Posted on 09/13/2004 2:29:01 PM PDT by swilhelm73
A NUMBER OF EXPERTS have now weighed in on the inauthenticity of the documents CBS breathlessly revealed on 60 Minutes earlier this week--documents purportedly typed by the deceased commander of George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard unit in 1972 and 1973, but actually produced on a personal computer using Microsoft Word. I predict--and here I'm going out on a limb 10-feet wide and only an inch off the ground--that it's only a matter of time before CBS admits it was deceived. If there's any honor and professional pride left in the CBS newsroom, they will then expose the party or parties who deceived them.
Why did the premier news show in what was once reputed to be the premier television newsroom fall for such transparent fakes? Anyone old enough to have used a typewriter can look at them for a few minutes and figure out that they weren't typed on a typewriter in the early 1970s. A poster on FreeRepublic.com whose screen name is "Buckhead" was, to my knowledge, the first to do so at midnight Wednesday, shortly after CBS's scoop had aired. "Every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman," this person wrote. "In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts. . . . I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old."
Indeed, some have speculated that a generation gap may
have contributed to the blunder, since only those of us over 40 can remember what it was like to try to type, say, "187th" with the "th" raised above the baseline. You had to turn the platen by hand. (Do you remember what a platen is?) And you couldn't have gotten a smaller "th" without changing the little type ball. Would you have gone to such trouble in typing a memo for your own files?
But the more important reason CBS was duped is that they wanted to believe the story. And the memos neatly fit the anti-Bush narrative that they believed to be true: Namely, Bush was a slacker at the end of his tour of duty and his superiors covered for him because they were under political pressure to do so.
Here's a revealing anecdote reported by Michael Dobbs and Mike Allen in this morning's Washington Post:
A senior CBS official . . . named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said that a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone, and that Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."
"These documents represent what Killian not only was putting in memoranda, but was telling other people," the CBS News official said. "Journalistically, we've gone several extra miles."
Obviously, you can't authenticate a document by reading it to someone over the phone. (CBS claims to have had other "experts" examine the documents but has been unwilling to name them.) What this reporting should have suggested to CBS is that whoever forged the documents was someone who knew what CBS's sources would be saying--someone well informed on the anti-Bush scuttlebutt about his National Guard service. The "documents" neatly reflect the reigning anti-Bush theories of the events of 1972 and 1973 and perfectly buttress the anti-Bush narrative because they were produced by someone who was obsessing over that narrative and understood that reporters would need "documentation" to advance the story.
Just as obviously, the journalists who went into overdrive for the National Guard story when the phony memos were released, with few exceptions, want to see Kerry win and Bush lose. This makes them suckers for a good anti-Bush story. It's conventional to call this media bias and be shocked by it. But really it's just human nature. That's why we have to be especially skeptical of the stories we fall in love with. And that's why CBS screwed up.
"If there's any honor and professional pride left in the CBS newsroom, they will then expose the party or parties who deceived them."
That's an awfully big "if".
Whoa! His statment as I recall was "If that's what he wrote than that's what he must have felt at the time." The spin continues.
I don't think there's a font with a type size big enough for that "IF."
Oh, yes, the pooooooor, sad, pitiful CBS, victimized by a forger, sad little thing...
Oh well. I'll get over it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
This is a good comment. The CBS error may be a mistake, but it's not an honest mistake. They're so blinded by their anti-Bush animus they can't research their stories properly.
Have "media types" tried to contact you (FReepMail??) because of your investigative abilities?
He forgot to mention that CBS is a bunch of lying, cheating rat bastards.
If CBS admitts these memos are forgeries, they will have to name their sources.
Perhaps the hoax was not ON CBS - but rather BY CBS.
The author gives CBS too much credit. See-BS has been manufacturing "news" stories for years, to satisfy its agenda-driven Manifesto.
"If there's any honor and professional pride left in the CBS newsroom"
This is the real question but I think I know the answer. Anyone who's been around as long as Rather should know the risk of a prolonged denial and coverup. CBS scured President Nixon when he did the same thing. It's ironic to see Dan Rather in the same straits.
Au contraire, mon frere. I'm not (quite) that old, but still remember typing even on manual typewriters (in fact, the noise of an IBM Selectric unnerved me and slowed me down for the first time I used one). Granted, I started typing around age 8.
And isn't Dan Rather a bit over 40, and experienced with a typewritten page from 1972? Of course he is. He's just a lying bag of bones.
I have three children under 17 months, and I change probably 15 diapers a day. And I don't see as much crap in a month as came out of Danny's mouth in five minutes of reading the 'news' last Friday.
Considering CBS told Hodges it was hand-written (and I'm sure they also told Hodges that their 'expert' had authenticated it) then what else would have said? LOL! I wonder if the handwriting expert did his authentification over the phone, too?
CBS: "There's a JBK in script; looks like it was written by hand."
Expert (over phone): "Must be his, then."
But, atlas, there is none.....
D'oh
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.