Kenneth, what is the frequency? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 09-19-2004, 10:52 PM

Quote:

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

fter 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.

But they cautioned that CBS News could still pull back from an announcement. Officials met last night with Dan Rather, the anchor who presented the report, to go over the information it had collected about the documents one last time before making a final decision. Mr. Rather was not available for comment late last night.

The report relied in large part on four memorandums purported to be from the personal file of Mr. Bush's squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, who died 20 years ago. The memos, dated from the early 1970's, said that Colonel Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat'' the record of the young Lieutenant Bush and that the officer had disobeyed a direct order to take a physical.

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.

The developments last night marked a dramatic turn for CBS News, which for a week stood steadfastly by its Sept. 8 report as various document experts asserted that the typeface of the memos could have been produced only by a modern-day word processor, not Vietnam War-era typewriters.

The seemingly unflappable confidence of Mr. Rather and top news division officials in the documents allayed fears within the network and created doubt among some in the news media at large that those specialists were correct. CBS News officials had said they had reason to be certain that the documents indeed had come from the personal file of Colonel Killian.

Sandy Genelius, a network spokeswoman, said last week, "We are confident about the chain of custody; we're confident in how we secured the documents.''

But officials decided yesterday that they would most likely have to declare that they had been misled about the records' origin after Mr. Rather and a top network executive, Betsy West, met in Texas with a man who was said to have helped the news division obtain the memos, a former Guard officer named Bill Burkett.

Mr. Rather interviewed Mr. Burkett on camera this weekend, and several people close to the reporting process said his answers to Mr. Rather's questions led officials to conclude that their initial confidence that the memos had come from Mr. Killian's own files was not warranted. These people indicated that Mr. Burkett had previously led the producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, to have the utmost confidence in the material.

It was unclear last night if Mr. Burkett had told Mr. Rather that he had been misled about the documents' provenance or that he had been the one who did the misleading.

In an e-mail message yesterday, Mr. Burkett declined to answer any questions about the documents.

Yesterday, Emily J. Will, a document specialist who inspected the records for CBS News and said last week that she had raised concerns about their authenticity with CBS News producers, confirmed a report in Newsweek that a producer had told her that the source of the documents said they had been obtained anonymously and through the mail.

In an interview last night she declined to name the producer who told her this but said the producer was in a position to know. CBS News officials have disputed her contention that she warned the network the night before the initial "60 Minutes'' report that it would face questions from documents experts.

In the coming days CBS News officials plan to focus on how the network moved ahead with the report when there were warning signs that the memorandums were not genuine.

Ms. Will is one of two documents experts consulted by the network who said they raised doubts about the material before the segment was broadcast. Another expert, Marcel B. Matley, said in interviews that he had vouched only for Colonel Killian's signatures on the records and not the authenticity of the records themselves. Mr. Matley said he could not rule out that the signatures had been cut and pasted from official records pertaining to Colonel Killian.

In examining where the network had gone wrong, officials at CBS News turning their attention to Ms. Mapes, one of their most respected producers, who was riding particularly high this year after breaking news about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal for the network.

In a telephone interview this weekend, Josh Howard, the executive producer of the "60 Minutes'' Wednesday edition, said that he did not initially know who was Ms. Mapes' primary source for the documents but that he did not see any reason to doubt them. He said he believed Ms. Mapes and her team had appropriately answered all questions about the documents' authenticity and, he noted, no one seemed to be casting doubt upon the essential thrust of the report.

"The editorial story line was still intact, and still is, to this day,'' he said, "and the reporting that was done in it was by a person who has turned in decades of flawless reporting with no challenge to her credibility.''

He added, "We in management had no sense that the producing team wasn't completely comfortable with the results of the document analysis.''

Ms. Mapes has not responded to requests for comment.

Mr. Howard also said in the interview that the White House did not dispute the veracity of the documents when it was presented to them on the morning of the report. That reaction, he said, was "the icing on the cake'' of the other reporting the network was conducting on the documents. White House officials have said they saw no reason to challenge documents being presented by a credible news organization.

Several people familiar with the situation said they were girding for a particularly tough week for Mr. Rather and the news division should the network announce its new doubts.

One person close to the situation said the critical question would be, "Where was everybody's judgment on that last day?''

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/po...rint&position=

I doubt the NYTimes would run such a story unless they were pretty confident (of course I would have assumed the same thing from CBS). I guess we can all stop looking for the typewriter on the grassy knoll.

The real question will of course be WHY CBS ran with it, and as a conservative the answer is quite obvious. I doubt that if CBS came across documents about Kerry which put his service in a bad light, CBS would have presented them, and I'd bet my mortgage they would not have presented them with so little proof, nor would they try to say the 'sentiments' of the documents were true even if they had been proved forgeries.

In the 2000 election the liberal media lifted its head for Al Gore, and for the first time, it was plain to see by Americans who normally wouldn’t look for it. CBS has ineptly not only reaffirmed that this issue isn't a 'myth' of the right, but has also inadvertently helped GWB. Only a fool would attempt to question his service now, I can just think of the quip 'Oh did someone tell you that in a memo?'.

OpieCunningham · 09-19-2004, 11:18 PM

I guess if we're going to make a new thread for every news item on this topic, I'll just have to point out again the amazing similarities to the Bush/Iraq-Niger claims and how he too was repeatedly warned the information was weak and should not be used - a warning which was not followed.

If only the conservative bloggers had been privy to those documents - we might not have invaded Iraq.

And just to be clear - Gore was lambasted by the press during the 2000 election. I can only imagine how many people still mistakenly think he claimed to have actually invented the Internet.

Stare At The Sun · 09-19-2004, 11:22 PM

Meh, seems to me the reason they ran it was simply for publicity. Plain and simple. More people watching = more money. I don't really see an agenda in it. Just a money hungry news corp.

Ustwo · 09-20-2004, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

Meh, seems to me the reason they ran it was simply for publicity. Plain and simple. More people watching = more money. I don't really see an agenda in it. Just a money hungry news corp.

If you think CBS would have run a story about Kerry with just questionable documents and the word of a Republican fund raiser for Bush who changed his story, I have things to sell to you.

Of course CBS wanted the publicity, but they did NOT want this kind of plublicity. They wanted to nail Bush, and instead nailed themselves.

roachboy · 09-20-2004, 07:58 AM

care to explain at some point your obsession with dan rather, ustwo?
if you dont, you run the risk of being lumped in with people obsessed with elvis sightings, or with britney spears--interesting maybe as a window into some individual pathology, but not for any other reason.....

Ustwo · 09-20-2004, 08:05 AM

roachy - He is one of the most biased members of the 'elite' media who tried to screw with a US election based on his own personal politics. I think thats something to talk about, don't you?

Quote:

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.

Now they will try to salvage with a 'but its still all true' defense.

roachboy · 09-20-2004, 08:32 AM

do you really think that dan rather writes his own copy?

do you really think that dan rather's personal politics are directly at play in the kind of copy he reads on the air?

what if an anchor guy is just a functionary, a relay, and if the usual routine that shows the anchor putting the finishing touches on a script just prior to airtime is just theater--he could be writing "beneath this desk i am not wearing pants" over and over, for example, as the camera switches on...

or do you imagine an anchorperson to be a kind of parental figure telling you nice or scary stories before bedtime? in which case, what is at stake here apart from your fantasy-structure?

in other words, how do you justify the connection between the (presumed) personal politics of an anchorman and any kind of general argument about "the media"?

here is how it looks to me: this pseudo-linkage function for you because it enables you to ignore the mass of other information--for example, domination of opinion-management shows, of commentary, by talking heads who originate in conservative think tanks, from heritage to cato to aei--any of which would point your "analysis" of the media toward a conservative general biais?

or are you not interested in analysis? is this how conservatives operate?

Stare At The Sun · 09-20-2004, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If you think CBS would have run a story about Kerry with just questionable documents and the word of a Republican fund raiser for Bush who changed his story, I have things to sell to you.

Of course CBS wanted the publicity, but they did NOT want this kind of plublicity. They wanted to nail Bush, and instead nailed themselves.

Not to be dumb, but i'm sure cbs really covered the swift boat vet as much as anyone else did, which was bad for Kerry. Though, this doesn't exactly hurt Bush thats for sure.

powerclown · 09-20-2004, 10:23 AM

A dismal display of biased yellow journalism that is a mark of shame upon the profession and the newsguy who reported it on tv in the face of millions of Americans. If he didn't believe in the authenticity, he should have had the personal integrity not to go and speak before the public. He had the final say.

This is the order of responsibility I hold these weasels accountable:
1) Dan Rather
1.25) Dan Rather's Staff
1.5) CBS Executives
1.75) The weasels who typed up the fake document

Give Kerry credit for not jumping on this sinking ship and using it in his campaign against Bush.

After 247 years in the business, Rather should have known better than to run a story before he verified the thing. This whole fiasco belongs in ARTelevision's "Mass Media Mind Control" thread here as a bald-faced, shameful example of an attempt to outright manipulate public opinion. Let this serve as an example to BigMedia that, "We, The People" are watching them and are prepared to call them out when they try to pull this crap.

A great day for Democracy.

djtestudo · 09-20-2004, 10:45 AM

My problem isn't that they ran the story, because they could have made the simple apology and all would be (fairly) well. It's that after it started to become known that 1) these were most likely forgeries and 2) CBS most likely knew they were forgeries, Dan Rather still defended the story to the death. This shows that either he is much dumber then I thought or that he had a vested interest in the story being run.

09-20-2004, 07:58 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	care to explain at some point your obsession with dan rather, ustwo? if you dont, you run the risk of being lumped in with people obsessed with elvis sightings, or with britney spears--interesting maybe as a window into some individual pathology, but not for any other reason..... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-20-2004, 08:32 AM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	do you really think that dan rather writes his own copy? do you really think that dan rather's personal politics are directly at play in the kind of copy he reads on the air? what if an anchor guy is just a functionary, a relay, and if the usual routine that shows the anchor putting the finishing touches on a script just prior to airtime is just theater--he could be writing "beneath this desk i am not wearing pants" over and over, for example, as the camera switches on... or do you imagine an anchorperson to be a kind of parental figure telling you nice or scary stories before bedtime? in which case, what is at stake here apart from your fantasy-structure? in other words, how do you justify the connection between the (presumed) personal politics of an anchorman and any kind of general argument about "the media"? here is how it looks to me: this pseudo-linkage function for you because it enables you to ignore the mass of other information--for example, domination of opinion-management shows, of commentary, by talking heads who originate in conservative think tanks, from heritage to cato to aei--any of which would point your "analysis" of the media toward a conservative general biais? or are you not interested in analysis? is this how conservatives operate? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-20-2004, 10:45 AM	#10 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	My problem isn't that they ran the story, because they could have made the simple apology and all would be (fairly) well. It's that after it started to become known that 1) these were most likely forgeries and 2) CBS most likely knew they were forgeries, Dan Rather still defended the story to the death. This shows that either he is much dumber then I thought or that he had a vested interest in the story being run. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

09-19-2004, 11:18 PM	#2 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	I guess if we're going to make a new thread for every news item on this topic, I'll just have to point out again the amazing similarities to the Bush/Iraq-Niger claims and how he too was repeatedly warned the information was weak and should not be used - a warning which was not followed. If only the conservative bloggers had been privy to those documents - we might not have invaded Iraq. And just to be clear - Gore was lambasted by the press during the 2000 election. I can only imagine how many people still mistakenly think he claimed to have actually invented the Internet.

09-19-2004, 11:22 PM	#3 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	Meh, seems to me the reason they ran it was simply for publicity. Plain and simple. More people watching = more money. I don't really see an agenda in it. Just a money hungry news corp.

09-20-2004, 10:23 AM	#9 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	A dismal display of biased yellow journalism that is a mark of shame upon the profession and the newsguy who reported it on tv in the face of millions of Americans. If he didn't believe in the authenticity, he should have had the personal integrity not to go and speak before the public. He had the final say. This is the order of responsibility I hold these weasels accountable: 1) Dan Rather 1.25) Dan Rather's Staff 1.5) CBS Executives 1.75) The weasels who typed up the fake document Give Kerry credit for not jumping on this sinking ship and using it in his campaign against Bush. After 247 years in the business, Rather should have known better than to run a story before he verified the thing. This whole fiasco belongs in ARTelevision's "Mass Media Mind Control" thread here as a bald-faced, shameful example of an attempt to outright manipulate public opinion. Let this serve as an example to BigMedia that, "We, The People" are watching them and are prepared to call them out when they try to pull this crap. A great day for Democracy.