Posted on 09/12/2004 10:13:58 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
ashington Alert bloggers who knew the difference between the product of old typewriters and new word processors immediately suspected a hoax: the "documents" presented by CBS News suggesting preferential treatment in Lt. George W. Bush's National Guard service have all the earmarks of forgeries.
The copies of copies of copies that formed the basis for the latest charges were supposedly typed by Guard officer Jerry Killian three decades ago and placed in his "personal" file. But it is the default typeface of Microsoft Word, highly unlikely to have been used by that Texas colonel, who died in 1984. His widow says he could hardly type and his son warned CBS that the memos were not real.
When the mainstream press checked the sources mentioned or ignored by "60 Minutes II," the story came apart.
The Los Angeles Times checked with Killian's former commander, the retired Guard general whom a CBS executive had said would be the "trump card" in corroborating its charges. But it turns out CBS had only read Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges the purported memos on the phone, and did not trouble to show them to him. Hodges now says he was "misled" - he thought the memos were handwritten - and believes the machine-produced "documents" to be forgeries. (CBS accuses the officer of changing his story.)
The L.A. Times also checked out a handwriting analyst, Marcel Matley (of Vincent Foster suicide-note fame), who CBS had claimed vouched for the authenticity of four memos. It turns out he vouches for only one signature, and no scribbled initials, and has no opinion about the typography of any of the supposed memos.
The Dallas Morning News looked into the charge in one of the possible forgeries dated Aug. 18, 1973, that a commander of a Texas Air Guard squadron was trying to "sugar coat" Bush's service record. It found that the commander had retired from the Guard 18 months before that.
The Associated Press focused on the suspicion first voiced by a blogger on the Web site Freerepublic.com about modern "superscripts" that include a raised th after a number. CBS, on the defense, claimed that "some models" of typewriters of the 70's could do that trick, and some Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House included it.
"That superscript, however," countered The A.P., "is in a different typeface than the one used for the CBS memos." It consulted the document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines of Paradise Valley, Ariz., and reported "she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer."
The Washington Post reported Dan Rather's response to questions about the documents' authenticity: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill" and questioned the critics' "motivation."
After leading with that response, Post media reporter Howard Kurtz noted that the handwriting expert Matley said that CBS had asked him not to give interviews, and that an unidentified CBS staff member who had examined the documents saw potential problems with them: "There's a lot of sentiment that we should do an internal investigation."
Newsweek (which likes the word "discredited") has apparently begun an external investigation: it names "a disgruntled former Guard officer" as a principal source for CBS, noting "he suffered two nervous breakdowns" and "unsuccessfully sued for medical expenses."
It may be that CBS is the victim of a whopping journalistic hoax, besmearing a president to bring him down. What should a responsible news organization do?
To shut up sources and impugn the motives of serious critics - from opinionated bloggers to straight journalists - demeans the Murrow tradition. Nor is any angry demand that others prove them wrong acceptable, especially when no original documents are available to prove anything.
Years ago, Kurdish friends slipped me amateur film taken of Saddam's poison-gas attack that killed thousands in Halabja. I gave it to Dan Rather, who trusted my word on sources. Despite objections from queasy colleagues, he put it on the air.
Hey, Dan: On this, recognize the preponderance of doubt. Call for a panel of old CBS hands and independent editors to re-examine sources and papers. Courage.
|
|
Especially Repubican Congressmen in Texas.
A hoax???? This is criminal.
"To shut up sources and impugn the motives of serious critics - from opinionated bloggers to straight journalists - demeans the Murrow tradition."
CBS is trying to stomp on this without giving up the smear. They think they can somehow say "We admit they're forgeries...but let's forget that and get on to what the memos say." It's completely idiotic--"Pay no attention to the 800-lb. gorilla behind the curtain!" If they'd immediatelly stomped on this, we'd be getting the ending trickle of op-eds about it today. But they're perpetuating the smear, and digging in deeper. They will soon turn up even mORE smears, hoping to bring Bush down, and then cruise into a Kerry presidency. But they are TRASHING their last shreds of journalistic integrity because, as Bernie Goldberg (VINDICATED!) has said--They SO want it to be true.
CBS' claim that the officer changed his story is nothing but a red herring. Depending on the exact circumstances, it may have some bearing on CBS' complicity in the fraud, but it has no bearing on whether the documents are forgeries.
The story moves on. Whether Dan Rather likes it or not, this story is going to move on. If they wait and convene a panel and declare the documents inauthentic in a few days, it won't make any difference because that will be old news by then.
There are a lot of interesting parallels between this CBS memo story and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story. In both cases the mainstream media felt like they were in control of the clock. They delayed acknowledging known events, with the effect of exacerbating rather than ameliorating the negative impact of stories which played against their candidate.
Both the Democrats and the left-leaning media would do well to realize they cannot control the dissemination of information (anymore), and it is in their own interest to not pretend to do so. They could take an object lesson from their nemesis Mr. Rove. As soon as he got the memos, he released them without comment. The White House simply said "we don't know if they're forged or not", and stayed on message. The truth doesn't have to hurt if you don't let it.
First of all, I can't believe I am reading this in the NY Times. Maybe they are letting Sapphire play the part of a 'Responsible News person' filing an accurate and complete account. But few will mistake that the NY Times is actually a "responsible news organization", and they have shown repeatedly over the past years that they have no idea how a "responsible news organization" would act.
Secondly, the "hoax" here didn't start with CBS "News". "Responsible Journalists" (if there are any anymore) will want to trace the lineage of these documents from the DNC, to the Kerry campaign, then to CBS "News". THAT is the story, and that is what a "responsible news organization" would actually be following up on.
Well ..it is Bill Safire...their token quasi-conservative.
OTOH...it's good to see this there....it doesn't hurt.
William Safire mentioned you in this article.
DOn't it is an Op-ED piece by William Safire...a noted conservative who often bites the hand that feeds him
Oh, Joy, sweet rapture, at last some of the evil ones are taking a fall, hoist upon their own petard! Sweet, sweet justice. I am filled, my cup runneth over. Thank you, God. What's the frequency, Kenneth? It's Internet 2004 on your computer dial, radio FREEP. Eat that, LIB PROPOGANDA MACHINE!!!
I agree. When is that connection going to be emphasized?
Rather can't brush off a torpedo from Safire. He has to answer it, or be snickered at for the rest of his life as a fool who bought the world's clumsiest forgeries, and stuck with them.
---I agree. When is that connection going to be emphasized?---
I don't know, but I would like to see some murmuring starting up! I'm making a point of using the words criminal conspiracy wherever I can. :^)
I wonder if Matley knows the signature he vouched for was on a photocopy and not an original. Maybe that is why CBS doesn't want him talking to the media. BTW, would an intersting side effect of Fontgate be to reopen the Foster case? Woo hoo!
Uh, Dan?? Normally it is the "accuser" who must validate the authenticity of the charges made, and, if I remember the journalistic ethics I was taught many years ago correctly, it is the journalist who is repsonsible for verifying the accuracy of his story.
Of course, I realize that you are not a journalist (although you do portray one on television). I guess high paid teleprompter reader's are exempt from this - after all, you're just following orders right??
He didn't cover everything, but he did tie in a lot of the pieces already published by the MSM together. All in all, a pretty good op-ed, and since it's from the Times, one that won't be ignored.
I gotta disagree. Safire does mention the bloggers noting this first, and the MSM that covered this was able to get to talk to people that we wouldn't have had access to, like witnesses and experts. I think we have to give credit to those MSM reporters who actually did research on the issue.
* E-Mail:
You can send a complaint to fccinfo@fcc.gov
* Phone:
Toll Free: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice, 1-888-TELL- FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY. Our Consumer and Mediation Specialists are available Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET
* Fax:
Toll-Free: 1-866-418-0232
We need the following information when you file a general complaint with the FCC:
*
Your name, address and the telephone number or numbers involved with your complaint; (if telephone related)
*
A telephone number where you can be reached during the business day;
*
Specific information about your complaint, including the names of all companies involved with your complaint;
*
Names and telephone numbers of the company representatives that you contacted, the dates that you spoke with these representatives, and any other information that would help process your complaint;
*
If telephone related, include a copy of the bill(s) listing the disputed charges;
*
What type of resolution are you seeking?
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.
