Category: Media Matters & Reportage

Birds of a Feather

AP, via Yahoo News!, reports this:

Brokaw, Jennings Show Support for Rather

By DEEPTI HAJELA, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK – While acknowledging mistakes in CBS anchor Dan Rather’s “60 Minutes” report that questioned President Bush’s service in the National Guard, competing news anchors Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings offered support Saturday for the beleaguered newsman.

Brokaw blasted what he called an attempt to “demonize” CBS and Rather on the Internet, where complaints about the report first surfaced. He said the criticism “goes well beyond any factual information.”

“What I think is highly inappropriate is what going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad … that is quite outrageous,” the NBC anchor said at a panel on which all three men spoke….

The Guard story, aired on Sept. 8, was discredited because it relied on documents impugning Bush’s service that apparently were fake.

“I don’t think you ever judge a man by only one event in his career,” said Jennings, anchor on ABC….

Political jihad. That’s cute, Brokaw. But Rather’s the one who’s been on a political jihad for most of his “journalistic” career.

I agree, Jennings, never judge a man by only one event in his career. Rather’s bias shows up nightly. That’s more than 4,000 events since he took over as the anchor of CBS Nightly News. Not enough evidence for you? Plenty for me.

How to Write a Headline about Iraq

The New York Times loves to editorialize in its headlines. Here’s one from this morning: “Iraq Study Sees Rebels’ Attacks as Widespread.” I think the message we’re supposed to take from that selective bit of information is this:

Nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah.

Or this:

Cut and run.

Actually, the article goes on to attain a degree of balance:

…The number of attacks has risen and fallen over the months….[T]he highest numbers were in April, when there was major fighting in Falluja, with attacks averaging 120 a day. The average is now about 80 a day….

But it is a measure of both the fog of war and the fact that different analysts can look at the same numbers and come to opposite conclusions, that others see a nation in which most people are perfectly safe and elections can be held with clear legitimacy….

Indeed, no raw compilation of statistics on numbers of attacks can measure what is perhaps the most important political equation facing Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and the American military: how much of Iraq is under the firm control of the interim government. That will determine the likelihood – and quality – of elections in January.

For example, the number of attacks is not an accurate measure of control in Falluja; attacks have recently dropped there, but the town is controlled by insurgents and is a “no go” zone for the American military and Iraqi security forces. It is a place where elections could not be held without dramatic political or military intervention.

The statistics show that there have been just under 1,000 attacks in Baghdad during the past month; in fact, an American military spokesman said this week that since April, insurgents have fired nearly 3,000 mortar rounds in Baghdad alone. But those figures do not necessarily preclude having elections in the Iraqi capital.

Pentagon officials and military officers like to point to a separate list of statistics to counter the tally of attacks, including the number of schools and clinics opened. They cite statistics indicating that a growing number of Iraqi security forces are trained and fully equipped, and they note that applicants continue to line up at recruiting stations despite bombings of them.

But most of all, military officers argue that despite the rise in bloody attacks during the past 30 days, the insurgents have yet to win a single battle.

“We have had zero tactical losses; we have lost no battles,” said one senior American military officer. “The insurgency has had zero tactical victories. But that is not what this is about.

“We are at a very critical time,” the officer added. “The only way we can lose this battle is if the American people decide we don’t want to fight anymore.”…

It will be a Vietnam if we decide to make it a Vietnam. But not otherwise.

Think of the headline the Times might have run: “Iraq Progressing Despite Insurgency; Fate Hinges on Americans’ Resolve.” Now that is editorializing in a headline.

Lileks Nails the Sunday Times Set

I used to subscribe to the Sunday edition of The New York Times. I quit when I got tired of being pounded by a point of view, in every damned section (even Sports). I hung on until I found that I no longer enjoyed the Magazine. Then I quit taking the Sunday Times and did my bit to prevent deforestation. James Lileks knows whereof I speak:

The Sunday Times is the weekly sermon: let us reinforce your world view, your sense of belonging to the Thinking Class, the Special Ones….Anyway, it’s a sunny fall morning – well, noonish. Now comes the capstone moment when you lay the slab of the Times in your lap and begin the autoposy of the week. Scan the A section headlines – yes, yes, yes, appalling. Scan the metro: your eyes glaze. The arts section – later. Travel – Greece again? Good for Greece….No comics . . . there was always comics on Sunday back home. But that was IOWA, for heaven’s sake, what else would you expect but Blondie and Ziggy and the rest . . . ah.

The Magazine.

Let’s begin! A little humorous piece – not funny haha funny, but, you know, arch, which is very urbane. Then there’s an essay on words, which is wonderful because you love words, and then a big serious piece about that horrible situation the administration isn’t doing anything about. You’ll read it later – skim the pull quotes for now. Best of all are the ads, because you really wouldn’t want to wear any of that stuff but it’s fun to look at….

(The New York Times Sunday Magazine is placed on the top of the toilet tank)

(The New York Times Sunday Magazine slides off the toilet tank, reminding you why you don’t put it there)

(The New York Times Sunday Magazine is strategically placed on the coffee table to alert anyone who comes into your flat that you read the New York Times Sunday Magazine)

(One week later, unread and unobserved, it is replaced by another edition. Cover story: global climate change and tourism threatens biodiversity in Antarctica. But you suspected as much. The whole world is going to hell. Except for New York. New York is fabulous. It just has to be.)

(Two weeks later: none of your friends are bloggers and none of your friends read blogs. So nevermind.)

But then there was the Book Review, which I kept taking (by mail) for a few more years. Then the Book Review began to get ever more serious — less fiction, more “relevance” — and ever more stridently left-wing — with a few libertarian-conservatives thrown into the mix, just for fun, in the spirit of “let’s show our compassion to the masses by inviting some anti-globalist protesters to our black-tie party.” Well, I quit taking the Book Review, too.

So, I’ve kicked the Times habit, and I wake up every morning feeling better about myself.

In the "Stupid Headline" Department

AP: Carter Still Promoting Peace at 80

No, no, no! It is not promoting peace when you cozy up to left-wing dictators, coddle Arab terrorists, and oppose the liberation of Iraq. It’s promoting war and terror and torture.

When will the press learn to look beneath the surface of Carter’s prissy moralism to the depths of its consequences?

Why Don’t They Do Something Challenging?

“The Hon. Dick Thornburgh and Louis D. Boccardi to Comprise Independent Review Panel Examining CBS News ’60 Minutes’ Wednesday Report.” Are they that hard up for something to do? That job ought to take them a day, including meal breaks and a gala farewell for Dan Rather. They ought to take on a challenging project, like getting the name of Peter Jennings’s hair colorist.

Outrageous Headline du Jour

We learn this from BBC News:

US in shock over hostage deaths

America has woken up in shock to the news that both the US hostages being held by militants in Iraq have been killed by their captors….

Unfortunately, Americans aren’t shocked. Shock is “the feeling of distress and disbelief that you have when something bad happens accidentally.” Americans, by and large, were expecting the hostages to be beheaded. There was nothing sudden or accidental about the beheadings.

“Outraged” is the right word, BBC. Get a dictionary.

Austin’s "Humor" Columnist at Work

UPDATED BELOW

The Austin American-Statesman carries the brainwaves of one John Kelso, the paper’s alleged humor columnist. In a recent column, “Hey old man, step away from the camera,” Kelso pokes fun at an incident in which a 71-year old amateur photographer and Austin resident was questioned by police for photographing the city’s tallest building, the Frost Bank Tower. Here’s some of what passes for “humor” in Kelso’s mind:

Something tells me Bill W… wouldn’t have gotten off so easy if he’d been wearing Arab garb and hollering “God is great” out the car window when he took photos of the Frost Bank Tower.

“I just hope Congress doesn’t pass a law making it illegal to own a camera,” the Austin retiree wrote in an e-mail about the situation. But he adds that the Austin cop who questioned him to see if he was a terrorist taking pictures of the Austin skyline was nice about it.

Bill looks at the situation as a sign of our unreasonably edgy times.

“He was very polite, and I think he was kind of embarrassed,” said Bill, 71, an amateur photographer who lives in Northwest Austin. “I didn’t fault him at all ’cause I know they have to respond to any calls that they get along those lines. I guess it’s just an indication of the public mind-set, to see a terrorist behind every shadow.”

[H]e decided to try out his new toy — a set of Meade binoculars equipped with a built-in digital camera.

“That Frost Bank Tower is a real challenge to take a picture of. It dominates the skyline.”…

Bill’s stepson had told him about a great place to shoot a photo of the Austin skyline — on the northbound frontage road of Interstate 35, a block or two south of Riverside Drive. So that’s where Bill headed. He parked in an office building parking lot. Then he got out the binoculars/camera, rolled down the driver’s side window, and started shooting out the window.

Moments later, here came the law. He’d only had time to fire off four or five shots before the cop pulled up and started asking questions.

“What he told me was that somebody had called in and reported somebody was taking pictures of downtown, and he wanted to know if that was what I was doing,” Bill recalled. “And I was very cooperative, and said yes.”

I figure if Bill had been an architect and had had a set of building plans on the front seat, he’d be in an orange jumpsuit.

“He saw that I was a senior citizen, and I didn’t fit the profile of a young, suicidal terrorist or anything like that.” But he says the cop did take down some information on him, including his driver’s license number.

“I’m probably on some database, don’t you think?” Bill asked.

Yes, Bill, you’ll be taking off your shoes at the airport for the rest of your life.

Kevin Buchman, an Austin police spokesman, says there’s no set policy on dealing with people taking photos of such things as the Frost Bank Tower. But he says the cops are glad to get calls from folks when they see suspicious activity.

“We encourage that from the community,” he said. “They’re our eyes and ears.”

Then again, what’s suspicious? I’ll betcha right now tourists from, say, Abilene, are taking snapshots of the Capitol. I wonder if I should turn them in?

Questions I asked myself when I finished reading Kelso’s “humor” column: (1) Funny, right? (2) Shouldn’t citizens ignore stuff like that, what’s suspicious about it? (3) Shouldn’t cops refuse to respond? (4) Shouldn’t cops take notes about stuff they respond to? (5) Isn’t it stupid to be edgy about terrorists?

Answers: (1) Not funny…just lame…too stupid to laugh at…didn’t even crack a smile. (2) Someone who parks on a frontage road a good distance from a building seems furtive, unlike a group of tourists from Abilene who stand in front of a building when they they photograph it. Citizens should “ignore” furtive activity the same way the passengers on United flight 93 “ignored” the hijackers and forced them to fly the plane into the ground. (3) Cops should respond to stuff like that because you never know when it’s the real thing. Who’s to know it’s a self-important 71-year old who thinks that cops are supposed to know that he’s not a terrorist even before they’ve laid eyes on him? (4) And, as a matter of prudence, it’s just as well to let him know that his presence has been noted. (5) Taking note of suspicious activity isn’t being edgy, it’s being prudent, and it doesn’t mean that everyone is walking around all day with a case of nerves. A lot of us can walk, chew gum, tell a joke, and keep our eyes open all at the same time. But maybe all of that’s too hard for Kelso.

Bonus observation: Kelso obviously dislikes profiling; check his lede. But if he dislikes profiling why should he object when the furtive behavior of a 71-year old white man is questioned? Oh, I forgot, in the liberal mindset terrorists aren’t a threat until they’ve actually struck. But you can bet that Kelso would be on the Austin cops’ case in a heartbeat if they had questioned and turned loose a suspicious character who then drove a truck bomb into the lobby of the Frost Bank Tower.

UPDATE
Kelso’s most recent column displays his knee-jerk dislike of Austin’s once-dominant high-tech types:

It must be rutting season for the species Yuppius North Austintatious. Like a mother bear separated from her cubs, these critters become upset by waits in the doughnut drive-through line.

Though rarely known to lock horns, the males, when even slightly inconvenienced, are known to screech like a peacock and stamp their tasseled loafers….

The trouble started when a guy driving a silver sedan got his Dockers in a wad because a guy in front of him in a white Jeep Cherokee was taking too much time ordering his doughnuts. “I could have sworn I heard the guy order, then change his mind, then order something again, then change his mind and then ask for a recommendation,” Christy [a tipster] recalled….

“They’re both out of the car, but they never leave the opening of the car on the driver’s side,” Christy said. “So they’re pointing at each other. But they don’t even take a step towards each other. They’re pretty chicken.”

The squabble ended with the guy in the silver sedan, still in full huff, getting in his car, slamming the door and peeling out — still with no doughnuts. “He’s still yelling while he’s sitting,” Christy said. She figures the whole thing occurred because the two males were members of a subspecies known as Internetus downsizerooni.

“It’s those crazy high-tech people — introverted, full of rage,” she theorized. “They’re angry that their stock options are under water.”

Wasn’t that another uproariously funny column?

I’m not crazy about yuppies myself — but what I don’t like about them is the way they drive. How much they make and how they make it is their business. And I don’t gloat at their misfortune. But then I’m not into class warfare like old John Kelso, who’s sort of a watered-down Michael Moore:

Say goodbye to the nice folks, John. I’m not going to bore them with any more of your carping crap — unless it’s especially outrageous.

Pity Poor Dan Rather

REVISED, RE-TITLED, AND RE-DATED

As The New York Times tells it:

CBS News Concludes It Was Misled on National Guard Memos, Network Officials Say

By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: September 20, 2004

After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a “60 Minutes” report that raised new questions about President Bush’s National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night.

The officials, who asked not to be identified, said CBS News would most likely make an announcement as early as today that it had been deceived about the documents’ origins. CBS News has already begun intensive reporting on where they came from, and people at the network said it was now possible that officials would open an internal inquiry into how it moved forward with the report. Officials say they are now beginning to believe the report was too flawed to have gone on the air.

Misled? Misled? A reporter is supposed to cross-check sources. It didn’t happen in this case because CBS News — Dan Rather, in particular — wanted the memos to be real. As the Times story says a few grafs later:

Mr. Rather and others at the network are said to still believe that the sentiment in the memos accurately reflected Mr. Killian’s feelings but that the documents’ authenticity was now in grave doubt.

Great reporting Dan. Why don’t you quit pretending to be a reporter and just start editorializing? I forgot, you’ve been doing that for years — without labeling your “news” stories as editorials.

Now, here’s Dan himself (according to Drudge):

EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET

STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush’s time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question — and their source — vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -— if I knew then what I know now —- I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people’s trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

Nice try, Dan. At least you didn’t say that “the sentiment in the memos accurately reflected Mr. Killian’s feelings.” (Perhaps you will, in your memoirs.) But I still ask this: How in the hell could you — and the others at CBS News involved creating the story — have been misled? There’s one plausible answer: All of you wanted the story to be true.

Now tell us your source — your real source, not that poor schnook Bill Burkett. Or would that revelation embarrass your friends in the Democrat Party?

More Suppression of Dissent

We expect CBS to be a bit touchy about criticism of Dan Rather. Apparently the touchiness is rolling downhill to CBS affiliates, according to this AP story:

Host Says Rather Criticism Got Him Fired

Sat Sep 18, 9:33 PM ET

By PEGGY ANDERSEN, Associated Press Writer

SEATTLE – A radio talk-show host said Saturday he has been fired for criticizing CBS newsman Dan Rather’s handling of challenges to the authenticity of memos about President Bush (news – web sites)’s National Guard service.

“On the talk show that I host, or hosted, I said I felt Rather should either retire or be forced out over this,” said Brian Maloney, whose weekly “The Brian Maloney Show” aired for three years on KIRO-AM Radio, a CBS affiliate here.

Maloney says he made that statement on his Sept. 12 program. He was fired Friday, he said.

“What they have expressed is essentially that my show went in a direction they’re not comfortable with,” Maloney said….

Only in John Ashcroft’s America.

P.S. I posted this immediately after I read the AP story and before I saw InstaPundit‘s almost-identical post.

The World According to Journalists

When a journalist reports something, it’s true until proven false — as we’ve learned in the saga called Rathergate. Here’s the latest example of that thinking: a throwaway line at the end of an AP story carried by The Washington Times:

The authenticity of the CBS memos has been questioned by document specialists and by relatives of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who supervised Mr. Bush in 1972 and 1973.

Actually, the authenticity of the CBS memos has been questioned by many others not acknowledged there. In any event, the thrust of the sentence is wrong. It should read thus:

CBS has failed to prove the authenticity of the memos. Evidence that they are forgeries without foundation in fact has been provided by many sources, including…

Good Questions about RatherGate

Jefferey Blanco (Louisiana Conservative) asks:

When did CBS register as a 527? [My answer: At the same time as CNN and Error America.]

(Citing a New York Observer article with the headline “Dan Rather To Bush: ‘Answer The Questions’ “) And what is the question that Bush is supposed to answer? [My answer: When did you stop cheating on your income tax?]

What is Dan Rather trying to prove and what’s the point of the documents to begin with? [My answer: Rather was just making sure that bloggers hadn’t fallen asleep in their jammies.]

The Bush National Guard Document Forgeries: A Lone Typist or a Massive Conspiracy?

Conspiracy theorists like to say something like this about JFK’s murder: “How could a loony left-winger like Lee Harvey Oswald have pulled off the murder of the century by himself? He must have had outside help. It was really a right-wing plot, and Oswald was just the patsy.”

Well, conspiracy theorists will be trotting out a similar line if it turns out that the perpetrator of the Bush National Guard document forgeries was one Bill Burkett. Today’s Washington Post reports this:

Documents allegedly written by a deceased officer that raised questions about President Bush’s service with the Texas Air National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko’s copy shop in Abilene, Tex., according to another former Guard officer who was shown the records by the network.

The markings provide one piece of evidence suggesting a source for the documents, whose authenticity has been hotly disputed since CBS aired them in a “60 Minutes” broadcast Sept. 8. The network has declined to name the person who provided them, saying the source was confidential, or to explain how the documents came to light after more than three decades.

There is only one Kinko’s in Abilene, and it is 21 miles from the Baird, Tex., home of retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, who has been named by several news outlets as a possible source for the documents….

Who is Bill Burkett? Kevin Drum, writing way back on February 15 of this year, offers a sympathetic view:

Former Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett says that members of George Bush’s staff, along with senior officers at Texas National Guard Headquarters, purged Bush’s National Guard files of potentially embarrassing material back in 1997. Is his story true?…

To judge the truth of Burkett’s story, then, all we can do is ask certain questions: Is Burkett’s story internally consistent? Has it stayed consistent over time? Do other people corroborate it? Does Burkett have a track record of telling the truth? Does he have any axes to grind?….

….as far as I can tell it’s internally consistent. No part of his story seems to be directly contradicted by any other part….

Has his story stayed consistent over time?

Mostly yes, although the story here is mixed….

Do other people corroborate Burkett’s story? Other evidence?

Generally yes….

Does Burkett have a track record of telling the truth?

In 1997 Burkett discovered that there were “ghost soldiers” in the Texas Guard, soldiers who were still carried on the rolls even though they never showed up for drill and weren’t being paid. He tried unsuccessfully to blow the whistle on this and stop the practice.

In late 2001, Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard of USA Today finished a lengthy investigation into the problem of ghost soldiers nationwide and published a 3-part story about it. Moniz told me that everything Burkett had told him had checked out and that several other people with no axe to grind find Burkett to be believable as well.

In addition to Moniz, Jim Moore, a longtime Texas reporter who has interviewed Burkett extensively for a forthcoming book, emailed me that he found Burkett “immensely credible.”

Does Burkett have an axe to grind?

This is the weakest link in Burkett’s story: he has a huge axe to grind, and so do the people who have corroborated his story.

Here’s what seems to have happened. Burkett uncovered the “ghost soldiers” problem in 1997 and tried unsuccessfully to get anyone to take it seriously. Then, in January 1998, after a trip to Panama for the Army, he collapsed in the Abilene airport and became seriously ill. For several months he was denied medical attention by the military and he blames this on retaliation from Bush aides who thought he was a troublemaker for pushing the ghost soldiers investigation.

All three people who have corroborated Burkett’s story are also people who got involved in trying to get him medical care, and all three were eventually either court martialed or otherwise removed from the Guard — possibly because of their parts in this. So they potentially have axes to grind as well.

And it gets worse. Burkett’s illness seemed life threatening at the time and he was apparently panicked by it. In an effort to get the medical attention he wanted, he says he called Bush’s office and talked to Dan Bartlett. During that conversation he came very close to threatening extortion over Bush’s file cleansing unless he got the medical help he needed. Burkett says now, “I was probably out of line in a way and yet I will tell you now that I was begging for what I at that point considered life saving help.”

According to Burkett, Conn was part of this as well. He was removed from the Guard in 1998 after officials discovered he had sent an email to Burkett advising him that in order to get medical help he might have to “play the card at the governor’s office.” In other words, threaten to go public with the file cleansing charges.

Needless to say, this provides plenty of evidence that Burkett might simply be a disgruntled guy who didn’t get some medical attention he thought he deserved and blamed it on retaliation from Bush. And it doesn’t help that he’s virtually admitted to extorting Dan Bartlett over this.

Conclusion

In summary, Burkett’s story is consistent; it has mostly stayed consistent over time; it’s been corroborated by his witnesses; it’s been corroborated by outside sources; his previous story about “ghost soldiers” has been found to be true; and he’s apparently considered pretty reliable by several people not associated with him.

On the other hand, he also has a big axe to grind. But whistleblowers often do, and while it’s important to keep motives in mind it’s more important to consider the actual evidence at hand. In this case, it supports his story….

Postscript

At the same time, it’s not clear to me that this story is going anywhere. Even if it’s true, Burkett is the only person making the charge. The others are merely corroborating that he told them about it back in 1997. They didn’t see it themselves.

Unless other actual eyewitnesses come forward to confirm Burkett’s account, it’s just his word against everyone else….

Kevin Drum is bending over backward to put Burkett in a favorable light, but even Drum has to admit some crucial facts: Burkett has a huge axe to grind. Burkett’s story isn’t corroborated by anyone else — merely his storytelling is corroborated. And those who corroborate his storytelling also have an axe to grind.

Now, what Drum doesn’t say in the piece I’ve quoted from is that Burkett also happens to be a rather extreme lefty. The axe he’s grinding isn’t just personal, it’s also political. Let’s turn now to Michael Friedman, writing on February 17:

As Kevin Drum explains in an exhaustively researched post, Burkett has a major axe to grind – he blames Bush for the military denying him medical care during an illness in 1998.

However, there is another reason to be skeptical about Burkett. Burkett has strongly held loony left political views. He has written numerous articles espousing his positions and clearly wishes to sway the electorate. This gives him another obvious motive to lie about Bush’s National Guard files….[Excerpts and links follow — truly loony, Michael Moor-ish stuff, and worse: ED]

The issue here is not that Bill Burkett is a liberal. It isn’t even that he is left wing. The issue is that he is loony left. We are in “precious bodily fluids” territory. I’m not calling Burkett a Democrat because I think he is too far left to be a Democrat. This is the left wing version of the John Birch Society.

Not only are Bill Burkett’s politics loony left but he is trying to be a political player, writing editorials and trying to sway the American people against George Bush and the Republican Party….

If Burkett is involved in the forgeries, did he create them himself or did he have help? Who saw to it that the forgeries got into the hands of CBS News? Burkett or other parties? There may well more people behind this than Burkett or someone like him. On the other hand, Dan Rather seems desperate to defeat George Bush. In his desperation he might have latched onto Burkett, in spite of Burkett’s notoriety as a loony Bush-hater — or perhaps because of that.

Dan Rather, having done all he could to push the story, now seems ready to abandon it, according to a story in today’s Washington Post:

CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush’s National Guard record last week on “60 Minutes.”

“If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I’d like to break that story,” Rather said in an interview last night. “Any time I’m wrong, I want to be right out front and say, ‘Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.’ “…

Well, Dan, you’re too late. Hundreds of people were ahead of you — and it all started in the blogosphere. Hang ’em up, Dan.

Memo to CBS News: Quit While You’re Behind

CBS News’s latest attempt to cover up its big boo-boo on Bush’s National Guard records (see previous post) has driven up the price on Bush’s re-election at TradeSports.com.

A Bulletin from CBS News

From Drudge:

Statement by the President of CBS News, Andrew Heyward:

“We established to our satisfaction that the memos were accurate or we would not have put them on television. There was a great deal of coroborating [sic] evidence from people in a position to know. Having said that, given all the questions about them, we believe we should redouble our efforts to answer those questions, so that’s what we are doing.”

What exactly is it you’re doing? Finding more “experts”? Trying to get some “experts” to retract the damaging things they’ve said? Forging — oops, finding — more corroborating [non-sic] evidence? Asking the slick operator who sold you those forgeries to step forward and say that he’s really on Karl Rove’s payroll? Trying to get Dan Rather to admit the forgeries himself, then retire immediately? We can hardly wait to read the next installment of this thrilling serial mystery.

But wait, there’s more from Drudge:

TRANSCRIPT EVENING NEWS:

RATHER INTRO: CBS News .. “60 Minutes” .. and this reporter .. drew new fire today .. over our reports that raised questions about President Bush’s military service record .. including whether he fulfilled his obligations to the national guard.

CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports on the latest attack on the “60 Minutes” story .. and the CBS News response.

ANDREWS: Congressional republicans turned the high heat on CBS News, charging that last week’s revelations about Lt George Bush, which aired on “60 Minutes” were based on fake documents and demanding that 60 Minutes and Dan Rather retract the story.

Sot Bennet

Its very clear the documents were forged. They were laid on him and this time he bit.

ANDREWS: 40 members of the House signed a letter accusing the network of deception–in a letter asking CBS if the documents are authentic, why wont the network say how it got them .

Roy Blunt (R-Missouri)

I think at the very least CBS should characterize the source. I think it’s amazing that they haven’t already done that.

ANDREW:

The dispute surrounds memoranda 60 Minutes says came from the personal file of Lt. Bush’s Air National Guard Commander, Lt Col Jerry Killian. …. Memos that accuse Mr Bush of disobeying an order and of using connections to have Killian “sugarcoat” Mr Bush’s record. (out)

However some experts doubt the authenticity of the memos. Killian’s secretary–in an interview for tonight’s 60 Minutes tells Dan Rather she too believes the memos are fake –but– accurately reflect KIllian’s view of Lt. Bush.

Sot MARIAN KNOX:

I know that I didn’t type them however, the information in those is correct.

ANDREWS

Marian Knox says Col Killian liked Mr Bush but not his attitude.

Sot MARIAN KNOX

First of all Killian was very friendly with Bush they had fun together. And I think it upset him very much that he was being defied.

ANDREWS

CBS News officials say the memos came from a confidential source- and that they remain certain the content of the story is true.

ANDREW HEYWARD:

we would not have put the report on the air if we did not believe in every aspect of it.

Narr

However, News President Andrew Heyward also says the network will try to resolve what he calls the unresolved issues.

Sot ANDREW HEYWARD:

..enough questions have been raised that we are going redouble our efforts to answer those questions.

ANDREWS:

Some at this network believe the backlash against the 60 Minutes report is pure politcics. But that’s the critics’ point as well–that fake, or real, the fact that 60 Minutes got these documents during an election year was no accident. Wyatt Andrews CBS News Washington.

So, let’s see what we have here:

People who are questioning CBS’s story — in fact, have proved that it’s based on forgeries — are “attacking” CBS. And guess what, some of them are Republicans. Gee whillikers, imagine that!

Lt. Col. Killian’s secretary admits she didn’t type the forged memos. That’s an easy one, we all knew she didn’t type them, unless she typed them recently using Microsoft Word with Times New Roman.

Lt. Col. Killian’s secretary says the information in the memos is “correct.” Every last detail? Ah, the convenient, uncorroborated memory of an antiquated Bush-hater. CBS will just say that those who question her story are viciously attacking an old lady.

CBS News “believed” in the report. That is, CBS New ran a report consistent with what it wanted to believe.

Some at CBS believe the “backlash” is “pure politics”. Right, blame it on “politics” instead of your own shoddy, blatantly biased journalism.

It’s old hat: slippery logic, aggressive defense, and trying to shift the blame. It’s lame and it won’t work.

As I Was Saying….

UPDATED BELOW

…three days ago:

…[A] good sign that Rather’s story has absolutely no credibility — except as a rallying point for rabid Bush-haters — is Howard Kurtz’s column in today’s WaPo. Two paragraphs of professional courtesy toward Rather precede 20 paragraphs that mostly damn Rather’s story with straightforward observations about the flimsiness of it….

Kurtz’s objectivity about the matter signals other serious journalists that they can dump on old Dan, at will.

Well, there’s been plenty of dumping on Dan by the mainstream media since then, but this article in today’s WaPo is a sledge-hammer blow to the gut:

Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn’t Authenticate Papers

By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A08

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.

Matley’s comments came amid growing evidence challenging the authenticity of the documents aired Wednesday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.”…

And it goes on from there to detail a lot of what the blogosphere has been saying for days — without crediting the leaders of the blogospheric charge.

The last paragraph of the story says a lot about the Post:

Prominent conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh are insisting the documents are forged. New York Times columnist William Safire said yesterday that CBS should agree to an independent investigation. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, called on the network to apologize, saying: “The CBS story is a hoax and a fraud, and a cheap and sloppy one at that. It boggles the mind that Dan Rather and CBS continue to defend it.”

It’s obvious from the rest of the article that the Post endorses Limbaugh, Safire, and Bozell in this matter, so it gives them the last word. It is a “news” story, after all.

UPDATE:

From ABC News:

BUSH IN THE NATIONAL GUARD

ABC’s Brian Ross interviewed the two experts who CBS hired to validate the National Guard documents and reports they 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….

Well, Lt. Col. Killian’s secretary believes the documents are fake because she knows she knows she didn’t type them. As for Lt. Col. Killian’s “thoughts”…well fact and fancy are two different things, except at CBS News.

(Thanks to Captain Ed for the pointer.)

Rather’s Last Stand — Shot to Pieces

Holy cow, look at all those bloggers!

Dan Rather, surrounded by the facts, still refuses to surrender to them. CBS News (presumably with Rather’s blessing) has posted this story on its site:

Questions Linger Over Bush Memos

NEW YORK, Sept. 13, 2004

(CBS/AP) Amid challenges from other news organizations and partisans [i.e., bloggers: ED], CBS News continued to defend itself over criticism stemming from documents it obtained that questioned President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard.

On “The CBS Evening News” Monday night, Dan Rather said his original report on “60 Minutes” used several different techniques to make sure the memos were genuine, including talking to handwriting and document analysts and other experts who strongly insist that the documents could have been created in the 1970s – as opposed to a word-processing software program, as some have charged.

“Everything that’s in those documents, that people are saying can’t be done, as you said, 32 years ago, is just totally false. Not true. Proportional spacing was available. Superscripts were available as a custom feature. Proportional spacing between lines was available. You can order that any way you’d like,” said document expert Bill Glennon.

Richard Katz, a software designer, found some other indications in the documents. He noted that the letter “L” is used in those documents, instead of the numeral “one.” That would be difficult to reproduce on a computer today….

I won’t go any further, because the blogosphere has put it to rest — in spades. I just want to comment on the third and fourth paragraphs.

Document “expert” Bill Glennon is certainly right that proportional letter spacing, superscripts, and proportional line spacing were available 32 years ago. But that ducks the fact that Microsoft Word and the version of Times New Roman used by Microsoft Word weren’t available 32 years ago. I think it’s been shown conclusively that the so-called documents can be replicated exactly — and only — using Microsoft Word and its Times New Roman font.

Now, what about the numeral “one” that looks like a lower-case “L”? Guess what? The numeral “one” in Microsoft Word’s Times New Roman resembles a lower-case “L”. In fact, it looks exactly like the numeral “one” as it appears at the top of the forgery at this link. Moreover, the lower-case “L”s sprinkled through the text of the forgery look exactly like the lower-case “L”s in Microsoft Word’s Times New Roman. You can check this at home and send me an e-mail if you disagree.

What’s next, Dan? I think it’s time for you to say that you were brainwashed when you served in Korea. But you can’t can you, because you didn’t serve in Korea. Hmmm…I though you said somewhere that you did. Am I making up stuff about you? Why not? You make up stuff all the time.

The Truth Sinks In

The headline at The Washington Times — “CBS’ bomb turns blooper” — says a lot, but there’s more:

CBS has been blown off stride by its own bombshell, joining several major news organizations that trusted the network’s claim that it finally had the goods on President Bush.

All were essentially bested by Internet bloggers.

Led by anchorman Dan Rather, CBS reported in a “60 Minutes” broadcast Wednesday that it had obtained four old memos asserting that Mr. Bush did not fulfill his National Guard obligations three decades ago — lobbing the claim just as Sen. John Kerry was continuing to sink in public-opinion polls….[The timing is suspicious: ED]

Much of the media had “no reticence about plowing forward and repeating CBS’s loaded charges that they proved President Bush received preferential treatment and disobeyed an order to complete a physical,” Brent Baker of the Media Research Center, a media monitoring group, said yesterday.

The enthusiasm for “Memogate” paled, however, before the persistence of suspicious Internet bloggers and the increasingly powerful amplification loop of alternative press organizations.

“It was like a ‘perfect storm’ that put us here,” said Scott Johnson, the Minnesota-based lawyer behind http://www.powerlineblog.com, one of several Web sites that questioned CBS’ claims through the kind of simple detective work once common to old-fashioned journalism [emphasis mine].

Now “old-fashioned” (read “liberal”) journalism is too busy trying to shovel dirt on its political enemies to do much “simple detective work.”

The Post Piles On

Continuing the theme of the preceding post about Rather-gate, washingtonpost.com has this:

The End of ‘Network News’

By Tom Rosenstiel

Sunday, September 12, 2004; Page B07

Regardless of who wins the election, the campaign of 2004 has already made history. For the first time, a cable news channel — Fox — attracted more viewers than a broadcast network when they were competing head to head, covering the Republican National Convention.

What happened this summer, and particularly last week, is likely to be recalled as the end of the era of network news. At the very least, mark this as the moment when the networks abdicated their authority with the American public….

Alleluia and amen!

As I Was Saying…

Yesterday I suggested that Howard Kurtz’s Washington Post column about the “documents” used in Dan Rather’s attack on Bush’s National Guard service “signals other serious journalists that they can dump on old Dan, at will.” So, today’s NYTimes.com carries a piece with the headline “An Ex-Officer Now Believes Guard Memo Isn’t Genuine.” Fancy that! Given the source, the article is strikingly balanced:

A former National Guard commander who CBS News said had helped convince it of the authenticity of documents raising new questions about President Bush’s military service said on Saturday that he did not believe they were genuine.

The commander, Bobby Hodges, said in a telephone interview that network producers had never showed him the documents but had only read them to him over the phone days before they were featured Wednesday in a “60 Minutes” broadcast. After seeing the documents on Friday, Mr. Hodges said, he concluded that they were falsified.

Mr. Hodges, a former general who spoke to several news organizations this weekend, was just the latest person to challenge the authenticity of the documents, which CBS reported came from the personal files of Mr. Bush’s former squadron commander at the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, who died 20 years ago.

The memos indicated that Mr. Bush had failed to take a physical “as ordered” and that Mr. Killian was being pressured to “sugarcoat” Mr. Bush’s performance rating because Mr. Bush, whose father was then a Texas congressman, was “talking to somebody upstairs.”

But they have been the subject of an intense debate, with some forensic document specialists saying they appear to be the work of a modern word processor and others saying they could indeed have been produced by certain types of Vietnam-era typewriters. Some of Mr. Killian’s family members have stepped forward to question their legitimacy.

CBS News has stood by its reporting, saying that it obtained the documents through a reliable source and that a host of experts and former Guard officials, including Mr. Hodges, helped convince it of their authenticity. It broadcast an interview on Friday night with one of those experts, a handwriting specialist named Marcel B. Matley, who said the signatures on the documents were consistent with those of Colonel Killian on records the White House had given reporters.

Mr. Hodges, 74, who was group commander of Mr. Bush’s squadron in the 147th Fighter Group at Ellington Field in Houston in the early 1970’s, said that when someone from CBS called him on Monday night and read him documents, “I thought they were handwritten notes.”

He said he had not authenticated the documents for CBS News but had confirmed that they reflected issues he and Colonel Killian had discussed – namely Mr. Bush’s failure to appear for a physical, which military records released previously by the White House show, led to a suspension from flying.

A CBS News spokeswoman, Sandy Genelius, indicated that Mr. Hodges had changed his account.

“We believed General Hodges the first time we spoke to him,” Ms. Genelius said. Acknowledging that document authentification is often not an iron-clad process, she said, “We believe the documents to be genuine, we stand by our story and we will continue to report.”

A spokeswoman for the CBS anchor Dan Rather, Kim Akhtar, said that Mr. Hodges had declined to appear on camera. As a result, Ms. Akhtar said, he was read the memos and responded that “he was familiar with the contents of the documents and that it sounded just like Killian.” He made it clear, she added, that he was a supporter of Mr. Bush.

Mr. Hodges said that he had not spoken with anyone from the Bush administration or campaign about his views and that he was basing his belief now that the records are fakes on “inconsistencies” he had noticed.

He specifically pointed to a memo theorizing that the Texas Guard’s chief of staff, Col. Walter B. Staudt, was pressing Mr. Hodges to give Mr. Bush favorable treatment. Mr. Hodges said that was not the case and that Mr. Staudt had actually retired more than a year earlier, though he acknowledged that Mr. Staudt might have remained in the Guard in some capacity after that. Mr. Staudt has not answered his phone for several days.

Mr. Hodges said he had also begun taking a dim view of the memos after hearing disavowals of them from Colonel Killian’s wife and son.

The son, Gary Killian, said Saturday that he initially believed the documents might be real, if only because the signature looked like his father’s. He said he had since been persuaded by the skepticism of some document experts.

The Pack Has Found Fresh Prey

PoliPundit asks “What’s the Source?” of the forgeries used by Dan Rather to “document” Bush’s dereliction of duty while in the Texas Air National Guard. I say it must be Bush’s fault:) Isn’t everything? Dan Rather thinks so, and he’s an objective journalist:)

Actually, a good sign that Rather’s story has absolutely no credibility — except as a rallying point for rabid Bush-haters — is Howard Kurtz’s column in today’s WaPo. Two paragraphs of professional courtesy toward Rather precede 20 paragraphs that mostly damn Rather’s story with straightforward observations about the flimsiness of it.

And Kurtz doesn’t even get into Rather’s interview of former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, in which Barnes claimed to intervened with the head of the Texas Air National Guard to secure a position for Bush at the request of a Bush family friend. Barnes’s daughter has said publicly that the story flatly contradicts what Barnes had told her only four years ago, when Bush’s national guard service became an issue in the 2000 presidential race.

That omission notwithstanding, Kurtz’s objectivity about the matter signals other serious journalists that they can dump on old Dan, at will.