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.

Who did this damage more?

[tao_of_biology]

Whilre sincerely trying to stay neutral here...

So, who did this damage more? CBS aired their very-hyped 60 minutes episode that now seems to have totally and unfairly libeled Bush. The damage was done in peoples' minds immediately... and after the fact, 60 minutes and CBS and Dan Rather can come and say, "Whoops." Regardless of what you think about Bush, this isn't totally fair and I think he'd have a good case for libel, if he wasn't president. Shouldn't there be some other ramification other than loss of public trust?

But, since the documents were so quickly shown to be BS (only the documents, the story might actually be true)... it seems to have really, really hurt the democrats and apparently back fired on the apparently-not-so-impartial Dan Rather. It makes the Democrats look like conspirators and more than a little slimy. That they're so worried that they'd need to plant false evidence smearing Bush. I'm not saying this is true, but it definitely could have that appearance to people.

So, given the short attention spans of the public--who did this help or hurt the most? I think the argument could definitely be made both ways. And, I can definitely see motivation for both parties to manufacture these documents and hand them over to CBS... I mean, weren't they exposed a little TOO fast?

My two questions

[Otter]

1) These documents didn't appear in a vacuum. They came out in what was clearly a coordinated attack on Bush by CBS, the Boston Globe (who, with their NYT owners are getting off the hook way too easily on this) and the DNC. Now, I don't believe for a second that the Kerry campaign created these documents. But given how closely the campaign was tied to these documents, everyone involved really needs to explain where the forgeries came from. (And, no, there is no issue of protecting an anonymous source in a case like this.)

2) The CBS "apology" might have been adequate a week and a half ago. But at this point, CBS has been stonewalling and hiding behind a constantly changing cast of "experts" way, way past the point where it was obvious that the documents were egregious fakes. (And ridiculing everyone who bothered to actually do some real fact-checking.) Are there going to be any further explanations or consequences? This is nowhere near enough.

(By the way, given that this is going to turn out to be a watershed moment in Internet journalism, Slashdot has been curiously oblivious to its News For Nerds aspect.)

New Democratic line

[NaCh0]

Ok, so CBS is a fraud. But even though GWB was HONORABLY discharged, the faudulent info is still true!

And the dems still don't understand why they're losing the race.

Micheal-Moore-Documentary Style ...

[c.ecker]

... CBS News took a page from Michael-Moore-Money and his 'Michael-Moore-Documentary' style ...

Using obviously faked 'historical records' to back up an outrageous theory; a TANG pilot skipping a physical is tantamount to treason! Come on DAN, do some real reporting for crying out loud!

Then, using Michael-Moore-Money's own tactics, when caught at their lie, they deflect (provide authentication), obfuscate (well, the memos might be fake, but the content is correct), and confuse the issue (we got them from a 'reliable source' who we can't name ...).

LIES! LIES! LIES!

Pilots attempting to skip their annual physical is nothing new in any service. My dad served as a trainer in WW2, and he would've skipped any annual physical he thought he could get away with. He also voluntarily quit flying immediately upon leaving the service.

What works for the Michael-Moore-Money fringe doesn't fly with mainstream America. CBS ends up with egg on their face, and Dan Rather ends up ruining his career.

Good Riddens you BLOCK HEAD!

Welcome to "even worse"

[switcha]

Of course, if they did not believe the documents to be authentic, but ran the story anyway, that would be even worse.

From ABCNEWS.com [go.com],

Two of

the document experts hired by CBS News now say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of 60 Minutes II about the disputed National Guard records attributed to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.

"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.
...

emphasis mine

And keep reading the link for more who called 'shenanigans' before the piece went to air.

Cat Got Your Democracy?

[Rie Beam]

So this is what it's come to? I'm stuck voting for the people who lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top, or people who lie, cheat, and steal to make the others look bad. Meh...

**waves flag, promptly burns it**

I hear Canada is nice this time of year...

Stuff that seems to have been forgotten

[eskezl]

From CNN's site ("the broadcast" is the one in question): After the broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status. Here are the documents: http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004 /docs.html#ltbush [findlaw.com] note that only the last two documents are "forged" or faked or retyped or whatever the current line is now.... and that the first two were released from the whitehouse right after the story, and, perhaps im not reading this correctly, had not been released before. Which would suggest that the white house had been holding them, as its been holding so many of these records. So are all the documents fake, or just the two, did the administration release those two after the story, and if so, doesnt that mean they are legit? I think I am also eyeing some canadian realestate...

Re:My two questions

[Anonymous Coward]

You can put the tin foil hat away. It looks like an adviser(s) to the Kerry campaign [yahoo.com] was involved:

At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes. ...

Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.

Kerry spokesman David Ginsberg said nobody in the campaign's research department followed up on Burkett's offer of information.

Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."

And what else is interesting about Mary Mapes [yahoo.com]??

Also relevant is who shepherded the in vestigation for CBS: Mary Mapes, Rather's personal producer at "60 Minutes II."

The anchor says Mapes has been "investigating this story for five years."

It looks like Bush hatred is starting to produce some very bitter fruit indeed. And yet, the left keeps planting, celebrating, and consuming it. The outcome of this year's election will be very interesting to watch.

Re:There's no libel here

[commodoresloat]

That's not correct.

Yes it is. The White House admitted that Bush skipped out on the physical. They released documents that show it. The CBS document controversy has overshadowed these facts, which makes you wonder who created the fake documents to begin with.

and certainly nobody is denying the content is true.

Also not correct.

The poster should have said "nobody credible is denying."

Actually, the campaign issue

Actually, there is no campaign issue here. Bush skipped out on his guard duty 30 years ago because he was doing drugs and would have failed the physical. It's an issue of historical fact but hardly a campaign issue, and the Kerry campaign is silly for going after what happened 30 years ago when Bush is doing so much to foul things up right now.

CBS made a huge error here, and somebody will likely lose their job over it. And they should make a significant effort to publicize who forged the documents and why. But this shouldn't be a campaign issue at all.

Ben Barnes has been alleging that somebody pulled strings

No; Ben Barnes is admitting that he pulled strings. The admission diminishes his own character as well, so it is difficult to see this as some kind of self-serving scheme. In any case, Bush's absence from the guard is well documented by documents the White House released and does not dispute.

The Democrats are wasting their time with this. Everybody knows Bush and Cheney ducked out on their country during Vietnam, and the people who don't want to believe that it's true are not going to be convinced by a document, real or not. The historians will sort the truth out. The campaign would do well to focus on what's actually happening today rather than looking at 30 years ago.

Re:There's no libel here

[nursedave]

Ain't it a pisser there's no proof. Funny how some people will believe anything bad about a politician they don't like, despite proof, yet won't believe something like, oh, say, the FACT that al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence folks had meetings before 9/11, or the FACT that Iraq had WMD which they shuffled from spot to spot while inspectors were in the country, and more than likely moved them to Syria during the enormous lead-time before the war. I mean, they did exist (this was proven in GWI), Hussein didn't destroy them, and now they can't be found.. Geee, where could they be?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[DeputySpade]

Like when do we discuss the 1000+ US soldiers that have died because Bush lied?

Like, when do we _STOP_ discussing them?

Seriously... Can you "Anybody but Bush" folks not endure one single conversation on any topic without bringing up Iraq? Believe it or not, Iraq is not the only thing to discuss this election season. WTF does Iraq have to do with forged documents being used in an attempt to interfere with a presidential election?
You people are like Walter.

Walter Sobchak : I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this fucking document...

Dude : I don't see any connection to Iraq, Walter.