Live Thread: CBS Evening News (Dan tells us why we're all wrong)

'KEY CHALLENGES TO NATIONAL GUARD DOCUMENTS ANSWERED' Fri Sep 10 2004 19:03:11 ET The biggest challenges to the authenticity of the documents featured in the 60 MINUTES segment on President Bush's Texas National Guard service are answered in a report to be broadcast on the CBS EVENING NEWS tonight (6:30-7:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. The report states that the type style, typewriter and the superscript function critics claim did not exist at the time the memos from President Bush's former Texas National Guard commander were typed were indeed all available. In fact, similar raised "th" superscripts have been found on other National Guard documents the White House has released from the president's file. Furthermore, Marcel Mately, the document and handwriting expert used to authenticate the documents for CBS News and 60 MINUTES, asserts that copies of the memos critics are examining have been degraded by reproduction though photocopying, computer scanning and faxing and are not reliable representations of the memos. A transcript is attached: BUSH DOCUMENTS EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER 9-10-04 Rather Lead In: There were attacks today on the CBS News "60 Minutes" report this week raising new questions about President Bush's Vietnam-era time in the Texas Air National Guard. The questions raised by our report include: --Did a wealthy Texas oilman-friend of the Bush family use his influence with the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives .. to get George W. Bush a coveted slot in the National Guard .. keeping him out of the draft and any probable service IN Vietnam? --Did Lieutenant Bush refuse a direct order from his commanding officer? --Was Lieutenant. Bush suspended for failure to perform up to standards? --Did Lieutenant Bush ever take a physical he was required and ordered to take? If not, why not? --And did Lieutenant Bush, in fact, complete his commitment to the Guard? These questions grew out of new witnesses and new evidence -- including documents written by Lieutenant Bush's squadron commander. Today, on the internet and elsewhere, some people -- including many who are partisan political operatives -- concentrated not on the key questions the overall story raised but on the documents that were part of the support of the story. They alleged the documents are FAKE. Rather: MANY OF THOSE RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CBS DOCUMENTS HAVE FOCUSED ON SOMETHING CALLED SUPERSCRIPT... A KEY THAT AUTOMATICALLY TYPES A RAISED "TH". CRITICS CLAIM TYPEWRITERS DIDN'T HAVE THAT ABILITY IN THE 70S. BUT SOME MODELS DID....IN FACT, OTHER BUSH MILITARY RECORDS ALREADY OFFICIALLY RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF SHOW THE SAME SUPERSCRIPT. HERE'S ONE..... FROM 1968. SOME ANALYSTS OUTSIDE CBS SAY THEY BELIEVE THE TYPEFACE ON THESE MEMOS IS NEW TIMES ROMAN.... WHICH THEY CLAIM WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE 1970S. BUT THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY THAT DISTRIBUTES THIS TYPING STYLE.... SAYS IT HAS BEEN AVAILABE SINCE 1931. DOCUMENT AND HANDWRITING EXAMINER MARCEL MATLEY ANALYZED THE DOCUMENTS FOR CBS NEWS. HE SAYS HE BELIEVES THEY ARE REAL...BUT IS CONCERNED ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING EXAMINED BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE QUESTIONING THE DOCUMENTS....BECAUSE DETIORATION OCCURS EACH TIME A DOCUMENT IS REPRODUCED.....AND THE DOCUMENTS BEING ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF CBS HAVEBEEN PHOTOCOPIED, FAXED, SCANNED AND DOWNLOADED.... AND ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENTS CBS STARTED WITH WHICH WERE ALSO PHOTOCOPIES. DOCUMENT AND HANDWRITING EXAMINER MARCEL MATLEY DID THIS INTERVIEW WITH US PRIOR TO THE 60 MINUTES BROADCAST. HE LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS AND THE SIGNATURES OF COLONEL JERRY KILLIAN.... COMPARING KNOWN DOCUMENTS WITH THE COLONEL'S SIGNATURE ON THE NEWSLY DISCOVERED ONES. Matley: "WE LOOK BASICALLY AT WHAT'S CALLED SIGNIFICANT OR INSIGNIFICANT FEATURES TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S THE SAME PERSON OR NOT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM IDENTIFYING THEM. I WOULD SAY BASED ON OUR AVAILABLE HANDWRITING EVIDENCE, YES. THIS IS THE SAME PERSON." Rather: MATLEY FINDS THE SIGNAT'URES TO BE SOME OF THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE...WE TALKED TO HIM AGAIN TODAY BY SATELLITE. Matley "SINCE IT IS REPRESENTED THAT SOME OF THEM ARE DEFINITELY HIS... THEN WE CAN CONCLUDE THEY ARE HIS SIGNATURES." Rather: "ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT QUESTIONS COME ABOUT THESE. WE'RE NOT, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU'RE SURPRISED." Matley: "I KNEW GOING IN THAT THIS WAS DYNAMITE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND I KNEW THAT POTENTIALLY IT WAS FAR MORE POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ME PROFESSIONALLY THAN BENEFIT ME. AND I KNEW THAT. BUT WE SEEK THE TRUTH. THAT'S WHAT WE DO. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PUT YOURSELF OUT. TO SEEK THE TRUTH AND TAKE WHAT COMES FROM IT." Rather: ROBERT STRONG WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR THE TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD DURING THE VIETNAM YEARS. HE KNEW COL. JERRY KILLIAN, THE MAN CREDITED WITH WRITING THE DOCUMENTS.... AND PAPER WORK... LIKE THESE DOCUMENTS...WAS HIS SPECIALTY. HE IS STANDING BY HIS JUDGEMENT THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE REAL. Rather: "WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THESE DOCUMENTS, IS THERE ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THAT THESE ARE GENUINE?" Strong: "WELL,, THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE WAY BUSINESS WAS DONE AT THAT TIME. THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MAN THAT I REMEMBER JERRY KILLIAN BEING. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT'S DISCORDANT WITH WHAT WERE THE TIMES, WHAT WERE THE SITUATION OR WHAT WERE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED." Rather: STRONG SAYS THE HIGHLY CHARGED POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE GUARD AT THE TIME... WAS PERFECTLY REPRESENTED IN THE NEW DOCUMENTS Strong: "IT VERGED ON OUTRIGHT CORRUPTION IN TERMS OF THE FAVORS THAT WERE DONE, THE POWER THAT WAS TRADED. AND IT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE. FROM A MORAL AND ETHICAL STANDPOINT. IT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE." Rather: IT IS THE INFORMATION IN THE NEW DOCUMENTS THAT IS MOST COMPELLING FOR PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORD IN THE NATIONAL GUARD. AUTHOR JIM MORE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT. Rather: "YOU'VE STUDIED PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORDS FOR 10 YEARS.. ARE THESE DOCUMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORD AS YOU KNOW IT?" Moore: "THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORDS AS I KNOW IT." Rather: "PUT IT IN CONTEXT AND PERSPECTIVE FOR US ... THE STORY AND WHAT WE CALL THE COUNTERATTACK ON THE STORY. WHERE ARE WE RIGHT NOW? Moore "I THINK WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS HAVE COME OUT. THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU SHOULD REMEMBER, HAS NOT DISCREDITED THE DOCUMENTS. THEY'RE RELYING ON THE BLOGOSPHERE AND OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THAT. BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE PROBABLY KNOWS THESE DOCUMENTS ARE IN FACT REAL." Rather Tag: The "60 Minutes" report was based NOT solely on the recovered documents .. but on a preponderance of evidence .. including documents that were provided by un-impeachable sources .. and interviews with former officials of the Texas National Guard. If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none.

Times Roman has been available since 1931, but only in linotype printshops...until released with Apple MacIntosh in 1984 and Windows 3.1 in 1991.

As I recall, Times Roman was not released with the original Macintosh in 1984.

The Mac did have a font called Times, which was approximately like Times Roman, but I don't think even this was available until the Apple LaserWriter was released in 1985.

On the original Mac, Apple's New York font was the closest thing to Times Roman. (No one would ever confuse New York with Times Roman or Times, though.) This was back before PostScript fonts and TrueType fonts; all fonts on the Mac were bitmapped back then.

According to the Apple's press release on the LaserWriter, "The LaserWriter is the first personal-computer printer to be awarded license to use the original Helvetica and Times typefaces" (see http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=587%40uw-beaver, late January, 1985).

I don't know whether Windows 3.1 included Times Roman or not. Maybe someone with an old machine sitting around could check.

http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm

Newsgroups: comp.fonts
Subject: Re: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman?
From: Charles Bigelow
Date: 5 May 1994

"Times Roman" is the name used by Linotype, and the name they registered as a trademark for the design in the U.S. "Times New Roman" was and still is the name used by The Monotype Corporation. The face was developed by The Times newspaper for its own use, under the design direction of Stanley Morison. Originally cut by the Monotype Corp. in England, the design was also licensed to Linotype, because The Times used Linotype equipment for much of its actual production. The story of "The Times New Roman" can be found in Stanley Morison's A Tally of Types, published by Cambridge University Press, with additional, though not quite the same, versions in Nicolas Barker's biography of Stanley Morison, and in James Moran's biography of SM. (There should be an apostrophe in that name, "Times' Roman", I suppose, though no-one uses it.)

During WWII, the American Linotype company, in a generous spirit of Allied camaraderie, applied for registration of the trademark name "Times Roman" as its own, not Monotype's or The Times', and received the registration in 1945.

In the 1980's, all this was revisited when some entrepreneurs, desirous of gaining the rights to use the name, applied to Rupert Murdoch, who owned The Times; separately, a legal action was also initiated to clarify the right of Monotype to use the name in the U.S., despite Linotype's registration.

The outcome of all of the legal maneuverings is that Linotype and its licensees like Adobe and Apple continue to use the name "Times Roman", while Monotype and its licensees like Microsoft use the name "Times New Roman".

During the decades of transatlantic "sharing" of the Times designs, and the transfer of the faces from metal to photo to digital, various differences developed between the versions marketed by Linotype and Monotype. Especially these became evident when Adobe released the PostScript version, for various reasons having to do with how Adobe produced the original PostScript implementations of Times. The width metrics were different, as well as various proportions and details.

In the late 1980's, Monotype redrew its Times New Roman to make it fit exactly the proportions and metrics of the Adobe-Linotype version of Times Roman. Monotype claimed that its new version was better than the Adobe-Linotype version, because of smoother curves, better detailing, and generally greater sensitivity to the original designs done for The Times and Monotype by Victor Lardent, who worked under the direction of Stanley Morison. During the same period, Adobe upgraded its version of Times, using digital masters from Linotype, which of course claimed that it had a superior version, so there was a kind of competition to see who had the most refined, sensitive, original, genuine, bona-fide, artistically and typographically correct version. Many, perhaps most, users didn't notice and didn't care about these subtle distinctions, many of which were invisible at 10 pt at 300 dpi (which is an em of 42 pixels, a stem of three pixels, a serif of 1 pixel, and so on).

When Microsoft produced its version of Times New Roman, licensed from Monotype, in TrueType format, and when Apple produced its version of Times Roman, licensed from Linotype, in TrueType format, the subtle competition took on a new aspect, because both Microsoft and Apple expended a great deal of time and effort to make the TrueType versions as good as, or better than, the PostScript version. During the same period, Adobe released ATM along with upgraded versions of its core set of fonts, for improved rasterization on screen. Also, firms like Imagen, now part of QMS, and Sun developed rival font scaling technologies, and labored to make sure that their renderings of Times, licensed from Linotype in both cases, were equal to those of their competitors. Hence, the perceived quality of the Times design became a litmus for the quality of several font formats. Never before, and probably never again, would the precise placement of pixels in the serifs or 's' curves etc. of Times Roman occupy the attention of so many engineers and computer scientists. It was perhaps the supreme era of the Digital Fontologist.

As for the actual visual differences in the designs, well, like any good academic author, I leave the detection and analysis of those "as an exercise for the reader".

© Charles Bigelow

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.