CBS and Rather Admit Mistakes in Bush Documents

Vexler writes "The word this afternoon from CBS regarding the authenticity of the national guard memos of President Bush is that they cannot be trusted, confirming what several document experts had already suggested. In Dan Rather apologized for a 'mistake in judgment.' I have to wonder though: What would be the price CBS (or CNN, during the 2000 presidential election in which the final tally from Florida was changed several times before they realized that a recount may be needed) would pay for 'mistakes' of this type? What are some of your thoughts regarding 'moderating' (think /.) a news agency when it admits that more than just an honest mistake has been committed in its reporting?" There is still one big question remaining unanswered, too: who forged the memos? Where did they come from? Burkett, the man who provided them to CBS, won't say where he got them.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

So, because these documents were forged, it means George W. Bush honorably and fully completed his commitment to the National Guard, right?

Well, actually ...yeah. Given that the only documentary evidence of misconduct that anybody has ever been able to cough up has turned out to be forged, yes, this basically means that the "Bush went AWOL" non-story can finally be put to bed once and for all.

There are idiots out there who will fight to keep it alive, of course, but there are people who insist we never landed on the moon, either.

Re:Look at the those MEMOS! Look only at the MEMOS

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The story was well researched

Um. No. Even CBS News says now that the story never should have gone on the air.

includes a lot of interviews

Mostly interviews that torpedoed the story. But you didn't hear anything about those on 60 Minutes.

including, now, to the secretary who says "I didn't type those. But I typed ones that said about the same thing"

That's not at all what she said --go read the transcripts --and she's also the same person who was quoted in the Dallas Morning News as saying that the thought Bush was "selected, not elected." No possible agenda there, no sir.

The Globe (and CBS) showed pretty darn conclusively that Bush reneged, was AWOL, that it was covered up/excused, and that he's lying and/or stonewalling when he says different and at the same time, he and his proxies are attacking Kerry's war record.

Wow. That's the precise opposite of what the record actually shows. Amazing.

Did George W. Bush sign up for a six-year commitment? Yes. Did he fulfill every obligation during his service? Yes. When he transferred to Alabama, did he give up his flight status because there was no place on the flightline for him? Yes. Did he request an early discharge? Yes. Was he granted that early discharge? Yes.

Is there any evidence at all that George W. Bush did anything improperly or incompletely? No. Ben Barnes insists that he pulled strings for Bush, but he simply can't produce any evidence to that effect, and everybody else involved maintains that it simply isn't true.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your personal hatred, now.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The charges themselves have been all but corroborated by the White House

That's not correct.

and certainly nobody is denying the content is true.

Also not correct.

The only (campaign) issue is whether these actual embodiments are from the time period they claim to be.

Actually, the campaign issue is whether a major news organization used memos which it either (1) knew or (2) reasonably should have known were falsified as the basis for a story which was released with the intent of influencing the outcome of the election.

Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?

How can you not?

The point is that Bush dropped the ball when he was supposed to be defending the country in the 1970's, a job he got by virtue of being his father's son in the first place.

See, those are the two allegations that these memos were alleged to support, but that in the absence of these memos turn out to be completely unfounded. Ben Barnes has been alleging that somebody pulled strings to get Bush into the Guard since the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race. There's absolutely no evidence to support that allegation. In fact, in 1999, Barnes himself recanted his own story through his attorney. And the "he disobeyed an order" thing was concocted out of whole cloth, apparently either by Bill Burkett or by somebody who then passed the story on to Burkett.

These are two allegations which simply are not true. And yet you're repeating them like they're revealed gospel. Could it be that you're suffering from Dan Rather Syndrome?

already decided

[Anonymous Coward]

An appeallte court already decided that it's ok for the media to lie. A case against Fox News was brought up by a reporter that was forced to present as fact information that she knew was wrong. Fox News defended itself by saying that they should be able to lie if they want to. The court agreed with them.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/2003/Marc h/02/AppelateCourtRules2.htm [vaccinationnews.com]

"On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast. "

So it doesn't matter if CBS/Rather knew the docs were fake, they still apparently are allowed to present any information they want as "fact".

Re:Who did this damage more?

[mcmonkey]

It's like saying in American football, "Let them score so we can get the ball back."

Which happens, while not every game, more than once in a blue moon.

Situations calling for giving the other team a quick score include, time is running out and a score seems imminent. Coaches decide to maximize time left when they get they get ball back rather than letting the other team run out the game clock. A more common example is giving the other team an intentional touchback. Giving the other team 2 points when you're up by 3 is sometimes the best move.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[PatHMV]

In fact, I was slightly off in my recollection of New York Times v. Sullivan [findlaw.com], but not in the way you suggest. I said that the actual malice test was separate from the reckless disregard test. In fact it is not. Here's what the court said:

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made [376 U.S. 254, 280] with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

Sullivan does not itself define reckless disregard. Its definition has been flushed out in several subsequent opinions of the court. Fundamentally, the court has said that it must ultimately come down to a case-by-case analysis. In St. Amant v. Thompson [findlaw.com], the Supreme Court in 1968 fleshed out what it meant by reckless disregard. The court stated:

The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. Nor will they be likely to prevail when the publisher's allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation.

Likewise, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.

In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts [findlaw.com], the Supreme Court found actual malice through reckless disregard because of a newspaper's extreme departure from the normal standards for investigation followed by responsible journalists:

In short, the evidence is ample to support a finding of highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.

Now, was it really necessary to resort to infantile personal insult?

Nothing

[xpccx]

I think the lawsuit against Fox [foxbghsuit.com] over bovine growth hormone proves that this will cost them nothing. From what I gather, Fox reporters were pressured by Fox executives to alter their news story in order to paint a prettier picture about the effects of BGH. When the reporters didn't change the story they were fired. A lawsuit insued and Fox has won on appeal because, get this, the FCC doesn't require news agencies to tell the truth.

So, whether this was done on purpose or accidentally, from a legal perspective it matters little.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Yellowcake uranium from pre-Gulf War I does not qualify as a WMD

That's not a correct statement. In this context, "WMD" means anything that was prohibited by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Lots of radical leftists want to re-define the term so that "WMD" only means working nuclear bombs or whatever. That's just silly.

Re:Criminal complaint?

[overunderunderdone]

Is it illegal to falsify government documents?

Yes. A number of "bloggers" who are also lawyers (which seems to be most of them) have looked into this idea. There are three different laws (AFIAK) that could apply.

1. There is a Texas law regarding falsifying government records [bakers-legal-pages.com]. The fake TexANG letterhead on the forgeries qualifies these documents. Even if they were "private" memos they were the private memos of a National Guard officer in his capacity as such. One of them purports to be an official order so that one definitely qualifies.
2. There is a Texas forgery law [bakers-legal-pages.com] regarding forgery with the intent to defraud or harm another. "Harm" is pretty broadly defined, certainly tarnishing a reputation or two (Bush, Staudt) qualifies.
3. If the culprit is subject to the UCMJ there is a forged military documents law. [cornell.edu]

l got this from www.indcjournal.com [indcjournal.com]

Beyond those laws there is the potential for a civil suit. Bush certainly has grounds though he would never sue because of the politics of it. Staudt could sue. I believe Killian's widow and son could sue under a Texas law which allows the estate of a dead person to sue for libel on the deceased's behalf. One of the memos mentions Killian committing a felony by backdating (that is, falsifying) a government document a violation of laws number two and three above.

Finally, tangentially related, the two document analysts that came forward to ABC & the Washington Post may have a claim against CBS since in a public statements CBS said those experts "misrepresented" their communications to CBS. Given the nature of their profession the accusation that they misrepresented themselves (i.e. "lied") is a pretty serious accusation and if false is probably actionable.

Re:Lawsuit

[PatHMV]

The lawyering up will be happening very quickly now. The latest news [yahoo.com] from the AP is that Mary Mapes, the CBS producer, called Joe Lockhart in the Kerry campaign a few days before the report aired and recommended that he call Burkett, that Burkett was going to be providing some documents to CBS regarding President Bush's National Guard service. The AP report is coming directly from Joe Lockhart himself. A major news media producer called political campaign headquarters and gave him non-public information about upcoming news stories about their political opponent. That is such a tremendous breach of journalistic standards as to boggle the mind.

There will be a criminal investigation into all this very soon. Lockhart is clearly trying to get ahead of the game and pin everything on Mapes. A New York Times article yesterday or this morning cited CBS sources also starting to push the blame onto Mapes. I bet she won't sit still for it, myself. It's only a matter of time now. This is going to finish Dan Rather, and it may finish 60 Minutes and the entire CBS News organization. And I don't see how Lockhart can stay with the Kerry campaign after admitting to collaborating with CBS news. It's pretty obvious that the timing of the DNC's "Operation Fortunate Son" attack wasn't coincidental in the slightest.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Cereal Box]

was a typewriter that could have produced the memo

Can you name that typewriter?

My understanding of the issue, after reading a lot on both sides, is that the forged memo contains both a superscript "th" and proportional spacing. The two IBM typewriters that were constantly batted about as possiblities were (IIRC) the Selectric and the Executive. The Selectric could do "th" with a removable type ball, but it could only do monospaced typing. The Executive could do proportional spacing, but it had a fixed set of characters, of which the superscripted "th" isn't one of them. So I think the real issue is that you need to find a typewriter that can do BOTH, not point out the obvious fact that there were typewriters at the time that could do one but not the other.

The other more pressing issue is the fact that typing up the same memo with MS Word's defaults gives a memo with unbelievably similar spacing and font...