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.
|
|
Rather apparently thinks that the douments are real "until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not" ... that's not the way for a real newsman to approach the burden of proof. Furthermore, one would be well to question his "motivation".
Thanks, good to have!
If Rather doesn't retract the story within a day or two I'm definitely filing a complaint.
A hunt and peck typist would have a different patter of typing than a proficient typist would produce.
Without 'REAL' scientific testing cBS and 60 mins have diddly squat in evidence!
No defense lawyer worth his salt would let a prosecutor get away with such shoddy evidence as danny boy has presented in a court of law.
Amen Travis!
Now Rather MUST address "the seriousness of the charges".
Safire makes 'em legit in the MSM world.
Can you imagine the comments made behind Rather's back < /snicker /guffaw >?
Although I like the Safire piece, I would contend that shutting up sources and impugning motives IS the Murrow tradition, and Safire's incorrect view of the Murrow tradition is convenient at the moment.
How ironic. NYT opinion columnist reports the news since he knows the "reporters" won't do it.
Rather is already a laughing stock.
He'll be gone by October: the rest of CBS News will not want to go down with his ship.
Thanx for posting.
It would be the only way I would get to read it since I don't even bother to go to the NYT website anymore...
But Safire after revealing all the MSM who contradicts Dan Blather appears to be trying to make excuses for the bias at "See B.S."...
Guess what Safire...that dog won' hunt..
Blather & company just got "punked"...
and now they're the laughing stock of the world!
I see nuthing...I hear nuthing...I know nuthing....
True, but then again, we'd just sue.
We have lots of posters, and lost of time on our hands. Haven't you heard? We sit around in our pajamas all day. ; )
He does write well, however. I always had a sneaking suspicion that he was quidam of days past. It would make sense that if Safire got a tip he could have his alter ego, quidam, run it up the flagpole over here and see if it got shot down.
In military parlance it's called the decison cycle, and thanks to AlGore's Internet, we are most definitely operating "inside" the MSM's timescale. Their relatively few reporters, additonally burdened with bias in a lot of cases, cannot out-investigate thousands of netizens with a wide background of expertise.
I just called the number for the FCC that you posted.
Toll Free: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) (You have to deal with a two number menus and finally punching zero got me to a live person.)
The lady seemed nice. She said the FCC has "nothing to do with the content of what television stations air" WHAT!!!???? I discussed that point with her a bit but she was adamant.
So then I mentioned Janet Jackson's breast and she said -"That was different. In that case we got lots and lots of complaints"
Sounds like they are looking for lots and lots of complaints!
Excellent point. Similar also to the open source movement in software.
This is the article that Rather cannot run from. It is good summary of the problems with the forgeries. It appears in the NYT. It is written by someone who probably has some affection for Rather unlike me and everyone else on this forum.
That's a slander! I never FReep wearing pajamas! I'm more of a boxer-short and coffee cup kinda guy.
At the end of this piece, Safire tries to pull Rather's chestnuts from the fire. Pretty much says, "I owe him one 'cause he did me a favor once."
If Rather is complicit, Safire, that is the more important issue.
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.