sea, never to be seen again.
No mention of the experts' blockbuster allegations in the interview:
In the week since the Sept. 8 report on the newsmagazine "60 Minutes," Rather has twice gone on the air to defend his reporting and the documents, which critics have argued couldn't have been produced by the typewriter technology commonly in use at the time. How hard would it have been to mention that a couple of the "critics" were document experts consulted by CBS, who told CBS the documents were fakes before the program ran?? The irony is that the L.A. Times is doing exactly what CBS News did. The Times editors are suppressing clearly newsworthy information that doesn't fit the organization's official storyline. They think they can do this with impunity, because they've been doing it for years.
Memo to John Carroll: that's what Dan Rather thought.
NEXT UP: The L.A. Times suppressed more than just the document experts today. Its editors continue to suppress vital information regarding the Texans for Truth. More on this in my next post on the Times.
UPDATE 9-16-04: A day later, the paper has whispered -- oh so softly -- the news about the experts. At the tail end of this story, run on the customary page for inconvenient news of the scandal (A18), we get this:
The network said it had four experts authenticate photocopies of the documents before the broadcast. The network released professional opinions from two — Marcel B. Matley and James J. Pierce — dated Tuesday. Pierce said he believed the documents were real, "based on the available evidence." Matley said he had examined the signatures and "observed nothing about the documents that could disprove their authenticity."
The other two, Emily Will and Linda James, gave interviews to ABC News and other news organizations earlier in the week saying they had reservations about the documents and had told CBS that before the "60 Minutes" broadcast.
CBS said in its statement that the two "misrepresented their conversations and communication with CBS News" and "did not raise substantial objections or render definitive judgment" on the single document they looked at.
Aaargh! Matley told you guys already that he had authenticated only one document! Don't you read your own paper??
It is simply amazing that the secretary is front-page material (which is recycled in this story), but the experts who warned Rather barely get mentioned at the end of a page A18 story -- almost as if they were an afterthought.
(Cross-posted at Oh, That Liberal Media.)
Hide extended entry
Posted by Patterico at 06:56 PM | Category: Dog Trainer | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Dan Rather Should Be Fired It is impossible for CBS News to defend its decision to hide the fact that two document experts had raised significant questions about the forged Killian documents, before the story ran. Beldar says that Dan Rather -- and any other CBS journalists and managers complicit in this cover-up -- should be fired.
I think he's right.
Let me use an analogy to make my point.
I am a prosecutor. My duty is not to convict every defendant who walks through the door of the courtroom. My highest duty is to seek justice and truth. In this sense, I share the stated goal of journalists, whose principal duty is also to seek the truth.
One of my most important duties is to tell the defense about any information I learn that could help the defense in a material way.
For example, let's say I bring a criminal case where the theory of the defendant's guilt is based primarily on expert testimony. Before trial, I consult with two experts who say that the defendant was probably innocent.
In such a case, I have a legal, ethical, and moral duty to disclose the opinions of those experts to the defense. If I make a deliberate decision to hide such information from the defense, I could (and should) be fired, disbarred, and even prosecuted.
Now, Dan Rather was not trying to put anyone in jail. But he was running a story that he knew could influence an election for President of the United States -- a position that wields immense power over people's lives, not just across the country, but also across the globe. Rather had reason to believe that his story was a fraud. Yet he ran it anyway, and hid from his viewers the evidence that the story was fraudulent.
This was a blatant violation of his fundamental duty to seek and publish the truth.
You're damn right he should be fired.
P.S. I am extremely upset at the way that the L.A. Times has handled this story, and you can bet that I'll have something to say about it later today.
Posted by Patterico at 07:09 AM | Category: Media Bias | Comments (14) | TrackBack (3) | Technorati Wandering Mind linked with Dan Rather and responsibility Generation Why? linked with Clearly B. S. No Caliban linked with Rather lied, truth died
September 14, 2004 The Other Other Other Other Shoe Drops You've heard the phrase "waiting for the other shoe to drop." Well, usually once the second shoe drops, it's over. But there are so many shoes dropping in the CBS forged documents scandal, Dan Rather has to be wondering whether the guy dropping the shoes is a millipede.
The latest scandal is here:
ABC's Brian Ross interviewed the two experts who CBS hired to validate the National Guard documents and reports they [CBS] ignored concerns they raised prior to the CBS News broadcast. "I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply," Emily Will told Ross. "I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it to be misunderstood that I did," Linda James told Ross. Ross reports 2 experts told ABC News today that even the most advanced typewriter available in 1972 could not have produced the documents. Ross also reported that Lt. Col. Jerry Killian's secretary says she believes the documents are fake but that they express thoughts Killian believed. Last night, alert reader Hank K. was trying to convince me of the following theory: Dan Rather didn't get tricked -- he tried to trick us. He knew he was trying to pass a questionable story on us, but did it anyway. He's 72 years old, he's a Democrat partisan, and this is his last chance to influence a presidential election. I am starting to think that alert reader Hank K. has a point.
At first, I just thought Rather was incredibly sloppy. He missed some obvious points about the documents. He wanted the documents to be authentic, so he didn't employ the same journalistic standards he otherwise would have.
But now we have heard from Gary Killian, and Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, and Marcel Matley, and Marjorie Connell, and Emily Will, and Linda James -- to name a few.
And this is starting to look a hell of a lot like reckless disregard for the truth. At a minimum.
It's becoming clear that CBS News went into this story knowing that there were significant doubts about the authenticity of the documents and the assertions contained therein. But they went with it anyway -- and took the attitude that anyone who questioned them was a partisan hack.
Today, when Killian's secretary denied typing the memos for him, Power Line called her revelations the "Last Nail in the Coffin." If that is so, then these two experts just kicked the coffin into the hole and started shoveling dirt like nothing you've ever seen.
UPDATE: A more detailed version is now available here. More stunning quotes:
Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents. "I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.
And the Washington Post has a story titled Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags':
In a separate telephone interview, Linda James said that she told CBS the documents "had problems" and that she had questioned "whether they were produced on a computer." Asked whether CBS took her concerns seriously, James said: "Evidently not."
. . . .
The network says it relied on two additional document experts, whose names have not been made public.
I wonder why not. They've done so well with the folks whose names they have released so far . . .
UPDATE x2: This is rich. The L.A. Times is concluding: "CBS News was had" -- at the precise moment that it has become obvious that CBS wasn't "had" -- its viewers were had.
UPDATE x3: Thanks to all who have linked this post. I hope any new readers will bookmark the site and come back!
Posted by Patterico at 06:17 PM | Category: Media Bias | Comments (22) | TrackBack (10) | Technorati INDC Journal linked with GO READ KERRY SPOT The Spoons Experience linked with RECKLESS? OR INTENTIONAL? Captain's Quarters linked with ABC: CBS Ignored Experts It Hired On Documents Allah Is In The House linked with http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/000957.html PRESTOPUNDIT -- "Kerry in Cambodia" Wall-to-Wall Coverage linked with "THIS IS Strange Women Lying in Ponds linked with Rather Consolidates His Target Market VodkaPundit linked with A Tied Game Right Thoughts linked with Dropping shoes and thoughts Secure Liberty linked with CBS memo scandal deepens New England Republican linked with Rathergate - CBS's Defense Falls Apart
Glenn Reynolds on Paula Zahn's Show Just saw Glenn Reynolds on Paula Zahn regarding the CBS forged documents scandal. Glenn's final soundbite was good: "I think CBS News has been blogged to death, and they should admit their error." But the best part of Glenn's appearance wasn't what he said -- it was his wry smile and slight shake of the head at the end of the segment, when Paula Zahn mentioned that CBS News was still standing by its story.
Posted by Patterico at 05:52 PM | Category: Blogging Matters | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS:Worldviews Behind The News linked with PowerLine's Johnson On Brit Hume
Don't Judge My Statement Until You Click on the Link For once, the right person died.
Posted by Patterico at 05:32 PM | Category: Scum | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Washington Post Puts Another Nail in the Coffin of Dan Rather's Credibility The Washington Post runs a story today that further erodes what is left of Dan Rather's credibility. It further demolishes a major part of his defense from Friday night. It calls into question virtually everything Rather offered in his defense last night. Finally, it notes that the controversy now overshadows the initial topic of Rather's story: Bush's National Guard service.
Continue reading "Washington Post Puts Another Nail in the Coffin of Dan Rather's Credibility"
Remember what Dan Rather said Friday night:
Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real.
. . . .
He looked at the documents and the signatures of Colonel Jerry Killian.... Comparing known documents with the Colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.
The L.A. Times reported the other day that CBS document "expert" Michael Matley had authenticated only one of the documents. The L.A. Times article seemed to imply -- but did not clearly state -- that Matley had examined only the signatures, and not other aspects of the documents. After reading the story, I concluded that Matley's opinion was "apparently based primarily (or entirely) on his conclusion that the document had an authentic signature." I said "apparently" because, while that appeared to be the implication, the L.A. Times story didn't nail this down.
The Washington Post today nails it down, asking the tough questions of Matley that the L.A. Times had failed to ask, and getting predictable (and stunning) results:
The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves. "There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.
Hmmm. Not quite what the Dan had told us Friday night, is it? That quote again: "Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real." Uh-huh.
(By the way, remember that Matley couldn't definitively authenticate the signatures based on photocopies either -- according to his own previous statements. I told you this in my post about the L.A. Times article. Unfortunately, the Post seems to have missed this point.)
Continuing the nail metaphor, we see that the rest of the Post story puts another nail or two in the coffin of Rather's credibility, quoting an expert (whom I told you about here) who is offering a definitive opinion that the documents are fakes:
"I am personally 100 percent sure that they are fake," said Joseph M. Newcomer, author of several books on Windows programming, who worked on electronic typesetting techniques in the early 1970s. Newcomer said he had produced virtually exact replicas of the CBS documents using Microsoft Word formatting and the Times New Roman font. Newcomer drew an analogy with an art expert trying to determine whether a painting of unknown provenance was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. "If I was looking for a Da Vinci, I would look for characteristic brush strokes," he said. "If I found something that was painted with a modern synthetic brush, I would know that I have a forgery."
The story goes on to note several specific problems with the documents, in many places directly contradicting points made in last night's defense by Rather. The documents' content is at odds in places with known facts, such as where Bush lived at the relevant time. There are many discrepancies between the CBS documents and real documents from the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard. These differences include the presence of word-processing techniques, and "stylistic examples at odds with standard Guard procedures" which are "regulated by rules and tradition, and can be of great significance."
The story notes that other claims Rather has made in his defense aren't quite . . . true:
In a CBS News broadcast Friday night rebutting allegations that the documents had been forged, Rather displayed an authenticated Bush document from 1968 that included a small "th" next to the numbers "111" as proof that Guard typewriters were capable of producing superscripts. In fact, say Newcomer and other experts, the document aired by CBS News does not contain a superscript, because the top of the "th" character is at the same level as the rest of the type. Superscripts rise above the level of the type. And every new "expert" CBS names has new problems: In its broadcast last night, CBS News produced a new expert, Bill Glennon, an information technology consultant. He said that IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents. Any argument to the contrary is "an out-and-out lie," Glennon said in a telephone interview. But Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices.
The hits just keep coming.
The story concludes:
Questions about the CBS documents have grown to the point that they overshadow the allegations of favorable treatment toward Bush. As obvious as this statement is, it's pretty surprising (and refreshing) to see it in the pages of the Washington Post. And by the way, leftists: this is exactly as it should be. The "real" question is not Bush's National Guard service, or John Kerry's Vietnam service. The "real" question is: what are these candidates and their advisers doing here in 2004?
The problem is that someone is apparently forging documents here in 2004. There is no question (among rational people) that it's a Kerry supporter who did this. What's more, there is a report (albeit unsubstantiated) that the documents were passed to CBS from the Kerry campaign. So there is a very live question as to whether the Kerry campaign is engaged in a dirty tricks campaign here in 2004. The resolution of that question is not a distraction from Bush's service of more than 30 years ago. It is a critical issue relating to the behavior of the candidates now. Again: I am not saying that the Kerry campaign is responsible. I don't know the answer to that question. But it's a genuine issue that needs to be resolved.
Moreover, this is bigger than the Bush or Kerry campaigns. CBS News was around before George W. Bush's first term began, and will presumably be around after his second term ends, more than four years from now. The question before us now is: will its reputation have recovered by then?
UPDATE: Beldar has more, including a bonus analysis of a New York Times article that expands upon the new CBS "expert" -- who, as it turns out, examined the documents for all of 15 minutes!
And Steve Sturm wonders why such an important article is on Page A08.
Hide extended entry
Posted by Patterico at 06:01 AM | Category: Media Bias | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
September 13, 2004 The Circular Dan Rather So, did you watch Dan Rather tonight? I did -- and I never watch him. I wonder if his ratings are inversely proportional to his credibility. I wouldn't be surprised. There's something strangely fascinating about watching his implosion. It's the same reason traffic slows near a terrible accident on the road.
One of Rather's major defenses tonight was that the documents must be authentic, because they line up with what we know about Bush's National Guard record. [N.B. I am not kidding. I swear it.]
This had me laughing out loud -- with bitter disdain, of course.
The documents must be from the early 1970s, because their content is consistent with what we now know about Bush's National Guard record. Of course, this is meaningless if you consider the possibility that they were forged recently -- since any recent forger could easily fill the memos with content corresponding to what we already know about Bush's National Guard record.
So: this evidence that the memos are authentic depends upon the assumption that . . . the memos are authentic. Otherwise, it's pretty damn worthless, isn't it??
If the circularity of this sounds familiar, that's because it is. Part of how we "know" the memos are authentic is because they were "validated" by Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges. Of course, that "validation" consisted essentially of CBS News telling Maj. Gen. Hodges: "the memos are authentic" and Maj. Gen. Hodges responding: "Uh . . . okay. If you say so."
See, Dan? It's called circular reasoning. And it's the whole basis of your defense, dude.
It's interesting now. But once they scoop the bodies off the road, the scene of the accident becomes nothing more than a bad memory that you'd rather forget.
I have a feeling that's the way people will remember Dan Rather when this is all over.
UPDATE: Alert reader Hank K. notes the flaw in my analogy between the ghoulish fascination of watching Dan Rather digging himself deeper into a credibility hole, and the strange appeal (for many) of seeing a tragic auto accident.
The difference is that you feel sorry for the victims of the auto accident.
UPDATE x2: RatherBiased has a transcript of the defense. The relevant language that I found so amusing is this:
CBS news relied on an analysis of the contents of the documents themselves to determine the contents['] authenticity. It is in line with [what] is known about the service and dates. Gee, Dan. It is also in line with what is known by the forger about the service and dates. Do you get my point yet? Posted by Patterico at 09:02 PM | Category: Media Bias | Comments (7) | TrackBack (4) | Technorati BeldarBlog linked with Besieged Gunga Dan serves up spitballs on Monday night's CBS Evening News; WaPo and NYT slam them back at high velocity! HobbsOnline linked with Memogate Roundup King of Fools linked with Flannel-Clad Reporting HobbsOnline linked with Memogate Roundup
Your Blogosphere Triumphalism Post William Safire praises bloggers in a piece titled Those Discredited Memos.
John Fund praises bloggers too.
The New York Sun praises bloggers.
Power to the Pajama-wearers!
Posted by Patterico at 08:20 PM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati Michelle Malkin linked with NEW YORK TIMES VS. NEW YORK SUN
More Vindication for the Dan It's more potential vindication for Dan Rather. (Or is it? Frank J. takes a closer look.)
Posted by Patterico at 06:17 PM | Category: Humor | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Rathergate Roundup Allah has today's Rathergate roundup. See what you missed while you were, you know, working.
The most interesting tidbit in the roundup comes from the American Spectator. Take it with a grain of salt:
"We're having a hard time tracking how we got the documents," says the CBS News producer. "There are at least two people in this building who have insisted we got copies of these memos from the Kerry campaign by way of an additional source." That would be rather fascinating . . . no pun intended or implied. Because proof of this could be the end of the Kerry campaign. UPDATE: Or you can just start reading RatherGate.com -- an entire web site devoted to the scandal.
UPDATE x2: I guess the American Spectator allegation is not new; I just hadn't noticed it when it was reported. It's an interesting lead, but there doesn't appear to be any meat there; it's almost in the nature of a rumor.
Posted by Patterico at 06:08 PM | Category: Media Bias | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tim Blair Takes Down a Piece by One of the Sheep at TIME Magazine We all know that, when you want regurgitated pack-mentality conclusions, there's no better place to go than TIME or Newsweek. So it's instructive to read a TIME.com piece on the Bush/National Guard issue, just to take the pulse of the sheep in the mainstream media on this issue.
Instructive, and maddening.
Continue reading "Tim Blair Takes Down a Piece by One of the Sheep at TIME Magazine"
The piece repeatedly refers to the apparently forged documents by CBS as if they were unquestionably genuine, brushing off the questions about their authenticity as something to be discussed later in the piece. When the article finally discusses the forged documents controversy, it is portrayed as a manufactured and phony dispute. A couple of strawman arguments about the documents are set up and then quickly knocked down.
This helps support a conclusion comparing the "unsubstantiated claims" by the Swift Boat Vets, who have advanced a "largely bogus criticism of [Kerry's] war record," to the claims about Bush, which are termed "more credible."
Luckily, Tim Blair has saved me some time and life-energy by taking this piece down. Blair opens with this observation, phrased in Blair's characteristically understated tone: "Ripley’s piece is possibly the most grotesque example of evasive, disingenuous, smoke-and-mirrors journalism committed this year."
And it just gets better from there.
P.S. Here is a pretty good summary of those unsubstantiated claims about Kerry. Since the mainstream media has pushed hard to get us all to swallow their conventional wisdom that the Swifties have been utterly discredited, it is instructive to see the current status of all the main claims against Kerry in one place.
Hide extended entry
Posted by Patterico at 06:33 AM | Category: Media Bias | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Council Winners The weekly winners of the Watcher's Council contest for best post of the week have been announced. Congratulations to Chadster for the winning Council entry, It's Not the Thought, It's the Dream That Counts, and to Smash for the winning non-Council entry, The Bush Doctrine.
Posted by Patterico at 06:10 AM | Category: Watcher's Council | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Another Expert Calls 'Em Forgeries Details here.
Posted by Patterico at 01:14 AM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Dan Rather Vindicated? Slings and Arrows has a disturbing document that just could result in the vindication of Dan Rather.
Posted by Patterico at 01:12 AM | Category: Humor | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
L.A. Times Story on Bloggers The L.A. Times has a story (published yesterday) on the internet's role in breaking the CBS forged documents controversy. The story, by Peter Wallsten, is titled No Disputing It: Blogs Are Major Players.
It's actually not too bad.
Continue reading "L.A. Times Story on Bloggers"
The piece opens:
These days, CBS News anchor Dan Rather and his colleagues at the network's magazine program "60 Minutes II" are enduring an unusual wave of second-guessing by some of the public and fellow journalists. For that, they can thank "Buckhead."
It was a late-night blog posting by this mystery Netizen that first questioned the validity of documents Rather cited Wednesday as proof that George W. Bush did not fulfill his National Guard duty more than 30 years ago.
The story goes on to trace the lightning-fast development of the controversy, from the initial postings by Buckhead and another FreeRepublic.com commenter named TankerKC, to Power Line, to Drudge, to the front page of the Washington Post -- all within slightly over 24 hours.
It's a good story. Even Buckhead thinks it's fair. In a comment posted on FreeRepublic, he said: "I have to give the guy credit, this is a fairly straight story."
Although I liked the story, which you should read in its entirety, I have a few observations, the first of which center around the paper's interview with Buckhead.
Perhaps the most amusing thing to me is that reporter Wallsten had to become a member of the allegedly loony right-wing FreeRepublic.com site in order to converse with Buckhead. The FreeRepublic.com site allows members to contact other members through a system called "Freepmail." Members use Freepmail to send private messages to one another. If a member does not list a personal e-mail address -- and Buckhead does not -- then Freepmail is the only way to contact a member.
How do I know this? Keep in mind that the first public statements from Buckhead and TankerKC (excluding their posts on the FreeRepublic web site) were published on this blog -- here (Buckhead) and here (TankerKC). In order to converse with Buckhead and TankerKC, I had to do exactly what Wallsten had to do: become a "Freeper."
I gotta tell you: the idea of an L.A. Times reporter becoming a "Freeper" is pretty comical to me. So comical, in fact, that I have written Wallsten to ask him what his Freeper handle is. (If he comes clean with it, you'll be the first to know.)
Second, reporter Wallsten apparently missed Buckhead's "pajamas" joke:
Buckhead is vehement about one thing: He acted alone when he posted, to the conservative website FreeRepublic.com, what was widely believed to be the first allegation that the CBS report relied on documents that could have been forged. "Absolutely, positively, on my own, sitting at my computer in my bedroom just before midnight — but not in my pajamas," he wrote in an e-mail exchange with The Times.
Good one, Buckhead! But Wallsten never explains the joke. It makes you wonder whether he even got it. (If you are unfamiliar with the "pajamas" joke, go to this Instapundit post for an explanation.)
I realize that it is asking a lot for a reporter to follow an inside joke carried on internet blogs. However, this is a story about internet blogs. What's more, the joke was prominently featured on Instapundit -- a site that (Glenn Reynolds's modest denials notwithstanding) must be read in order to follow the documents story properly.
Since I was writing Wallsten anyway, to tease him about being a Freeper, I asked him whether he got the pajamas joke -- and if so, why he didn't explain it. What's the matter, Wallsten? You don't want to make a Freeper seem like a fun-loving human being?
If there is one glaring deficiency in the story of how the doubts about the documents spread, it is that the story completely omits the major contribution of my friend Bill Ardolino at INDC Journal. Bill is the one who first found a reputable document expert who opined that the documents might well be forged. Without a true expert's opinion, this would all be mere internet speculation. But when Bill contacted a genuine expert, the media outlets couldn't rightly ignore it. This is a critical part of the story, and Wallsten missed it. (Had he been in his pajamas, he would have caught it.)
Finally, I think the story contains some overblown suggestions that we should be particularly concerned with who is running these internet sites. The story ends this way:
"The mainstream press is having to follow them," said Jeffrey Seglin, a professor at Emerson College in Boston. "The fear I have is: How do you know who's doing the Web logs? . . . .
"All hail 'Buckhead,' " wrote one posting to Free Republic.
"Here, here," wrote another. "But how do we know Buckhead is really not Karl Rove…. "
As many people have pointed out, there are plenty of people running blogs who tell you who they are. Even some of us who are generally known by their phony internet names have real names -- which you can often learn if you look hard enough. And some of these bloggers -- here I exclude myself, of course -- have impressive credentials.
So let's calm down with the whole "we don't know who the bloggers are" thing. If bloggers have the goods, it doesn't really matter who they are. And if they are asking you to rely on their personal word for something (as opposed to a logical argument, or a link to evidence), and they won't tell you who they are -- well, you're entitled to take that into account in making up your mind whether to trust them. Ultimately, the entire blogosphere appears to act as a perfectly fine fact-checking mechanism -- sometimes (gasp!) even better than newspaper editors. Hard as that may seem to believe.
But let's put our quibbles aside, and say to Peter Wallsten (as I did in my e-mail to him): hey, Peter Wallsten! Nice job on a story about bloggers! Now: next time explain the pajamas joke.
Love,
Patterico aka Patrick Frey (not Karl Rove -- as far as you know . . .)
UPDATE: As I suspected, Wallsten says he hadn't gotten the pajamas joke. I explained it.
Hide extended entry
Posted by Patterico at 12:43 AM | Category: Dog Trainer | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
September 12, 2004 Magic Castle Mrs. Patterico and I had an amazing evening last night at the Magic Castle, as the guests of honorary fellow Bear-Flagger Justin Levine (frequent guest poster at Calblog and SoCalLawBlog).
Thanks to Justin for a great night of magic.
Posted by Patterico at 04:07 PM | Category: Blogging Matters | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
L.A. Times Fails to Report Major Credibility Issue of Texans for Truth Tom Maguire points out a major deficiency in the L.A. Times's coverage of the Texans for Truth -- namely, the paper's failure to report significant issues regarding the credibility of the group's main spokesman, Bob Mintz.
Continue reading "L.A. Times Fails to Report Major Credibility Issue of Texans for Truth"
Mintz is featured in a commercial sponsored by the Texans for Truth. In the ad, Mintz says that he and his friends had not seen George W. Bush in his unit, and concludes: "It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size." In other words: George W. Bush definitely wasn't there.
But CBS News reported on September 8:
. . . Texans for Truth has a credibility problem. While the chief accuser, former Alabama Guard pilot Bob Mintz, says in the ad it would have been impossible for Mr. Bush to have gone unnoticed, in an interview earlier this year with CBS News, Mintz admitted he's not a smoking gun. "I cannot say he was not there," Mintz said. "Absolutely positively was not there. I cannot say that. I cannot say he didn't do his duty."
Of course, this assumes that CBS News quoted Mintz accurately -- and given what we know about CBS News, that's a big assumption. However, two points support the assumption:
CBS News's errors so far all seem to have benefited the Kerry campaign. Given that context, I'm not inclined to be too suspicious of a quote that benefits Bush. To my knowledge, Mintz has not claimed that he was misquoted. The L.A. Times has run four stories mentioning the Texans for Truth group, none of which mention Mintz's little credibility problem:
A September 8 story titled Ad Campaign to Question Bush's Time in Guard discussed the group's commercial in detail, and quoted Mintz's assertions in the commercial. (We'll spot the L.A. Times this story, since it came out the same day as the CBS News revelation.) Texans for Truth was mentioned yesterday in a story titled Swift Boat Group Has Raised $6.7 Million From 53,000 Donors. The group was mentioned in another story published yesterday, titled Amid Skepticism, CBS Sticks to Bush Guard Story, which I took apart in this post. And today, the group is mentioned again, in a story titled Democrats Split on Bush Guard Story. That last story contains an interesting quote from a Democratic strategist:
"If you're going to have Swift Boat Veterans for Truth running around out there on the loose, it's only fair to have Texans for Truth running around out there on the loose," said Bill Carrick, a Democratic strategist, referring to the groups behind anti-Kerry and anti-Bush ads, respectively. Well, gee -- since we're talking about fairness . . . Recall the unrestrained glee with which the Times seized on every inconsistency, both real and imagined, relating to the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. One is left to wonder: if Mintz were a Swift Boat Vet, would a major discrepancy like this have gone completely unreported?
Friends, I think you know the answer to that question.
P.S. Tom Maguire suggests that someone try to get some action out of the L.A. Times on this issue, and I agree that it's worth an e-mail to the L.A. Times Reader's Representative. I have sent the e-mail, which I'm copying to Managing Editor Dean Baquet. Here is the text of the e-mail, if you're interested:
Ms. Gold, I note that your paper has run more than one article mentioning the allegations of a group called "Texans for Truth" regarding George W. Bush's military service. I find it odd that the paper has not seen fit to mention that the fact that, according to a CBS News story printed September 8:
. . . Texans for Truth has a credibility problem. While the chief accuser, former Alabama Guard pilot Bob Mintz, says in the ad it would have been impossible for Mr. Bush to have gone unnoticed, in an interview earlier this year with CBS News, Mintz admitted he's not a smoking gun. "I cannot say he was not there," Mintz said. "Absolutely positively was not there. I cannot say that. I cannot say he didn't do his duty."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/09/politics/main642197.shtml
This is a quote from the group's main spokesman -- the man featured in the group's commercial. At the very least, it significantly undercuts the point made in the commercial.
It is impossible to imagine that the paper would ignore such a contradiction, if it came from a principal spokesman for the Swift Boat Vets. Accordingly, I can only assume that your paper was previously unaware of this quote, since it has not been mentioned in any of the four stories printed by The Times in recent days mentioning the Texans for Truth.
Now you know.
I hope you will follow up on this as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Patrick Frey Patterico's Pontifications http://patterico.com
When I hear something, you'll hear something.
Hide extended entry
Posted by Patterico at 03:21 PM | Category: Dog Trainer | Comments (4) | TrackBack (4) | Technorati BeldarBlog linked with Last links of the night QandO linked with Quick Hits Media Lies linked with Quixotic Blogging Media Lies linked with Quixotic Blogging
Beldar: There Are Two More Killian Memos Beldar asks a very good question: why does USA Today have two more purported Killian memos than CBS News has revealed??
Beldar analyzes the memos and finds some oddities. A must-read post.
Posted by Patterico at 11:53 AM | Category: Election 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Rather's Distortions of Fact: Nothing New In light of the current controversy over Dan Rather and "60 Minutes," I am going to try to press my friend harder to allow me to tell his story about his unfair treatment at the hands of Dan Rather (something I first alluded to here).
Even without permission from my friend, I can share the story in broad outlines. Rather was trying to make a specific point in a story that ran on "60 Minutes." Rather asked an interviewee about that specific point, and the interviewee gave a devastating answer that destroyed Rather's point -- and at the very least, was the best possible argument against Rather's point. The answer ended up on the cutting room floor.
That's the best I can do without permission. I'll see if I can get this guy to let me tell the story in detail. My point is this: if you think that the numerous distortions of fact by the media in recent days are a new phenomenon, you're wrong. The only thing that's new is that they can't get away with it any more.
Posted by Patterico at 07:59 AM | Category: Media Bias | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati JOE'S BLOG linked with DAN WHO?
September 11, 2004 The Power of the Jump™: L.A. Times Still Burying Evidence that CBS Presented Forged Documents (Note: "The Power of the Jump"™ is a semi-regular feature of this site, documenting examples of the Los Angeles Times's use of its back pages to hide information that its editors don't want you to see.)
Yesterday, Justin Levine noted my complaint that the L.A. Times had not run a front-page story on the question of whether the CBS documents were forgeries -- despite running a front-page story based on the documents the day before.
Justin suggested the possibility that
the L.A. Times is simply moving in a deliberately slow fashion in "nailing down this story to the satisfaction of their high journalistic standards". This way they can report details about the controversy on a Saturday when nobody reads the paper and just so happens to coincide with the 9/11 Anniversary which would bury the story again anyway. At the L.A. Times, their style of journalism is just like comedy - timing is everything. Justin turned out to be exactly right. The Times's front-page story ran today: Saturday, September 11. Okay, I'll give the editors credit -- sort of -- for finally putting the story on the front page, where it belongs. Why "sort of"? Because, in addition to the suspicious timing, the Times turns out to have no actual room on the front page for a single one of the damning details demonstrating that CBS's documents were probably forged. Incredibly, no variant of the word "forgery" appears anywhere in the entire piece -- and the front page contains no hint that the documents may not be authentic.
Here are the details:
Continue reading "The Power of the Jump™: L.A. Times Still Burying Evidence that CBS Presented Forged Documents"
The Times story is titled Amid Skepticism, CBS Sticks to Bush Guard Story. After a quick and unexplained allusion to a "growing cloud of skepticism," the rest of the material on the front page is devoted to following up on the theme of the headline: CBS worked hard on the story and is standing by it.
Here's what appears on the front page:
A CBS News report that suggested President Bush did not fulfill his military commitment 30 years ago fell under a growing cloud of skepticism Friday. But Democrats insisted that they had plenty of evidence to continue their campaign to show that Bush got breaks that other young men did not during the Vietnam War. The controversy over the television report prompted CBS Evening News' Dan Rather to issue an unusually long and detailed response Friday evening. The veteran anchor said that the network stood by its original report: that Bush got favored treatment to win a coveted spot in the Texas Air National Guard and then failed to meet performance standards once he was admitted.
Rather said in an interview that CBS worked exhaustively on the story, beginning before the 2000 presidential election.
"We worked hard, we worked long, we dug hard and did our best to be accurate, to authenticate what we could," Rather said. "This story is true, the
[See Guard, Page A18]
and here the story jumps to, ironically enough, page A18 -- the paper's page of choice for evidence showing the documents are forgeries.
Note that there is nothing on the front page to explain what might have created the "growing cloud of skepticism." Nor is there even a hint that the documents CBS presented on "60 Minutes" might be forged. What this means is that the L.A. Times still has not said on its front page that the "60 Minutes" documents might be forgeries.
All of the evidence that the documents are forged comes on the back pages. This is very significant, because (as an L.A. Times reporter has told me) studies show that most readers don't bother to follow a front-page story to the back pages.
What's more, before the paper gets to that evidence, it gives the by-now familiar warning: "The debate was fueled by conservative Internet sites and radio talk-show programs." As I have told you previously, the Times uses this as "code language telling readers that the allegations need not be taken seriously."
Now that readers are in the right frame of mind to be skeptical -- that is, what few readers have bothered to turn to page A18 -- the paper finally reveals these tidbits:
"[S]everal experts questioned the authenticity of critical memos purportedly written by the man who commanded Bush's squadron in 1972 and 1973." "A retired Guard major general [Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges] — who Rather said in an interview would corroborate the CBS account — instead told The Times that he believed the memos from the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian were not real." Moreover, Maj. Gen. Hodges also "said that he could not recall any conversations in which Killian had complained about Bush's performance or about the fact that Bush failed in August 1972 to take a physical exam, removing him from flight status." Killian's "widow and son said they believed the documents were fakes and couldn't imagine the former squadron leader criticizing Bush." And the son, Gary Killian, "said CBS had ignored his warnings that the memos were not real." A CBS expert who had supposedly authenticated all four documents turned out to have authenticated only one -- apparently based primarily (or entirely) on his conclusion that the document had an authentic signature: As another of the corroborating experts for its report, CBS and Rather presented an on-air interview with Marcel B. Matley, a San Francisco document examiner. Rather said Matley had corroborated the four Killian memos. But in an interview with The Times, the analyst said he had only judged a May 4, 1972, memo — in which Killian ordered Bush to take his physical — to be authentic.
He said he did not form a judgment on the three other disputed memos because they only included Killian's initials and he did not have validated samples of the officer's initials to use for comparison.
Ouch.
(By the way, a truly enterprising reporter might have learned another interesting detail about Matley: he has previously claimed that it is not possible to do what he did for CBS. As the Power Line blog has revealed, Matley has previously said that "a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy" -- yet photocopies are exactly what he examined for CBS.)
These details form the most damning bill of particulars against a media outlet that I have seen since the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times. And not a single one makes it onto the front page of the L.A. Times.
Yup. Justin Levine called it.
UPDATE: Tom Maguire notes another major deficiency in the Times's coverage. I address those here.
Hide extended entry
Posted by Patterico at 04:03 PM | Category: Dog Trainer | Comments (6) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati Little Miss Attila linked with What's Frightening
Question of the Day When did we bloggers exchange our bathrobes for pajamas?
UPDATE: Hey, Michelle Malkin: Who says we can't be partisan political operatives and be sitting around in our pajamas?
Posted by Patterico at 01:26 PM | Category: Humor | Comments (8) | TrackBack (2) | Technorati Absinthe & Cookies (a little bit bitter, a little bit sweet) linked with Pajamas, Bathrobes... Beautiful Atrocities linked with SUICIDE ANCHORMAN
Day By Day© by Chris Muir. About Patterico Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
Profile
Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)
Contributor: Oh, That Liberal Media CaliforniaRepublic.org
Winner of the Wizbang Award for Best Marauding Marsupials Blog, 2003
Linked by: Best of the Web The Corner How Appealing Hugh Hewitt InstaPundit Kausfiles The Volokh Conspiracy Donate to Spirit of America Click here to donate Recent Comments P. Wyly posted this comment on Extra! Extra! Freeper Is Conservative! Read All About It!
Patterico posted this comment on Limits of Permissible Voir Dire and RatherGate: A Confluence
Patterico posted this comment on NYT Screws It Up
Al posted this comment on Spinsanity on Alleged Cheney Scare Tactics
lucinda posted this comment on The L.A. Times Prints Yet Another Blatant Falsehood in a Letter to the Editor
Marta D'Coral Gables posted this comment on The Power of the Jump™: It Depends on What the Meaning of "In Play" Is
Justin Levine posted this comment on Patterico Opposes Congressional Hearings for RatherGate
jeff posted this comment on Bear: Clean Up Your Traffic Rankings Page!
Al posted this comment on Double Standard?
Kristi posted this comment on Memo to Bill Burkett
Recent Trackbacks Media Lies linked to The Grand L.A. Times Tradition of Putting Words in Someone Else's Mouth with Patterico pisses me off
Les Jones Blog linked to Extra! Extra! Freeper Is Conservative! Read All About It! with C BS. C BS Run. Run, C BS, Run (Part 7)
The Interocitor linked to Extra! Extra! Freeper Is Conservative! Read All About It! with Deceive, Inveigle and Obfuscate
Feste...a foolsblog linked to Extra! Extra! Freeper Is Conservative! Read All About It! with Hacks & Flacks
Media Lies linked to Extra! Extra! Freeper Is Conservative! Read All About It! with Patterico misses a fisking
INDC Journal linked to Extra! Extra! Freeper Is Conservative! Read All About It! with Predictable LA Times
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS:Worldviews Behind The News linked to Extra! Extra! Freeper Is Conservative! Read All About It! with BuckHead and Bulver
Wandering Mind linked to Patterico Opposes Congressional Hearings for RatherGate with I'm lost
dustbury.com linked to Patterico Opposes Congressional Hearings for RatherGate with Keeping Washington out of Rathergate
Secure Liberty linked to Patterico Opposes Congressional Hearings for RatherGate with Congressional hearings on the media? - NO
Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com linked to The Power of the Jump™: It Depends on What the Meaning of "In Play" Is with LA Times hides the ball
The Spoons Experience linked to The Power of the Jump™: It Depends on What the Meaning of "In Play" Is with ARIZONA "IN PLAY" FOR KERRY?
No Caliban linked to Dan Rather Should Be Fired with Rather lied, truth died
Generation Why? linked to Dan Rather Should Be Fired with Clearly B. S.
Wandering Mind linked to Dan Rather Should Be Fired with Dan Rather and responsibility
New England Republican linked to The Other Other Other Other Shoe Drops with Rathergate - CBS's Defense Falls Apart
Secure Liberty linked to The Other Other Other Other Shoe Drops with CBS memo scandal deepens
Right Thoughts linked to The Other Other Other Other Shoe Drops with Dropping shoes and thoughts
VodkaPundit linked to The Other Other Other Other Shoe Drops with A Tied Game
Strange Women Lying in Ponds linked to The Other Other Other Other Shoe Drops with Rather Consolidates His Target Market
PRESTOPUNDIT -- "Kerry in Cambodia" Wall-to-Wall Coverage linked to The Other Other Other Other Shoe Drops with "THIS IS
Allah Is In The House linked to The Other Other Other Other Shoe Drops with http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/000957.html
Captain's Quarters linked to The Other Other Other Other Shoe Drops with ABC: CBS Ignored Experts It Hired On Documents
The Spoons Experience linked to The Other Other Other Other Shoe Drops with RECKLESS? OR INTENTIONAL?
INDC Journal linked to The Other Other Other Other Shoe Drops with GO READ KERRY SPOT
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS:Worldviews Behind The News linked to Glenn Reynolds on Paula Zahn's Show with PowerLine's Johnson On Brit Hume
HobbsOnline linked to The Circular Dan Rather with Memogate Roundup
King of Fools linked to The Circular Dan Rather with Flannel-Clad Reporting
HobbsOnline linked to The Circular Dan Rather with Memogate Roundup
BeldarBlog linked to The Circular Dan Rather with Besieged Gunga Dan serves up spitballs on Monday night's CBS Evening News; WaPo and NYT slam them back at high velocity!
Michelle Malkin linked to Your Blogosphere Triumphalism Post with NEW YORK TIMES VS. NEW YORK SUN
Media Lies linked to L.A. Times Fails to Report Major Credibility Issue of Texans for Truth with Quixotic Blogging
Media Lies linked to L.A. Times Fails to Report Major Credibility Issue of Texans for Truth with Quixotic Blogging
QandO linked to L.A. Times Fails to Report Major Credibility Issue of Texans for Truth with Quick Hits
BeldarBlog linked to L.A. Times Fails to Report Major Credibility Issue of Texans for Truth with Last links of the night
JOE'S BLOG linked to Rather's Distortions of Fact: Nothing New with DAN WHO?
Little Miss Attila linked to The Power of the Jump™: L.A. Times Still Burying Evidence that CBS Presented Forged Documents with What's Frightening
Beautiful Atrocities linked to Question of the Day with SUICIDE ANCHORMAN
Absinthe & Cookies (a little bit bitter, a little bit sweet) linked to Question of the Day with Pajamas, Bathrobes...
Recent Entries Note to Custodian of Kinko's Videotapes: We Have a Time and Date
Celebrity Blog Sightings
Limits of Permissible Voir Dire and RatherGate: A Confluence
(Mostly) Complete History of RatherGate
Spinsanity on Alleged Cheney Scare Tactics
I've Had a Perfectly Wonderful Evening. But This Wasn't It.
Scouring the Internet
Another Shoe Drops
The Grand L.A. Times Tradition of Putting Words in Someone Else's Mouth
Extra! Extra! Freeper Is Conservative! Read All About It!
Search Search this site:
Disclaimer The opinions expressed in the posts on this site are the *personal* opinions of Patterico, and Patterico alone. Patterico does not speak for his employer on this blog. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily held by his employer, or anyone else. Patterico speaks for himself only.
Contact Patterico patterico *at* patterico *dot* com
(First-time correspondents: expect an e-mail from 0Spam.com seeking confirmation that you are not a spammer.)
September 2004 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Archives September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003
Categories Abortion Accepted Wisdom Awards Bear Flag League Blogging Matters California Recall Election Civil Liberties Constitutional Law Court Decisions Crime Current Events Dog Trainer Economics Education Election 2004 Environment Fiskings Government Grammar Humor Immigration Infotel International Judiciary Law Media Bias Miscellaneous Morons Movies Music No on 66 Political Correctness Politics Public Policy Race Real Life Schiavo Scum Second Amendment Space Spy Wiper Terrorism War Watcher's Council
GOOD SITES Best of the Web Beldar Blog The Big Picture Tim Blair BuzzMachine Captain's Quarters Cursing in Swedish Daily Dish Daniel Weintraub Dave Barry's Blog Day by Day Dead Parrot Society Dean's World The Dialectizer Dispatches from the Culture Wars Dowingba Dustbury Everything I Know Is Wrong HipperCritical How Appealing Hoystory.com HughHewitt.com InstaPundit Iraq Now Kausfiles L.A. Observed Lileks: The Bleat Little Tiny Lies Media Lies Michelle Malkin A Million Monkeys Typing The Movie Court The National Debate New England Republican Oh, That Liberal Media The Onion Outside the Beltway Pejmanesque Politburo Diktat Power Line PressThink Protein Wisdom Radley Balko Ramblings' Journal RantingProfs Say Uncle The Sciolist ScrappleFace Semi-Intelligent Thoughts Roger L. Simon Soundfury The Spoons Experience Spyware Warrior Stop the Bleating! ThoughtsOnline VodkaPundit The Volokh Conspiracy Winds of Change Wizbang Tim Worstall
BEAR FLAG LEAGUE
Aaron's Rantblog (Los Angeles) Absinthe & Cookies (Monterey) Accidental Verbosity (Expatriate) Baldilocks BelowStreetLevel Blogosferics (Expatriate) BoifromTroy (Los Angeles) CalBlog (Los Angeles) California Republic (Statewide) Citizen Smash (San Diego) Cobb (Redondo Beach) Daily Pundit (San Francisco) The Daily Spork Damnum Absque Injuria (Orange) Doggy Diaries E-Claire (Northern CA) eTALKINGHEAD.com Feste...a foolsblog The Fladen Experience Infinite Monkeys Interocitor (Los Angeles) Irish Lass (Sacramento) Jeff Doolittle (Fresno) Jockularocracy Left Coast Conservative (San Joaquin) Lex Communis (Fresno) Little Miss Attila The Lopsided Poopdeck Mad Mikey Master of None (Los Angeles) Miller's Time (Sacramento) Molly's Musings (San Diego) The Mulatto Advocate (Los Angeles) Nice Jewish Boy OC Blog Pathetic Earthlings Patio Pundit Patrick Prescott (Pasadena) Patterico's Pontifications (Los Angeles) The Pirate's Blog PrestoPundit (Orange) QandO Raincross Conservative (Riverside) Res Ipsa Loquitor Right Coast Right on the Left Beach (Laguna Beach) Roscoe's Blog Ryan's Head Shark Blog (Expatriate -- WA) Slings and Arrows (San Diego) Sneakeasy's Joint (Orange) So. Cal Law Blog (Los Angeles) Tan Horizons (Loma Linda) Tone Cluster Torerolaw The Window Manager
CONTRIBUTORS TO "OH, THAT LIBERAL MEDIA" Stefan Sharkansky David Hogberg Dave Huber Joshua Sharf Harry Siegel Kimberly Swygert Jason Van Beek Captain Ed The Ombudsgod Patterico Spoons Xrlq
Watcher's Council Watcher of Weasels Aaron's Rantblog Alpha Patriot damnum absque injuria E-Claire Exultate Justi Four Right Wing Wackos Free Will INDC Journal King of Fools Patterico's Pontifications SmarterCop Spiced Sass Leftists BionicJive.org Conestoga Street Political Animal TalkLeft Think, Dammit
Foreign Blogs Barcepundit (Spain) Davids Medienkritik (Germany) Iraq at a Glance (Iraq) Iraq the Model (Iraq) The Mesopotamian (Iraq) ¡No Pasarán! (France) Zeyad's Healing Iraq (Iraq)
Homespun Bloggers The Commons My Little Corner of the World American War Monger Daisy Cutter Chiasm Bittersweet Wandering Mind New England Republican Weapon of Mass Distraction Solomonia little red blog pacetown Chasing The Wind Mr. Minority - Speaks His Mind The Unmentionables MuD&PHuD Pink Flamingo Bar and Grill ArklahomBoy Bunker Mulligan Considerettes Mark Rauterkus & Running Mates Spritzy Southern Conservative The Therapy Sessions ChrisBerg Speaking My Mind Chrenkoff The Discerning Texan Patterico's Pontifications The Terriorists ivanyi-consultants.com Esoteric*Diatribe Louisiana Conservative It's A Matter Of Opinion Conservative Eyes Bill's Big Bloviating Blog
I'm a Large Mammal in the TTLB Ecosystem
Syndicate this site (XML)
Patterico on your PDA
Patterico Sells Out to the Man My Food Diary Gas Pocket Bikes Pocketbike for Sale Free Credit Report Online
Powered by Movable Type 2.64
They retape every couple of days.
Phew...what a read, good thing I took thos speed reading classes. There is a date and time. Abilene PD needs to look into this.
Do you really think someone is going to read all that stuff you posted?
My words exactly. Have you noticed an increase in these nonsense postings, designed to take up space, waste time, and make it difficult to find the real posts?
Actually, don't you mean the FBI? The documents were transmitted across state lines, broadcast on the national media, pertain to a Federal election, etc., etc. There may be state laws that apply but there is definitely a federal aspect to the case.
I appreciate a link to my blog, but sheesh . . . if people really want to read everything that's on the front page, they can go there.
I suspect you were trying to tell people about the date and time. I did think that was significant.
Entirely too much free time on your hands, son.
In 100 words or less, what does all that say?
Depends on the system ADT can go 30 days
I going to email this to CBS, Crazy Dan could use this info if he is going to break that fogery story.
It is. But I'd wager we'll find the mystery faxer to be Mary Mapes.
She flew to Texas to visit with Burkett in that time frame. At the time, she probably picked up the hard copies (let's hope they weren't on a floppy...).
Given she had the hard copies in her hot little hands, what is the quickest way to get them back to HQ and start the vetting process?
Right. Find a Kinko's...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.