Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The day CBS News got 'blogged' down
James P. Pinkerton
September 14, 2004
Sept. 9, 2004, will be remembered as a paradigm-shifting day in media history. That was the day the "blogosphere" took down CBS News.
The night before, CBS' "60 Minutes" aired a segment alleging that Friends in High Places had ushered young George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, as his way of evading a possible trip to Vietnam. This charge, of course, has swirled around Bush for decades. But CBS' "scoop" was its disclosure of four memos, purportedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian in 1972-3, in which Killian expressed frustration that then-subordinate Lt. Bush was shirking his Guard obligations. Killian supposedly complained that he was under pressure to "sugarcoat" Bush's record.
That broadcast was Wednesday night. On Thursday morning, many newspapers followed up on the story. The headline in The New York Times highlighted the hot "news," broken by CBS: "Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard." The piece contained not a whiff of concern that the documents might have been faked.
But as the morning papers thought they were done for the day, the "blogosphere" - the motley and unorganized crew of Internet publishers and activists, numbering in the millions - went to work. Bloggers are scattered all across the political spectrum, but those on the right have long believed that CBS, in particular, is "Rather biased."
That same morning, Powerlineblog.com began posting comments noting that the just-released memos were suspiciously well-spaced and well-proportioned, like documents generated by a computer, not pecked out on a typewriter from more than three decades ago. Others defended the documents, and so a furious debate was launched on the World Wide Web, focusing on such arcane typing terms as "justification" and "kerning."
The key point here is that nobody was getting paid. The whole back-and-forth exercise was citizen-activism at its best. But along the way, as the claims and counter-claims were evaluated by a "jury" of millions of webheads, a consensus emerged: The documents were fakes.
By Friday Rather was forced to give some ground: "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." In other words, after taking a swing at bloggers, accusing them of being "operatives," as opposed to just activists and fact-checkers, Rather was moving toward concession on the documents. The basic story was accurate, he was saying, although maybe not the memos. In Monday night's broadcast, Rather was still hanging tough but clearly on the defensive.
The basic storyline - that strings were pulled to get Bush into the Guard - is not really in dispute. But news outfits, such as CBS, aren't supposed to get just the overall story right; they are supposed to get the specifics right, too, or else leave them out. Moreover, Newsweek reported that CBS had used the memos to persuade another source, former Speaker of the Texas House Ben Barnes, to go public.
Which is to say, without the documents and the leverage they provided, CBS might not have had a primetime-worthy story at all. But in addition to being too-hungry for a Bush-bashing story and probably reckless - a story that's "too good to check" is not a good story - CBS never saw the blog-lash coming.
But if the bloggers have power, it's because they form a robust intellectual marketplace, in which assertions must prove themselves before a jury of cyber-peers. In the words of James T. Smith, of critical-thinker.blogspot.com, "The blogosphere is the people." To be sure, the marketplace can make mistakes, but on the whole, like democracy itself, the more folks participating, the better the functioning.
But this democratization of the media is bad news - for those who liked it the old way, the top-down way.
James P. Pinkerton's e-mail ad- dress is [email protected].
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.
As in Olden Days,
U.S. Media Reflect
The Partisan Divide
September 14, 2004; Page A4
In the final moments of the Republican convention -- after the balloons had fallen and the cameras had turned away -- an unusual commotion broke out in the seats surrounding CNN's convention-floor set. Dozens of delegates turned to where Judy Woodruff and Wolf Blitzer were conducting interviews and started chanting loudly: "WATCH FOX NEWS. WATCH FOX NEWS."
The demonstration highlighted what may become one of the most lasting legacies of campaign 2004: The increasing polarization of the American media and their audiences. The delegates clearly viewed CNN as an enemy in their midst -- and Fox as a friend.
That media gulf widened further last week -- to Grand Canyon-like dimensions -- thanks to CBS's Dan Rather. Questioned about the authenticity of documents he used criticizing President Bush's National Guard service, Mr. Rather was quoted by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz as saying: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not [authentic], I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill."
1
Do you think the memos CBS used in its report on President Bush's National Guard service are authentic? Participate in the Question of the Day2.
Mr. Rather has had a long and distinguished career in journalism, but when did the standard become: I'll assume it's true until someone can prove otherwise? The questions being raised aren't just coming from the "professional rumor mill," unless that term is defined so broadly as to include almost everyone in the media other than Mr. Rather. Mr. Rather acknowledged in his broadcast last night that the questions are coming from other news organizations as well as political partisans, but he continued to defend his story. Even if he's right, the result is to feed the tendency among Bush partisans to steer clear of CBS.
We've been here before. Author Ron Chernow's fascinating biography of Alexander Hamilton details how Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson carried out their vicious feuds in proxy newspapers, under assumed names such as Publius and Civis. New research by economic historian Claudia Goldin shows that a partisan media was in full flower when the Credit Mobilier scandal burst open in early 1870s. At the time, Ms. Goldin says, only 11% of major newspapers even claimed to be independent.
The research by Ms. Goldin and her colleagues also found the Progressive Era transformed journalism. By the time the Teapot Dome scandal erupted in the 1920s, two-thirds of newspapers considered themselves to be independent of parties. Ms. Goldin's analysis assumes this transformation had economic roots. Newspapers became independent, she theorizes, in order to expand their readership.
What, then, is driving the return of the American press to its more partisan roots? Conspiracy theorists on both sides argue that partisan publishers and editors use their power to push political biases on an unsuspecting public. In fact, publishers and editors -- whether Fox's Rupert Murdoch or CBS's Mr. Rather -- today have less "power" than ever before, because consumers have more choices than ever before. It's those consumers who are choosing news sources that support their own biases.
If you have any doubt this is happening, I would invite you to read my daily e-mail. As host of a cable-TV show, I know that many of today's cable-television viewers, particularly the ones who fire off e-mail missives to hosts, assume all of us must live, either overtly or secretly, on one side of the great divide. Hardly a day passes that I don't hear from viewers who accuse me of being in the pocket of the Bush administration, or attack me as a liberal shill. Few contemplate the possibility that I might be independent.
Clearly, mainstream newspapers and networks suffered over the years, if not from intentional bias, at least from a process of self-selection that leads liberal-leaning Americans to choose journalism school over, say, business school. Just as clearly, the rise of Fox News, which sought out right-leaning anchors to push a conservative line, hasn't just been an antidote to this leftward tilt of the mainstream press, but a catalyst for the new era of partisan journalism.
For those of us who still value the independence and nonpartisanship of Progressive Era journalism, there is some reason for hope. Andrew Kohut, director of The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, says most Americans still say they want objective journalism, not partisan spin.
If Mr. Kohut is right, the current media conflict could lead to a better, more balanced, but still fiercely independent press. A decision by Dan Rather and CBS to launch a thorough investigation into the Bush documents would be a step in the right direction.
Write to Alan Murray at [email protected] 5
Why are you worried about what Kathianne does? I know I'm not alone when I say I enjoy the posts and articles Kathianne finds. Instead of poking fun at her, go take care of your stiffy and FO.liberal4now said:Kathianne,
Why don't you get a life. I am posting on this stupid message board because my significant other is out of town. In other words, I am board stiff without her around. What is your excuse for hanging out here???
Where exactly did these document come from? I was under the impression Bush released his military records.acludem said:CBS is still standing by these documents. My theory is, and you are free to question its validity, is that perhaps what CBS found were copies of the original documents that were re-typed on a newer word processor years after the originals. There are dueling experts on either side, and of course the other media outlets are trying to trash CBS to gain ratings so I would hope we as intelligent consumers of information would take what they say with a large grain of salt (attached to a large margarita if you like).
acludem
acludem said:CBS is still standing by these documents. My theory is, and you are free to question its validity, is that perhaps what CBS found were copies of the original documents that were re-typed on a newer word processor years after the originals. There are dueling experts on either side, and of course the other media outlets are trying to trash CBS to gain ratings so I would hope we as intelligent consumers of information would take what they say with a large grain of salt (attached to a large margarita if you like).
acludem
September 14, 2004
CBS vs. ABC: "Madness," "toxic"
UPDATE: Geraghty owns this story:
I am informed that the head of a CBS affiliate in a large East Coast city is telling viewers who call in that he wants Rather to apologize on 60 Minutes and then resign. This local network official reportedly plans to present the flood of critical emails he has been getting to the network heads in New York.
UPDATE: Bill says it's time.
UPDATE: I've gotten more than a few e-mails over the past five days telling me not to give up on the story, to keep the heat on, etc. I'm sure everyone else who's been blogging it has gotten the same. But there's only such we can do, folks; if you want something to happen here, it's time for you to open your mouth and say so.
The phone number for CBS headquarters in New York City is:
212-975-4321
UPDATE: Hewitt's using the "F" word. No, not that one. Not "forgery," either. The other one. And maybe he's right to do so: As you probably know by now, the reader reports about ABC World News in my previous post were dead on.
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. . . .
A second document examiner hired by CBS News, Linda James of Plano, Texas, also told ABC News she had concerns about the documents and could not authenticate them. "I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it to be misunderstood that I did," James said.
With the smell of fraud in the air, the lesser details in the story are bound to get lost in the shuffle. But indulge me as I highlight one relatively unimportant but nonetheless gratifying quote: "Other new questions were raised today by National Guard officials who told ABC News that some of the language and abbreviations in the documents were not in use at the time."
Whatever could they mean?
UPDATE: Media Research Center asks CBS News President Andrew Heyward to suspend Rather pending an investigation into the matter. After that, says MRC, "CBS will have some decisions it will need to make."
UPDATE: Reader "JS" e-mails with the $64,000 question: Now that Killian's secretary has disavowed the documents and CBS's own experts have questioned their authenticity, why is CBS still protecting its source?
UPDATE: WaPo's got a story up about the the CBS document experts. Think CBS is about ready to cut its losses? Think again:
CBS News Senior Vice President Betsy West said last night: "As far as I know, Linda James raised no objections. She said she'd have to see more documents to render a judgment." As for Will's account, West said: "I'm not aware of any substantive objection she raised. Emily Will did not urge us to hold the story. She was not adamant in any way. At one point she raised a concern about a superscript 'th,' which we then discussed with the other experts we hired to examine all four of the documents we aired. We were assured the 'th' was consistent with technology at the time, an assessment that has since been backed up by other experts."
Again with this bullshit. I'm not even going to respond to it; if you've been following the story, you know why it's irrelevant. But I digress. Either West is out of the loop or someone's lying. It goes on:
CBS's West said Will wrote the network three days before the broadcast, not the day before. "The only e-mail we received raised some preliminary points about the handwriting, which [CBS's] other experts addressed and ruled out."
CBS began to doubt Will because she started expanding her role and doing Google searches about Bush's whereabouts at the time, said an executive who insisted on anonymity because the network did not want to go beyond the official statements.
While she was wearing her pajamas, no doubt. Hey, here's a question: If CBS had begun to doubt Will, why did they still use her as an expert?
UPDATE: The UK's newspaper of the year covers Rathergate as only it can.
UPDATE: The $64,000 question might have an answer soon. From the New York Times:
CBS has refused to say how it obtained the documents. But one person at CBS, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed a report in Newsweek that Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer who has charged that senior aides to then-Gov. Bush had ordered Guard officials to remove damaging information from Mr. Bush's military personnel files, had been a source of the report. This person did not know the exact role he played.
Mr. Burkett declined to return telephone calls to his home near Abilene, Tex. His lawyer, David Van Os, on Tuesday repeatedly refused to say in a telephone interview whether the officer had played a part in supplying the disputed documents to CBS. Mr. Van Os said "the real story is and should be, where was George Bush?" and that Mr. Burkett "is not the proper object of attention." Mr. Van Os called Mr. Burkett "a man of impeccable honesty who would not permit himself to be a party to anything fake, fraudulent or phony."
Posted by Allah at September 14, 2004 07:52 PM | TrackBack
9/14/2004: NYT: Fake ... But Accurate!
Wow. Just wow. The New York Times wins the award for Worlds Most Transparently Biased Headline. Ever. Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says. (Hat tip: Blissful Knowledge.)
posted by Charles at 9:46 PM PST
SIGNIFICANT NEWS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES [09/14 11:16 PM]
The New York Times reports some dramatic new developments, buried in the second half of their story.
But one person at CBS, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed a report in Newsweek that Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer who has charged that senior aides to then-Gov. Bush had ordered Guard officials to remove damaging information from Mr. Bush's military personnel files, had been a source of the report. This person did not know the exact role he played.
Mr. Burkett declined to return telephone calls to his home near Abilene, Tex. His lawyer, David Van Os, on Tuesday repeatedly refused to say in a telephone interview whether the officer had played a part in supplying the disputed documents to CBS. Mr. Van Os said "the real story is and should be, where was George Bush?" and that Mr. Burkett "is not the proper object of attention."
Mr. Van Os called Mr. Burkett "a man of impeccable honesty who would not permit himself to be a party to anything fake, fraudulent or phony."
Also:
Officials at CBS News said on Tuesday that they would at some point in the day provide the name of a document expert who expressed confidence in the records' authenticity before the report was broadcast. But they did not do so, and Ms. West declined to say why.
Also, the Times reports that Lt. Col. Jerry B.Killian's son, Gary, doubts his father's secretary's assertion that the documents are fake but accurately reflect Jerry Killian's views at the time. He has some nice and civil things to say about Marian Carr Knox, despite his assertion she is mistaken.
"She's a sweet old lady, but she's wrong and it didn't happen,'' he said. "I always thought well of her, and I know my dad would have also, but she's a sweet old lady.''
9/14/2004: NYT: Fake ... But Accurate!
Wow. Just wow. The New York Times wins the award for Worlds Most Transparently Biased Headline. Ever. Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says. (Hat tip: Blissful Knowledge.)
posted by Charles at 9:46 PM PST
liberal4now said:Kathianne,
Why don't you get a life. I am posting on this stupid message board because my significant other is out of town. In other words, I am board stiff without him around. What is your excuse for hanging out here???
acludem said:CBS is still standing by these documents. My theory is, and you are free to question its validity, is that perhaps what CBS found were copies of the original documents that were re-typed on a newer word processor years after the originals. There are dueling experts on either side, and of course the other media outlets are trying to trash CBS to gain ratings so I would hope we as intelligent consumers of information would take what they say with a large grain of salt (attached to a large margarita if you like).
acludem
Kathianne said:
