Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
News

Journal pudge's Journal: Unravelled 28

Journal by pudge

Dan Rather is attacking his attackers, saying the criticisms of potential forgery include "many who are partisan political operatives" and that "the public is smart enough to see from whom some of this criticism is coming and draw judgments about what the motivations are." He said the questions he asked -- some of which are supported only by these documents -- are not being answered, but instead the focus is on the documents that "were part of the support of the story."

The problem is that his story's lead was all about the documents: they were the main focus of his story. The problem is that the most substantive criticism is coming from family members and nonpartisan experts, many of whom were called in by fellow mainstream news agencies: AP, ABC, Washington Post. The problem is that the evidence against the documentary evidence against the memos is far greater than the evidence for it (heck, the only typographic evidence they even attempted to debunk was incorrect or missed the mark, and their only named expert is a handwriting expert, not a typography expert; and they still have not said whether they even have originals, and they have not released the better copies they claim to possess).

The problem is that CBS is now in the position of making a difficult case for something instead of trying to get to the truth of it. The problem is that CBS is rapidly losing credibility. The problem is that Dan Rather is unravelling and that his career may be in jeopardy.

(Note: this, like the previous JE, is under the News topic, not Politics. Please respect that and stay on topic. :-)

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unravelled More

Unravelled

Comments Filter:
  • Regarding the "could a typewriter do it" theory which CBS is holding onto for dear life...I found a great comparison from an actual IBM Selectric Composer, http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/ [typepad.com]. Someone who owned one did his best to duplicate one of the Bush memos, and the results show it was closer than I imagined, not close enough. So the $4000 IBM Selectric Composer can be ruled out as not being used o type these memos. (I'm sure you've seen the exact matches between the MS Word mockups and the CBS docs, so
    • I should have gone to the other story first, I hadn't heard about the "kerning" yet. :) So we'll see.

      Rather knows they're real, so he refuses to even look at the other side's excellent rebuttals.

      Huh huh. My comments on how selective the media is in how they take critical looks at politicians still stands, though. Same sort of thing happend in the last election. Hey Pudge, question for you, since at the moment you seem pumped up on journalistic integrity: what did you think of all the Gore myths that
      • what did you think of all the Gore myths that were flying around in 2000? Not just the "creating the Internet" bit, but also the Love Canal canard and the media-invented Love Story fib?

        The creating the Internet thing I stood firmly in the middle. The media was exaggerating what Gore actually said, but Gore was exaggerating his own involvement. As to the other things, they were so insignificant and silly to me I didn't pay attention, and to this day I am proud to say I have no idea what Gore and Love Can
        • The media was exaggerating what Gore actually said

          Not exactly. Some of the media and some Republicans started the yarn by deliberatly misquoting him. The rest of the press didn't bother to do some basic research on the story, so an urban legend began. Lets see here...press runs with a story based on false evidence, reporters didn't bother to do adaquate research on the topic, and the fast majority of them, to this day, insist they did nothing wrong. So Pudge, as an ethical former journalist, and a Rep
          • So Pudge, as an ethical former journalist, and a Republican who has consistent standards, wouldn't you say all those reporters should resign post haste?

            How would this be consistent? [Hint: it is not that Rather got it wrong, it is how he got it wrong and subsequently defended it.]

            Bzzt! No, he made a wholy factual, easily provable statment.

            Why do you say "No" when you did not contradict what I wrote? [Hint: "exaggerate" does not imply incorrect.]

            So insignifigant and silly they were a prime factor i
            • How would this be consistent? [Hint: it is not that Rather got it wrong, it is how he got it wrong and subsequently defended it.]

              Oh, I'm in total agreement with you, as the same thing applies to Gore. They didn't observe due diligence, and if anything, the Internet yarn was worse than the memo "forgeries", because 10 minutes of web research would have revealed the *real* quote and that Gore sponsored Internet related legislation as a senator and prodded government agencies to get on the web as V.P. At l
              • Okay, what part is an exagguration? (sic.)

                The Internet was created before Gore was ever in Congress, and there's no legislative action with his name on it that anyone can find that says, "that there created the Internet." At best, it is an exaggeration.

                Don't be silly.

                Don't make stuff up.

                The Gore "fib factor" reporting by the media succesfully turned the image of Gore as an uptight but earnest Boy Scout into an untrustworthy politician who would claim anything to impress people.

                But he IS an untrus

      • I'll pipe up as another Bush supporter who doesn't even know about the Love Canal/Love Story stuff and who had read Gore's original statement about the Internet as well as portions of the related legislation enough to be explaining to my parents and grandparents why the quote wasn't a big deal in assessing Gore.

  • I find it remarkable how it takes weeks for the media to start raising serious questions about SBVFT, and yet when an accusation comes out against Bush, people are falling out their pants questioning its veracity. Ah, the good old biased neocon media. :)

    Creative Response Concepts, a PR firm that works for GOP causes, put out a "media advisory" two days ago saying the documents might be forged. CRC also happens to have worked on the Swift Boat campaign. Huh, small world!

    One of the complaints is that som

    • Re:easy cheeta (Score:3, Informative)

      by Cyberdyne ( 104305 ) *
      I find it remarkable how it takes weeks for the media to start raising serious questions about SBVFT, and yet when an accusation comes out against Bush, people are falling out their pants questioning its veracity. Ah, the good old biased neocon media. :)

      I find it remarkable that you can perceive it this way, and that the media has been banging on about the "AWOL issue" for years now, modifying their allegations as they go along - yet they almost completely ignore Kerry's refusal [suntimes.com] to release 94% of his reco

    • Um ... I am not talking about Bush, for me this has nothing to do with Bush, and I asked you to stay on topic and not talk about politics. I've warned you before, and I am being generous by giving you another warning.

      One of the complaints is that some of the letters seemed to be in superscript. Except another, undisupted, Bush document from the same time also has a raised 'th'.

      This is a foolish argument. It's like saying, "one of the arguments against Clinton as a good President is that he murdered V
      • Um ... I am not talking about Bush

        Neither am I.

        for me this has nothing to do with Bush

        Neither does it for me.

        and I asked you to stay on topic and not talk about politics.

        I am.

        And as to the politics and staying on topic ... remember, this is your final warning.

        I was only relating mentioning Swift Boats as it relates to media ethics and responsible reporting, so you can lay off the "final warning" jibba jabba. I want a responsible media. I want reporters who question positions, politicians an
        • ...that reguardless of wether these memos turn out to be fake or not, CBS and Rather screwed up big time. They should have made sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that these documents were real before including them in their story about Bush's service. The White House has every right to be pissed at CBS right now.
        • Um ... I am not talking about Bush

          Neither am I.

          for me this has nothing to do with Bush

          Neither does it for me.

          and I asked you to stay on topic and not talk about politics.

          I am.

          False. You were discussing what Bush actually did or didn't do. That is irrelevant to this discussion.

          And I've read on how all of the questionable spacing and placing of letters was perfectly possible on IBM typwriters of the time.

          You've read wrong.

          And the reason they can't prove, with the current information, that these
  • Sean yesterday interviewed two folks. One was the daughter of Barnes basically saying that her dad is a political hack and had told her before that he did not help Bush get into the ANG.

    Second he had an interview, though I did not hear all it, with the the colonel who was supposed to have written those documents. He claimed that his father had nothing but high praise for Bush. He also mentioned that 60 minutes did interview him and his mother (colonel's wife) and instead of adding their interviews to th
  • I'm finally beginning to hear from experts from 'the other side'. [sfgate.com]

    But specialists interviewed by the Globe and some other news organizations say the specialized characters used in the documents, and the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s, when Bush was a first lieutenant.

    And this statement which is VERY good for CBS:

    Philip Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the docume

    • The first quote is meaningless. We've seen attempts at recreating these documents with those common typewriters, and they all fall well short of the mark.

      And the thing about Bouffard, is he is just trying to be diplomatic. Look at his clarification of those remarks [indcjournal.com]:

      I just interviewed Dr. Bouffard again, and he's angry that the Globe has misrepresented him. He's been getting hate mail and nasty phone calls since last night's story was posted, and he wants me to correct the record. He did not change his

    • And this statement which is VERY good for CBS: [Theoretically an IBM Selectric Composer typesetter could have done something similar]

      First, it can't duplicate this layout exactly, only something similar - and secondly, read about it here [ibmcomposer.org]. This is not a "typewriter". It's a typesetter. You have to type each and every line twice: the first time just moves the head, measuring the length of text and producing a measurement at the end such as "green 4". You then set a knob to "green 4" and retype that line exa

  • Basically, Rather is telling us not to do what we were talking about in the previous journal entry: check up on sources.

    Today, on the internet and elsewhere, some people -- including many who are partisan political operatives -- concentrated not on the key questions the overall story raised but on the documents that were part of the support of the story. They alleged the documents are FAKE.

    Rather seems to be asserting that there's something partisan about looking into the source instead of simply a

    • Yep. Unravelled, he is!
    • Oh, one more thing: someone noted that Rather is saying they stand by the story because they are convinced by a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence. But ... he won't consider any evidence against his story, unless it is CONCLUSIVE evidence. That's complete and utter rubbish.
      • Well... his EXACT words were:


        "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill," the CBS anchor said

        But your point is valid. Here's something along those lines:

        Rather said:

        "If any definitive evidence comes up, we will report it," Rather said.

        It has also been reported that:

        Matley and Rather acknowledged the memos were difficult to definitively authenticate because CBS has only photocopies, not the originals.

    • Again, Rather is now saying:

      I think the public, even decent people who may be well-disposed toward President Bush, understand that powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the documents because they can't deny the fundamental truth of the story.

      No, Mr. Rather. We are concentrating on the documents because we are apparently suddenly practitioners of better journalism than you. May this public trend increase. (Oh, and some of us might also be concentrating on th

  • It is easy for Rather to attack the debunkers as politically motivated when the source is anonymous. How do we know that the source isn't politically motivated?

    At this point CBS needs to either back down or provide more evidence, they are refusing to do either, which is unprofessional.

Slashdot Top Deals

Contemptuous lights flashed flashed across the computer's console. -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Close