pudge's Journal: CBS Did Not Verify Documents

CBS News released some statements about the forged documents. In them, one document examiner (Matley) says he verified the signatures. The other (Pierce) concurs. CBS consulted two other experts, both of whom could not verify the signatures or documents. No other pre-broadcast verification is discussed in any of the statements, except on the actual content.

We already know that Matley has said it is not possible to verify a document from the signature if it is a photcopied document. And since the only verification done pre-broadcast was on the signatures, we are left with the conclusion that CBS simply did not verify these documents prior to broadcast.

But it gets worse. Matley's obsevations about the signatures are that there are some inconsistencies, but that they could be explained by stress, which is indicated by the content of the documents. But he cannot verify the content. He does not know -- by his own admission -- that the signature was originally applied to the document in question. His entire analysis that the signatures are authentic is based on the flawed assumptions.

In the statement, CBS writes: Before the report was broadcast, it was vetted and screened in accordance with CBS News standards by several veteran 60 MINUTES Wednesday senior producers and CBS News executives. That is the most damning criticism of the network I've yet seen.

*sigh*

[nocomment]

It scares me that it's so easy. How many people who don't have access to /. and so many other sites still think they are real documents?


Why is it so easy to do this? This should be in print. How about we start up a newspaper just for this? We can call it the King County Republican :-D, er wait you're in Snohomish Co. aren't you?

I've seen 2 polls today

[stoolpigeon]

both non-scientific- web page polls. One at cnn.com, the other at azcentral.com. They asked "Do you believe Bush or CBS" The CNN poll was like 70 - 30, the majority saying they believe CBS. The AZcentral poll was more like 60 - 40 in favor of Bush. I don't understand how even 40% could say they give any credence to CBS after this.

Re:I've seen 2 polls today

[robi2106]

I don't understand how even 40% could say they give any credence to CBS after this.

easy... they are stupid lazy sons-a-bitches that don't want to have to think.

(ahem)

jason

What's really sad...

[FortKnox]

... is that CBS is upset that republicans/Bush backers no longer watch their news and political shows. They say they aren't biased.

Yup, uh huh....

The sand thing is...

[TaxSlave]

I expect no better from CBS, 60 Minutes, or Dan Rather. They've abdicated their role as trusted purveyors of news and information and demonstrated their own intent to bias "news" toward their own beliefs.

Of course, among the group that Dan Rather speaks to on a regular basis, I'm sure he's pretty much middle-of-the-road politically. Rich and upper-middle-class Manhattan media types, cultural upper-crust, and the opera crowd probably make him look rather conservative on a regular basis. To Dan, all those

Rather Knew

[LinuxWhore]

I listen to the Radio Factor occasionally, and I hear Bill say that Rather didn't know that the documents were forged. He seems to think that Rather wouldn't have risked his reputation on these documents. But I tend to beleive that Rather has gotten used to sucessfully pulling the wool over the public eyes. He thought that, even though the documents were probably fake, they wouldn't be found out, and therefore he could push forward with this story. From what I've heard, CBS had been working on this story fo

Re:Questions.

[pudge]

Is there a paper trail (you would think a FOIA request would generate a paper trail) leading back to the source of the documents?

These were not the result of an FOIA request. These were documents supposedly from someone's "private file" and were supplied by an anonymous third party to CBS (most likely retired Lt. Col. Burkett, who 1. lives in the town and has an account at the place the documents were faxed from; 2. has posted publically about wanting to use dirty tricks against the Republicans; 3. has t

Re:NO reason?

[pudge]

To not give a definitive answer seems odd to me.

They did not have one to give.

NO official correspondance would have a P.O. Box as the return address that I am aware however. That part is VERY odd.

Yes, it is odd, and the Pentagon commented to that effect. But there are possible explanations for it, I imagine.

But none of this is relevant. We know that they are forgeries. It's not even a question anymore. The only question is who forged them, and why.

Now CBS is attacking their attackers

[SiliconJesus]

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politic s /main641481.shtml [cbsnews.com]

Here's the entire body of the document for those too lazy to click.

(CBS/AP) An Internet writer considered the first to accuse CBS News of using fake documents in its report on President Bush's National Guard service is an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to Republican causes, a newspaper reported Saturday.

Harry W. MacDougald, 46, is affiliated with two prominent conservative legal groups and helped draft a petition urging the A

Re:Now CBS is attacking their attackers

[pudge]

The funny part is that CBS is -- day by day -- doing the exactly wrong thing. They have not done one story that would put their original story in a bad light, except to report what other people have already reported, and even then those criticisms are explained away (very poorly). Every story they do tries to cast their original story in a good light. That's not reporting, that's propaganda.

And I honestly couldn't care less who first raised the alarm here. The memos were forgeries. What's worse: that