|
|
September 11, 2004
Weekend Notes With "Forgery" Swirling in the AirBy Monday morning, we should know a great deal more about whether CBS News peddled forged documents as the real thing in its recent investigation of President Bush's National Guard Service. Here are some quick thoughts-- not about the charges, which seem serious to me, but about the general atmosphere and what's at stake if this turns into a political scandal.Four things to stick in the front of your mind:
Other voices: John Podhoretz of the New York Post sees a “populist revolution against the so- called mainstream media” in the events of the last few days. “Yesterday, the citizen journalists who produce blogs on the Internet — and their engaged readers — engaged in the wholesale exposure of what appears to be a presidential-year dirty trick against George W. Bush.” Or against CBS. Roger L. Simon apparently feels that Rather (or someone working for him) almost got away with the equivalent of electoral fraud. But the bloggers stopped it. Thus: “when you think of what Rather could have done, uncriticized by bloggers (working, unlike him, virtually for nothing), it’s blood curdling.” His view includes this prediction: “…if Rather and his colleagues don’t apologize fully and soon, I imagine a mass movement to boycott CBS News (not their sponsors - it’s not their fault) for promulgating forgeries during a presidential campaign would be forthcoming.” I found it interesting that Stirling Newberry of BOP News, who identifies Left, is not only convinced there’s a credibility crisis for CBS (“the simple truth is that the equipment that existed in 1972 would not have produced this output…”) but also for the “left blogsphere,” which “should be ashamed of itself for backing off of demanding what we will need to demand the next time Bush pulls a secret plan to save social security out of his nether regions.” Newberry’s point is: a principled Left would not leap to defend Dan Rather and CBS because it likes the consequences of their reporting on Bush’s National Guard years. Instead, demand what we need to see before the public can again have confidence in the report Rather aired Wednesday night. For those in the Big Picture market, the smartest thing I have seen written so far on the events in question is again by Belmont Club: The traditional news model is collapsing. It suffers from two defects. The “news object” can no longer be given sealed attributes in newspaper backrooms. The days when the press was the news object foundry are dying. Second, the news industry is suffering from its lack of analytic cells, which are standard equipment in intellgence shops. Editors do some analysis but their focus is diluted by their attention to style and the craft of writing. The blogosphere and other actors, now connected over the Internet, are filling in for the missing analytic function. And although the news networks still generate, via their reporters, the bulk of primary news, they generate a pitiful amount of competent analysis. Overheard in the comments here (Lee Kane): “Trouble is Bouffard is now on the blogs saying that the Globe mischaracterized his comments and that he is more suspicious of the documents than ever: but no mass media outlet is of course picking that up.” In other words, in mass media land, the scandal is over and the forgery suspicions put to rest. I don’t think bloggers alone can put enough pressure on CBS to release their originals or reveal their provenance. The scandal may well remain in blog land and, in the mists of time and fog of war, ultimately end up as an “urban legend” and anyone who believes it will be thought a right-wing crackpot. I don’t buy that, myself.
Posted by Jay Rosen at September 11, 2004 2:17 AM
Comments
Jay, I'm not sure this is helpful, but the narrative difference given the undercard is highlighted by comparing past TV news magazine scandals with this one. Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 2:36 AM | Permalink Sigh .. Time to batten down the hatches for a blast of blog-blather ... While I don't want to take away any credit from people who did an extensive investigation, I can't see this as anything which depends on an emergent open-origin smart-rabble social-underwear wikimob revolution. The first halfway-decent historical expert who looks at the documents will say "What in the world is a small-font superscript 'th' doing in a supposedly typewritten memo from 1973?" That CBS has no good answer for what should be a screaming red flag on a story, is what seems to me the most damning about their not having investigated historical accuracy. Jay, I suggest this is the key pressthink question: WHY DIDN'T CBS ASK A HISTORICAL FORENSICS EXPERT? I'm sincerely curious about the answer.
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at September 11, 2004 4:34 AM | Permalink What seems most odd to me is CBS News' response to this matter so far. Is this how a news organization should respond to criticism? One can imagine ignoring criticisms if they were entirely frivolous, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. So far, Dan Rather (and by extension the entire CBS News organization, which has fully stood by Rather and the story) has essentially implied that the criticisms are not to be trusted because they come from partisan political operatives and news competitors. However, there are many on both sides of the politic aisle who agree the charges are serious and I'm not sure what Rather means to accomplish by dissing the Washington Post and New York Times. This seems the height of arrogance. Is this how journalists should respond to valid criticism of their work? Was it an appropriate response by Rather to say that questions about the documents miss the larger questions his report raised? Rather seems to be claiming that the potential falsity of the documents is unimportant in the larger context of his entire report. Is this a valid claim? Rather has claimed that the criticisms aren't "definitive" and if they become "definitive" that is when they will acknowledge them. What the heck sort of news standard is this? Does CBS News only report stories that are "definitive"? Why has CBS News acted more like a politician responding to criticism than a news organization after the truth? When the questions were raised by reporters from distinguished news organization, CBS did not immediately name the expert (or experts) who authenticated the documents. According to the one they have now named, he has been asked not to give media interviews by CBS News. What is up with that? Is that appropriate journalism? CBS has publically criticized its critics by saying they don't have access to the same quality of documents that CBS does. Ok, fine, so why hasn't CBS released as high a quality reproduction of the documents as they are able? How much of a burden would that be? It is only four documents. Given what we've seen from the degraded copies that have been released, there is no evidence of their provenance, so it doesn't seem as if higher quality copies would burn the source or anything. At the very least, shouldn't CBS News explain why they are unwilling to provide higher quality copies? Is CBS News stonewalling criticism? It seems to me that they are. Journalists often complain about stonewalling politicians, corporate executives, etc. Perhaps they should adhere to the same standards they expect of others. Posted by: Ernest Miller at September 11, 2004 9:00 AM | Permalink Seth, even if the documents turn out to be legit, it's fairly clear that CBS scrambled to answer some very serious questions (and still hasn't answered them). But, let's face it, weblogs have dramatically changed the way a scandal like this unfolds. I don't know why you feel it necessary to make a dig at weblogs. Professional jealousy? Jay Rosen is right: this is "cultural theatre"... and boy, is it entertaining! It's so much fun, I might even start buying newspapers again. (Kidding!) Jokes aside, this is a significant "power shift" moment -- just like when Matt Drudge broke the news of Monica Lewinsky; the Old Media losing power to New Media. Though it's sad to lose my last bit of trust in "60 Minutes", I accept the winds of change. New technology has brought mass media's power to the masses. Cell-phone cameras make everyone a roving reporter. The Internet makes every website the world's newspaper. So rejoice, bloggers! For this is your moment in history. -A.R.Yngve Posted by: A.R. Yngve at September 11, 2004 9:18 AM | Permalink Was there ever, anywhere, a "news object"? Or are we yet uninclined to adequately distinguish some liquid semeiosis from its commodified corporate packaging? Posted by: tom matrullo at September 11, 2004 10:19 AM | Permalink The most impressive aspect of this story IMO was that the success for the bloggers to not only build on the expertise of other bloggers, but to reach out to independent experts (see UML Guy's Scorecard linked from Tom Maguire's roundup and also the bottom of this Power Line post). Another interesting promotional aspect of the new media is the ability to self-order/organize and raise funds. For example, like Trudeau's $10k USO award (scroll down to "Can we read some Bush Guard testimony? Who won?") for witnesses to Bush's Alabama NG service, there is also now an award "to the first person who can find a typewriter available in 1972 that reasonably could have produced the documents in question." Does this ability to raise funds and offer awards (or bundle political contributions) give Kid Internet some of its influential standing on the undercard? Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 11:06 AM | Permalink Another question that has to be raised about the journalism in this case is the claims from sources that they have been mislead or their claims taken out of context. According to ABC News: "Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were 'handwritten' and after CBS read him excerpts he said, 'well if he wrote them that's what he felt.'" Will CBS release a tape, transcript or reporter's notes for this phone call? Or is this not "definitive" enough? The Boston Globe, which has been one of the pring publications at the front of the original story, published an article today claiming that the memos are authentic. However, one of the experts that they cite is complaining that his arguments have been misrepresented. See, http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000859.php . Is the Boston Globe engaged in responsible journalism? Or are they spinning to cover deficiencies in their reporting? Posted by: Ernest Miller at September 11, 2004 11:36 AM | Permalink There may be legitimate challenges to the authenticity of these documents, but the wire service stories yesterday were based on historically false assumptions about both proportional spacing and superscripts. Seth Finkelstein's "screaming red flag" is nothing of the kind. It is the historical forensics expertise he calls for that tells us so. Why is he so misinformed? I submit that is an important question that is part of the story. It is predictable that the Republican blogosphere would be generating charges like this before the program on which the documents were aired had even ended. But why would the MSM transmit these empirically false claims on the front page of every major newspaper in the country? If there is going to be a challenge to the authenticity of the documents it would help the blogosphere and the MSM's credibility if these were based on arguments with some historical basis. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 12:37 PM | Permalink "Ben Franklin", There have been a number of legitimate challenges to the authenticity of the documents from numerous sources. There have also been many false claims made as well as misinformed claims. However, the exisitance of false and misinformed claims is not terribly relevant. For every false and misinformed claim attacking the authenticity of the documents, I can produce false and misinformed claims "proving" they are of the era. Indeed, your very claim that the Republican blogosphere would be generating charges like this before the program on which the documents were first aired as ended, is an example of misinformation. According to reports, the timestamp issue regarding when questions were first raised about the documents did not grasp the difference between Eastern and Pacific time zones. See, http://patterico.com/archives/002691.php. Posted by: Ernest Miller at September 11, 2004 12:52 PM | Permalink Another way of putting what I get out of the last Belmont club quote is that news organization are no match for the psy-ops, undercover intelligence model of political subversion that now passes for US politics. Walter Lippmann's fear for the derangement of public opinion by the manufacture of consent has taken on a pseudo-populist, undercover operative twist. Until news organizations start going undercover themselves, they will continue to be outmaneuvered and miss the real story of Atwater-Rove style campaigns. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 12:53 PM | Permalink So, let's recap: 1. CBS airs a story using documents after "... some alarm bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record ..."; experts who've authored anti-Bush books, and an interview Barnes, a discredited politico and Kerry fundraiser who has opportunistically changed his story. 2. CBS presents an entirely one-sided story despite knowing counter-evidence and witnesses are available. 3. CBS misquotes and mischaracterizes their research source(s). 4. Oliphant's "basic standards" Boston Globe, WP and NYT rush front page stories based on CBS's "news magazine" without skepticism or critical examination. 5. CBS stonewalls and obfuscates and attacks. Note: And let us not be the last to point out that if a(nother) major corporation was withholding information related to serious allegations made against the president of the United States, "60 Minutes" would be all over them, demanding to know about their documentation and expert back up. 6. Oliphant's "basic standards" Boston Globe misrepresents another source, begging the question how many times the Globe can pull this crediblity trick without loosing their own? (Need we mention fake rape pics again?) I only provide this incomplete list to ask whether ethics and the credibility of "Old Media" has been weighed appropriately in this discussion. Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 1:08 PM | Permalink Ben, It is the historical forensics expertise he calls for that tells us so. False. It is predictable that the Republican blogosphere would be generating charges like this before the program on which the documents were aired had even ended. False Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 1:11 PM | Permalink Ernest, The front page story yesterday at USA Today and the Washington Post exclusively addressed issues regarding proportional spacing and superscript. These were demonstrably available on IBM typewriters from the late 60s. If there are telling arguments available--please share if you have one--they were not part of the front page story on USA Today or the Washington Post challenging the documents. Today's reports are moving toward potentially significant arguments. Yesterday's stories were demonstrably baseless. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 1:12 PM | Permalink Tim, Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 1:16 PM | Permalink "Ben Franklin", Now you are beginning the descent into name calling, making claims about "a sentient being would expect" and "if you are living and breathing." One can expect Republican partisans to attack the story. One wouldn't necessarily expect them to attack the authenticity of the documents. Had the documents come from Pentagon microfiche or some other impeccable provenance, they would be making other claims about the story, but not the documents. Furthermore, just as it is predictable that Republican partisans would attack the story, it is equally predictable that Democrat partisans would defend the story just as aggressively. This proves and means, what, exactly? What it means to me is that the most vocal and rapid partisans of both sides lack both perspective and objectivity. Both the front page stories did indeed deal with issues regarding proportional spacing and superscript, but they also referenced named (for the most part) document forensic experts who had significant doubts. The Washington Post story did note that proportional spaced typewriters existed at the time the documents were dated. The claim is that proportional spaced typewriters were uncommon compared to the monospaced versions. Could the stories have more information and be more nuanced? Yes. Are there other arguments against the authenticity of the documents to be made? Yes. Does this mean the stories are "baseless"? Clearly not. Posted by: Ernest Miller at September 11, 2004 1:28 PM | Permalink Ernest, Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 1:35 PM | Permalink Ernest, We agree it is quite possible the documents may be legitimately challenged on other grounds. The "expert" arguments you referred to were actively ignoring the historical information on typewriters in the article you refer to. Why disseminate a logically fallacious argument? Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 1:40 PM | Permalink Ben, I'm not interested in engaging in a point-by-point typography debate on ALL the capabilities required to produce such documents. It's being done ad nauseam already. Historical forensics expertise -> CYA personal file documents, with such wordprocessing perfection, dated in the early 1970s -> raises red flags, eyebrows, and questions. PERIOD. One of the more interesting discussions on the The IBM Selectric Composer. Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 1:51 PM | Permalink Tim, We will have to stop doubting if the evidence says those are not red flags, but signs of our ignorance about typewriter capabilities. If it is established that the CYA memo involves something they couldn't do, let me know. Proportional spacing and superscripts don't fall into that category. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 1:57 PM | Permalink Thanks for the link. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 2:04 PM | Permalink Tim, Those of us who typed in the 70s know that, just like in MS Word, typewriters allow you to set tabs. You do the math to center routine documents like memos once, you set your tabs, and voila!--from then to the end of time, your routine document headings are centered in exactly the same way in every memo you type from then to eternity. Again, there may be arguments that take these documents down, but I haven't seen them yet.
Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 2:27 PM | Permalink "Ben Franklin", The questions raised have not yet been answered. Is it technically possible that the docments were created in 1973? Possibly, but that has not been conclusively shown. However, even if possible, the machine that produced them would be relatively uncommon, which is a point the newspaper articles made. That is a red flag. Strangely, none of Bush's official records of the era include proportionately spaced type, which is strong evidence that proportionately spaced typewriting was uncommon in military use in those units involved with Bush's records. Is this conclusive? No. However, it is a red flag. The mere existence of equipment that might possibly (there is no firm evidence that they could reproduce exactly) have produced the memos doesn't mean the red flag goes away. Posted by: Ernest Miller at September 11, 2004 2:36 PM | Permalink Ben, What do you think about how CBS has handled the controversy? Have they been responsive and transparent? What do you think about the competitive ethics involved in airing the story with these documents and Ben Barnes? How about the competitive ethics between CBS and the other media news organizations? How about the role the bloggers on both sides of the debate? What about the "experts" on both sides? Did CBS seek out independent experts? Have the bloggers? What about the other news organizations? What do you think should happen if the documents are frauds/forgeries? Is Rather more like Jayson Blair or Howell Raines? Should the source of the documents be exposed? Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 3:14 PM | Permalink I'm still uncertain about how this case will turn out. However, I've read elsewhere that the claims that such typewriters were uncommon at the time have been pretty much debunked. See dailykos for example. What's the PressThink going to be if it turns out all the forgery claims were baseless? Then we've got a bunch of Republican bloggers who questioned CBS and turned out to be all wet, and a bunch of other bloggers (including PressThink?) who apparently believed them because they liked the meta-story. "Blogger catches traditional media lying" and "computers are way more advanced than primitive typewriters" are irresistable memes to many bloggers, even Democratic ones. So, point in favor of traditional media? Well, on the other hand, other bloggers questioned the typography claims, and the debate continues. So the blogosphere is working out this issue in its own way, and we may yet get to the bottom of it. (But no amount of theorising will do that - it's only going to happen by digging into the details.) The real question, I think, is whether we'll reach any consensus, or whether the Republican bloggers will continue to insist it's a forgery while the Democratic bloggers insist that it's not. I'm still hopeful that enough evidence will come out and people will educate themselves enough that we will get to some sort of conclusion, at least among non-conspiracy theorists. I'm less hopeful about your average undecided voter. For them, there will probably always be a cloud of uncertainty around this issue, regardless of whether the folks who are paying attention figure it out. Both CBS and the Kerry campaign have something to lose if that happens. For the traditional media, if they want to avoid getting questioned in this way, they're going to have to start putting more details online. Publishing the evidence along with a primer on typography and how the documents were authenticated might not stop partisans from insisting they're fakes, but it would do a lot to prevent other bloggers from repeating such claims. Posted by: Brian Slesinsky at September 11, 2004 3:36 PM | Permalink Ben and Mr. Rather have apparently forgoten a cardinal rule in science. When extraordinary claims are made, the burden of proof is on the claimant, and the rigor of evaluating any evidence offered as proof is much greater than usual. It is not up to those rejecting the extraordinary claim to prove its falsity. Furthermore, one of the memos has been easily and precisely reproduced using just Microsoft Word (at LGF); the two are identical. Say what you will, it remains extremely unlikely that the default Word settings would produce (amazingly) a 1972 typewritten document exactly, even including the difficult task of "manually" centering Times New Roman. Posted by: Pogo at September 11, 2004 3:40 PM | Permalink The fact that the typewriters with the capability to reproduce the memo when they were debated had been debunked? Ok. That certainly explains why proportionally spaced type is commonly found in the official and verified records released to date. Oh, wait, proportionally spaced type is not commonly found in the officially released records. Nevermind. If the memos turn out to be authentic, it would be ridiculous to think that the lessons include publishing primers on typography when publishing a story. If the memos are authentic, then CBS would be clearly right to have run with their story and there is nothing wrong with it, considering it before the criticisms were raised. Now that valid criticism have been made, however, CBS' response has clearly been lacking. Why didn't they make the names of the experts they consulted readily available? Why did they counsel the one expert they did name not to talk to other media? Why haven't they provided copies of the documents as clear as they can? You don't have to detail your reporting process for every story you publish, but when valid criticisms are raised, you should be prepared to explain the process of the reporting in more detail. Posted by: Ernest Miller at September 11, 2004 3:51 PM | Permalink The mass media is not down yet. As of Saturday, it's largely dropped the "forgery" angle. The AP posted a story today surveying veteran's reactions to the "facts" described in the memos. The AP story mentions not at all the forgery allegations. One of the primary typewriter experts, Philip Bouffard, was quoted in the Boston Globe as having backed off his suspicions. This was picked up by the SF Chron and other outlets. Trouble is Bouffard is now on the blogs saying that the Globe mischaracterized his comments and that he is more suspicious of the documents than ever: but no mass media outlet is of course picking that up. In other words, in mass media land, the scandal is over and the forgery suspicions put to rest. I don't think bloggers alone can put enough pressure on CBS to release their originals or reveal their provenance. The scandal may well remain in blog land and, in the mists of time and fog of war, ultimately end up as an "urban legend" and anyone who believes it will be thought a right-wing crackpot. This is, of course, unfortunate. I wonder if CBS will be able to get away with it. I give them better than even odds since even ABC now seems to have dropped the pursuit. What happens then? Posted by: Lee Kane at September 11, 2004 4:05 PM | Permalink I think we can all agree that if CBS anticipated some controversy surrounding the typewriter issue, which the public statements from their lead consultant suggest is the case, it was at the very least arrogant of them not to bother to anticipate reasonable questions in readers minds by laying out the case for their interpretation of the documents, rather than simply assuming it. My impression so far is that in their mind the confirmation they got from anonymous sources made their story absolutely bulletproof from the perspective of traditional journalistic ethics related to sourcing. This traditional standard, however, does not account for increasing audience skepticism, the institutionalization of party-based media infrastructure, and the culture wars effective delegitimation of almost any mainstream media claims to authority or expertise. I didn't see the original CBS broadcast, but I have read a couple of their online defenses. As a person who consistently calls for more spine from the media, given the networks general listlessness in transmitting bad information from the Bush administration even I am a little startled by the way in which Rather's defense has seemed to take political sides as part of the defense of the story. We will certainly need to see how the forgery debate is resolved to decide whose behavior we find more appalling, but I will concede that CBS certainly didn't present their case in very effective or convincing detail at the start. Surely that would be possible on their website even if not on the news broadcast itself. Most of you have probably already seen the discussion in the Boston Globe from the forensics expert who was on record for the New York Times as skeptical yesterday and who is now convinced the IBM Selectric Composer could have produced the memos. One of the strange aspects of this story is the anonymous confirmations they seem to be relying on. That is not very satisfying to anyone, I should think. It is a problem that goes beyond this story, but it is also at the heart of why this story is so frustrating. Did Hodges support the story or not? How specific was he? What information was he responding to? What exactly did he say? I want to know too. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 4:22 PM | Permalink Lee, Do you have a link for Bouffard's comments on the Boston Globe story? Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 4:28 PM | Permalink Ben -- Could you please stop spamming this board? Fine, we get it, you don't want to believe they are forgeries. You aren't even reading the other posts. Lee points out that Bouffard claims he was *mis*quoted by the Globe and that he has not at all backed off his suspicions. He does not believe that the IBM could have produced the documents. Posted by: Ben You Missed It at September 11, 2004 4:30 PM | Permalink Ben, yes, here is the link in which Bouffard says the Globe manipulated his statements. http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000859.php Here is the link in which the AP completely ignores the forgery allegations. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040911/ap_on_re_us/bush_guard_reax
(PS. last post was from me.) Posted by: Lee Kane at September 11, 2004 4:33 PM | Permalink An interesting point from Jane Galt's blog comments about this controversy: Steve Teeter wrote: Here's something else pointing at Rather, though it is only an inference, not a fact. (And we've all just learned to be careful about that, haven't we, hmm?) Joe K. said, "In 1992 they would have got away with it." That's because in 1992 the memos would have been flashed on the screen for fifteen seconds under Rather's narration, probably with everything grayed out except for a highlight box around what Rather was quoting. No one would have had a chance to notice anything wrong. Theoretically a few reporters might have asked to see them, but they might not have noticed anything, and even if they did what member of the journalism fraternity would dare to blow the whistle on Dan Rather? As it is, CBS felt obliged to post them on their website, allowing thousands of very bright and skeptical people to examine them carefully, and thus it all blew up in their faces. Which suggests that it never occurred to the person responsible for this that they would be so posted and get such close scrutiny. It is easy to imagine Rather forgetting all about that, as he is in his sixties and totally disdainful of the Internet. It's not possible to imagine a 26-year-old junior staffer forgetting that detail.(all emphasis mine) Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 4:41 PM | Permalink Maybe this is a case of the fireman arsonist, except this is a DB discrediting? We need to look for other usual suspects since Rather's defense is the unpenetrable, "Do you know who I am!?!" Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 5:22 PM | Permalink unpenetrable -> impenetrable (LOL, apologies.) Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 5:30 PM | Permalink To elaborate on my view of the press aspect: If Dan Rather dives into a shark-pit with red meat smeared on his chest and no armor, and then gets mauled, my thinking is that the big question is why he dived into the shark-pit with red meat smeared on his chest and no armor. NOT, which particular shark got him first, and does that mean we are in a new era of evolution (no offense meant here to the smaller sharks which swam fast and got him very quickly, before the slower Great Whites could get their teeth into him). Now, one can answer this question by saying "Well, Dan Rather is just a senile idiot. Humans are OldThink. Sharks Rule!". I find this unsatisfying, as I just don't believe he's a senile idiot. If someone hates Dan Rather and/or loves sharks, they of course might like this explanation. Variant: "Dan Rather thought he was invulnerable. He thought his buddies would immediately pull him out of the pool". But again, he's been dealing with sharks for decades. This is basically still he's-an-idiot. Again, the rules of professional journalism are that most stories do not require accuracy, merely a modicum of verisimilitude, and the targets can be blow-off. But this one, this incident, was something which required both checking and was against a target which could check. So I believe the blog boosterism is downright harmful to thinking. It's basically just endlessly repeated "We're sooooo smart. They're sooooo stupid. Aren't we new? Aren't they old? It just goes to show how they're stupid (monolithic authoritarian elitists ... ) and we're smart (emergent distributed regular-people ...)." I don't think that line of "reasoning" gets one anywhere in terms of understanding. And I will never be popular because I'm not echoing it :-) Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at September 11, 2004 5:41 PM | Permalink There is no question that CBS mishandled the release of the documents, as well as all the statements it made in reply when the original doubts were raised. The actions taken are not consistent with an Internet Ready Awareness in charge at CBS News. And there may be no such awareness there; that seems very possible to me. The transparency being demanded is stricter than they thought, bigger. They aren't used to it. From what I have seen so far, I regret to say it looks like a defensive, unthinking, we-stand-by-the-story, obey-all-relexes response-- and also like no one is in charge at CBS News. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 11, 2004 5:44 PM | Permalink Seth: I think part of the answer to your puzzle may be found in the gap between proof procedure (which is meant to uphold standards) and the actual standards of truth your operation upholds as it makes decisions under real world conditions about what has been "nailed down," and therefore will not blow away when the storm comes. While it is inconceivable that Rather and company failed to check on the authenticity of the documents, or failed to seek expert opinion, it is not inconceivable at all that their procedures for doing so--the in-use CBS standard in what it means to "check" something--were faulty, subpar, especially because "shooting par" has been changing, as the courses have gotten tougher because of the Internet's strengths in marshalling information quickly. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 11, 2004 6:00 PM | Permalink Jay, thanks, but my point is that par *here*, in this case, is *extremely* low - in fact, all the New Era yadda yadda acts to obscure that point. What I keep trying to convey is the question: "Are these documents historically authentic?" DOES NOT require elaborate consultation - you don't *need* a crowd of people pooling their talents, etc. It doesn't depend on some obscure fact where the one surviving witness might see a picture in the newspaper (err, on a speciality blog), and say "That's funny, I was there, and ..." All you need to do is ask one typographic forensics analyst, "Do these memos seem real?" And they're going to say "No, they look dubious, because ..." Talking about The Internet obscures this - Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the general right-wing machine, has the power to ask that question. Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at September 11, 2004 6:15 PM | Permalink Plug for Patterico: Exclusive Interview with the First Known Person to Express Doubts on the Internet About the Authenticity of the CBS Documents Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 6:29 PM | Permalink Seth, What do you want to see that you are not seeing here? You seem to think the question is settled. Allegations aren't proof. It IS a situation that requires pooling talents and historical data as far as I can see. It is a question of who had what kind of typewriter models capable of doing what, when, and where. If someone was in the office, they could shed light on it that couldn't be known until they hear about the story and comment on it. The experts consulted so far wouldn't differ so wildly in opinion if it wasn't. What do you know that the dozens of experts consulted so far don't know? Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 7:06 PM | Permalink I think it's settled that the memos are extremely, extraordinarily, typographically suspicious, so much so that any expert who looks at them will raise strong concerns. Some of the discussion has taken a turn into arguing what would be incontrovertible proof of falsity, and confused that with raising red flags which should be immediately obvious on cursory viewing by any average expert. That superscript small-font "th" is way out of place. It may not be utterly impossible for the time. But it's such an outlier that it should prompt immediate intense scrutiny. It's not obscure. It simply looks too good to be true for the era and the context, as well as being very easy now. The contemporary-document version "th" that CBS showed looked so different that I was very surprised they would even claim a similarity. Again, they are forensically suspicious - that is glaringly obvious. Blog New-Era blah-blah in fact acts to excuse this, saying it was beyond CBS to check. It wasn't. It would have been easy. That's the deep issue to me. Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at September 11, 2004 7:32 PM | Permalink The echo chamber of the MSM: Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 7:38 PM | Permalink How many of you ever typed anything on a typewriter? How many of you typed in the 70s? As someone who has done so, I know that proportional spacing wasn't rare or difficult to produce on an IBM. Curly apostrophes were common. The 'th' was less so but not strikingly rare. If age matters, it would appear to be the younger folks who are demonstrably more ignorant. The bloggers who can't grasp the fact that MS Word *imitates type* seem especially clueless. I do wish cbs would tell us more about their sources though. Posted by: beth at September 11, 2004 9:12 PM | Permalink Ignorant, clueless, whatever. Beth, whether or not proportional fonts existed (no serious critic of the memos has claimed otherwise) does not answer whether those proportional fonts match what is found in the memos (there appears to be a discrepency with the character '4'). Killian's own family poo-poos the idea that he would type up much less keep a memo like this among his personal papers. The "pressure" cited in one memo came from someone who had retired a year before. At least one memo has been reproduced in Microsoft Word. There are interesting peculiarities in terminology and format. Most damningly of all, to me, is that CBS apparently never had access to anything better than a photocopy--which it seems obvious to me means that the documents' authenticity can never really be 100% verified. What is even the point of analyzing a photocopied signature?!? The very fact that it is an nth generation copy means that none of the content above it can be corroborated. To say nothing of other sources now claiming they were misquoted/misled about the documents. Before you resort to namecalling, you might try looking at the story from a *slightly* more skeptical vantage point. By the way, I used a typewriter in high school, but what does that prove? Killian apparently had some hell of an exotic model. Forget typewriters, though. Looking at my late-80s term papers, done on a Commodore 64 with a thermal transfer printer, they don't look even slightly like something that a typical word processor in 2004 would produce. The similarities between Word and the Killian documents are well beyond fishy. The Patterico link on Tanker KC specifically states that he posted his challenge to the formatting of the memo BEFORE THE SHOW HAD FINISHED AIRING. Elliot, I'll thank you to retract your misinformation charge or talk to Patterico and Tanker KC about their story. One of you has it wrong. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 11, 2004 9:54 PM | Permalink Ben, Notice that the formatting of the signature blocks on the memos that caught Tanker KC's attention is not one of the issues being debated. Interesting, don't you think? Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 10:07 PM | Permalink I've read elsewhere (on the Well, so I can't quote it) that the 'th' character wasn't all that unlikely, especially since these documents were written by 111th division, which had the occasion to type "th" a lot and get the special key for it. Folks who actually were using typewriters back then don't find this implausable. I don't personally know anything about 70's typewriters, but it seems like we are discovering that a lot of people (including so-called typerwriter experts who get quoted in newspapers) can make mistakes. The jury is most definitely still out on this. Posted by: Brian Slesinsky at September 11, 2004 10:21 PM | Permalink It looks like it's been proved the docs are frauds. A gent with a Composer, allegedly the only machine capable of producing all the "miracles" seen in the docs, is unable to replicate the Ra'th'er documents. http://peterduncan.net/CBS_Documents.html Even before it got to esoteric typographics, there were several other format and 'historical' problems. The ever rigid military some how created docs with different formats. Some of these formats weren't adopted in the AF until over a decade later. Maybe this is what a historical forensic expert would have picked up on. Is it reasonable that the regimented military would produce some docs without a letterhead? Anyone notice an AF manual (AFM) referenced that never existed? Probably more things a historical forensic expert would have picked up. There's lots more of these, but enough. There were so many waving red flags that the typographical proof is only needed to nail the lid on an icon. Bloggers have a big advantage - via their vast numbers they have virtually every skill on tap or within easy reach. The knell you're hearing for Big Media is a warning to adapt or die. Posted by: MaDr at September 11, 2004 10:33 PM | Permalink Long Post: Actually, I find some reassurance for the MSM in this. I have spoken on this subject several times here on Jay's blog. Regulars, and Jay, please forgive anything you find repetitive. I do add new thoughts, new to me anyway, if you care to follow. The investigative capabilities of Internet Kid are fairly impressive. They, the bloggers, are a form of distributed intelligence. This form, similar to the internet itself, flows freely around obstacles that a more centralized approach would find a barrier. I suggest that straight comparisons between the traditional media and the bloggers is going to present difficulties. Contempt such as pajama-clad (the Kid), or over-simplification such as biased (the MSM,) are a part of these difficulties. The basic tests and purpose of coverage in the traditional media are being tested severely. The tests, which Jay puts in a formal operational terms, I state as Credibility of Source; Prima Facie proof of Assertion(s ;) and Intent. The Kid has little care for coverage issues, however, their readers come because they so choose. The act of reading or viewing traditional media may also be called an act of choice; however, the publicly imposed expectations of compliance to standards are different from those of the Kid. The traditional media, as a collective, seem to have stakes in the stories above that of dissemination of accurate information. Similar to some on this blog, the intent of the story outweighs the importance of accuracy and credibility. I said I find some hope for the traditional media in all of the coverage of the purported forgeries. The Kid has found, in this instance, cause for concern in three areas: 1) Content: The Date - the pressuring officer spoken of in the August memo had retired a year and a half prior to the date of the memo. The CYA - the widow and the son both state that this is not a behavior (writing CYA memos) of the deceased purported author. 2) Format: Military format, acronym use, and language are not appropriate for the author or the place. One could say that this is just for file so it didn't need to be, but then why take the extraordinary effort required to center and superscript? Finally, the paper size is wrong for the time/place. 3) Typography: Curly Quotes; Superscript; diminished size of superscript; proportional spacing; and finally letter-by-letter compression based on what else was on the line to give best fit to the line (kerning.) The traditional media, notably not CBS or Boston Globe, have made Herculean efforts in a short period of time to present and address these somewhat complex subjects. Additionally, the traditional media have, through their traditional strength - the personal interview - have discovered, and covered, the development that Hodges was misled by CBS in that they told him the document was hand-written; and Robert Strong who told them that while Selectrics were available, he doubted that the particular unit had any. Remember: it requires not just a selectric, but a "Composer" model, and with additional type-balls (for superscript, proportional type, and curly quotes) - which even then can't do 'kerning.' In other words, the traditional media, with exceptions, have been following, investigating - in their own way, and covering. I was not confident that would happen. The forward interest in this: the resolution of the forgery investigation; the fallout in media terms; the implication in political terms; and if necessary – additional investigation on the perpetrator and connections.
Posted by: John Lynch at September 11, 2004 10:35 PM | Permalink Picking up on Lee Kane's comment above, Jay's doubt in the AfterMath section, and John Lynch's comment ... Glenn Reynolds: I notice that some commenters over at INDCJournal think that the Big Media is trying to bury this story. I actually don't think so. I was interviewed today by a journalist for a major paper who's doing a story, and it's getting big play in the latest Weekly Standard. Plus, as a scroll down will demonstrate, it's getting a lot of major-media coverage already.He also doesn't think the final determination on the documents matters as much as the damage already done. Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 11:00 PM | Permalink Apparently there are six documents, not four. Posted by: Tim at September 11, 2004 11:16 PM | Permalink Ben, Here is the first post made by Tanker KC. WE NEED TO SEE THOSE MEMOS AGAIN! They are not in the style that we used when I came in to the USAF. They looked like the style and format we started using about 12 years ago (1992). Our signature blocks were left justified, now they are rigth of center...like the ones they just showed. Can we get a copy of those memos? Why would anyone have to wait til the end of the show to make this kind of post? If your familiar with the subject matter , AF Docs in this case, how much time should take before posting your question? I guess I would be more impressed with your argument if the comment appeared online before the documents were shown on the program. Posted by: TAJ at September 11, 2004 11:53 PM | Permalink Wow. There is information in this comments thread that is even more uninformed than the stuff I'm reading at Little Green Footballs. Every current and former secretary over 50 who's commented on this has said exactly the same thing: the IBM Selectric could have created these memos. I had one, and they are correct. And if anyone still had one in the garage, you would have seen samples by now. But it should be enough that there are authentic Bush documents online that show the use of special superscripted characters (not identical, but definitely a special key or typeball character). More to the point, I spent 1988-1993 doing military conversion projects, taking DD-214s and other original documents and contemporaneous copies and turning them into civilian resumes. Twenty years and out, so these guys all went in from 1968-1973. None of the packages had consistent typefaces, and many documents that had been frequently updated had as many as 5-6 different kinds of typewriter copy. But the Guard packages were the most nonstandard of all. Weekend warriors, remember? I'm still trying to find out what Killian's civilian job was (or if he was full-time Guard), but it was obvious that Guard packages had often been filled out off base, probably at a civilian office. Back then, as I guy who could type, I was considered unusual. Killian probably had someone else type them, and to my eye the two "questionable" documents sure look like the kind of thing I would have done back then on my Selectric. As to this Composer argument, I've never heard of such a machine. I don't doubt its existence, but it's being presented as the "only" typewriter that could have done this memo, which is untrue. The IBM Selectric II with changeable typeballs was, in all likelihood, the typewriter used. And it was very common in the early '70s. I cannot tell you the documents are not forgeries, but there is absolutely no information presented in this thread that makes a reasonable case for fraud. Anyone who claims they can say forgery based on copies of the original clearly is not an expert. And anyone who buys the ridiculous MS Word theory doesn't know know anything about typesetting. It is a laughable claim that no typesetter would ever make and countless sites have already debunked it, one with a clever animated GIF. Sorry to barge in shooting my mouth off, but all I know is what I've seen with my own eyes, and I suspect I've worked with a lot more Guard documents from this time period than anyone else posting on this topic. There is nothing suspicious about these documents based on my first-hand experience. And, unlike actual military personnel who dealt with their own base's protocols, I have seen documents from all over the country and overseas, and know that the much vaunted military standardization was not the case. Even page sizes varied, let alone typefaces. Nothing I have said makes these memos real, but the burden of proof should be on the people claiming forgery, and so far they're not even close to a convincing case. I think it would be much more honest to say that many on the right recognize that to accept these documents would be tantamount to admitting that George Bush has lied to them. And that's the issue here. Posted by: Mark Gisleson at September 12, 2004 12:01 AM | Permalink Mark, Actually the burden of proof lies with the claimant that these are real. Further, I stated that the issues above are what the bloggers have found that raise concern. I also do not claim forgery. I claim prima facie evidentiary standards have been me that require the claimant to provide further proof. Finally, you may want to check your facts. The IBM Selectric had several models: The Selectric, the Selectric II, The Selectric Executive, and the Selectric Composer - a 20K$ model unlikely to be at an ANG base. Additionally, there is a blogging report (for what it is worth, we'll have to wait to test the veracity) that the Selectric models, with varying type-balls have now been tried and found wanting in being able to recreate these memos. I have typed with the Executive and proportional fonts - in the 70s. No problem with that part of your assertion. Centering text in proportional font on a typewriter was a real bitch to do. This part of the allegation resonates with me. However, this does not constitute proof. Posted by: John Lynch at September 12, 2004 12:21 AM | Permalink TAJ, Tim, Mark Gisleson, Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 12, 2004 12:26 AM | Permalink Damn. Preview is my friend. Should Read: I also do not claim forgery. I claim prima facie evidentiary standards have been met that require the claimant to provide further proof. Posted by: John Lynch at September 12, 2004 12:29 AM | Permalink Mark, good post. Thank you. John, I typed card catalog cards and other library documents in the 70s. Centering isn't that hard even with proportional spacing. I guarantee we didn't use a $20k machine. That doesn't make the documents real. But I still maintain that anyone who accepts forgery arguments w/o skepticism has little professional typing experience. Not to mention that it's difficult to envision any reasonable circumstance in which my spouse or children would know what sorts of documents I prepare at work. I agree that cbs should have done more to explain their vetting sooner. Posted by: beth at September 12, 2004 12:44 AM | Permalink I think the amount of bluster we're starting to see is undermining weblogs' usefulness...look how easy it is to throw a bunch of sand by stating that proportional fonts existed, Times New Roman was created in 1931, case closed. Mark Giselson actually claims that the burden of proof is on people skeptical of CBS/Rather--a breathtakingly subservient stance given that it's CBS/Rather making the extraordinary claim. Let's not forget that Killian is already on record praising Bush's National Guard service, that Killian's family disputes that the documents express his views or that he would have created them, that multiple "sources" have retracted, backpedaled, qualified, or otherwise diluted claims that CBS relies heavily on, etc. And, let's face it, CBS is not acting like an innnocent party. Their "rebuttal" is utterly pathetic, disingenuous, selective, really typical network high-handedness. Just trust us, in short. I'm sure with a little effort I could create a document showing that Killian testified that Mark Giselson is a big poopie-head. Then hand out a 14th generation copy and do a bunch of handwaving. I won't even begin to take CBS' assertions at face value until they produce an original document. Period. Forging a copy is simply too easy with available technology. We still don't even know who their source for these documents is. Only that he's "unimpeachable". Translation: just trust us. We're the MSM. Would we lie to you? Beth, TO get it right you had to type the line twice. Once on one pice of paper, then again on your target piece of paper. You couldn't know without doing this, how long the line was going to be until the individual characters had been typed. Therefore you wouldn't know where to start the line to get it exactly centered. Unless of course you knew the width of each character for the specific font you were using and added them all up. Either way, a real task to do with perfect accuracy. For a non-typist, as Killian was, to perfectly center line after line on the same document: well, to me it resonates. Centering in non-proportional fonts, as the preponderance of typewriters were at the time: no problem: count the characters, divide by two, start the line that number of characers from the center. We're getting into the merits of the case as opposed to the treatment of the media. As I said in my forst post, I think the traditional media, excepting CBS and Boston Globe, is doing OK, at least so far. Posted by: John Lynch at September 12, 2004 12:52 AM | Permalink Beth, I'm noting a pattern. Attack the weakest claims and add some irrelevant personal experience. No one has found a typewriter font match yet--including people who have extensive databases of them. Experts are all over these with estimations of 90% and upward likelihood of them being fake. "But I still maintain that anyone who accepts forgery arguments w/o skepticism has little professional typing experience." You're right, skepticism is called for regarding claims that some things in the documents (such as strange PO boxes) don't look right--there's a lot that the untrained eye might deduce is fake that really isn't. But if you think this story is about CBS not being on the ball in getting out its contemptibly lame/dishonest/self-serving/lawyerly rebuttal, then this story passed you by at least 24 hours ago. Brian, I actually agree w/you about CBS. Have just been fed up with uninformed claims about typing and implications that Rather et al. are too old to recognize superiority of blogs--when I see lots of bluster in blogs that proves little, presented as fact-checking. Granted, my reminiscences also prove little. So I guess MSM isn't so much worse on this one anyway. Apologies for lack of eloquence--I am on a pda, quite a comedown from a Selectric much less my laptop keyboard. Posted by: beth at September 12, 2004 1:21 AM | Permalink Brian, I actually agree w/you about CBS. Have just been fed up with uninformed claims about typing and implications that Rather et al. are too old to recognize superiority of blogs--when I see lots of bluster in blogs that proves little, presented as fact-checking. Granted, my reminiscences also prove little. So I guess MSM isn't so much worse on this one anyway. Apologies for lack of eloquence--I am on a pda, quite a comedown from a Selectric much less my laptop keyboard. Posted by: beth at September 12, 2004 1:24 AM | Permalink Brian, Good point. I'm not an expert, yet I'm addressing the point that Beth raises. Further, I let the weakest, or one of the weakest, points distract from the larger case. Each of the points that the bloggers have raised, supported by expert opinion and facts, need to be addressed in order to verify that these documents are real. I think the hard points to address are: the officer had retired a year and a half before the memo; the assertion that Killian was not a documenter; the typographic issues in general; and the kerning in specific. But, this thing is moving fast, and there may be even more faults found in the coming hours, if they haven't been found already. I am pretty sure that CBS will not choose to provide further proof. But I have been wrong before. I think either way, there is going to be quite a fuss over this thing. Posted by: John Lynch at September 12, 2004 1:27 AM | Permalink The issue of the machine used to compose the memo has little to do with the equipment used on military bases. Guard officers routinely took work with them to their civilian offices to have the work done by their secretaries. Arbitrarily defining the circumstances in which these documents would have been created is an unusual way of determining authenticity. That was a very different world than the one we live in now. Based on my experience with documents from that period, I would have found it odd had all the typefaces matched. I'm almost positive I've never seen a package that uniform, at least not pre-PC. Mr. Lynch, given my first-hand experience with these types of documents, and the fact I find the memos appear authentic, what further proof do you require? Does idle speculation trump first-hand knowledge where you come from? Matching typewriter type over thirty years after the fact would be a herculean task, and if that were the standard, all old documents would be assumed to be forged since it would be too much work to verify their authenticity. I'm not a "real" typesetter. My experience in that realm began with a Selectric and is now done on a Macintosh. Real typesetters, however, know little about Selectrics, and why would they? But I know enough about typesetting and Selectrics to know that the arguments being advanced do not represent professional opinions. My barely trained eye can see that these terrible copies appear to have originated on a typewriter. I live in Word (sadly my work must be emailable so Quark is not an option for me since few HR departments use it). I could replicate most of the memo in Word, but it would be very painful and I would have to import Photoshopped images to match some of the characters that are not standard Times New Roman (unless they were significantly distorted by the copying process). The real bottom line here is that everyone is looking at some pretty crappy copies and coming to some very heavy conclusions. And, since the documents aren't critical to the information coming out on Bush's Guard duty, why would anyone forge them? This is such an odd thing to debate so heatedly. Posted by: Mark Gisleson at September 12, 2004 1:34 AM | Permalink Mark, When over seven, at last count, document forensic experts have stated that they are almost positive (over 90%) that these documents are not real; and when the provenance of the documents are unknown; and the people who know somthing about the author and the times state that this is not something he would do; and the officer cited in the memo had retired - I think that I, at least, require a good deal more than your, or Dan Rathers, assurances that they are real. What would I require? The provenance: where have these documents been, where did they come from, what path did they take to Dan Rather's hands. A chain of evidence thing. Failing that, some proof that a typewriter of the time could produce a perfectly centered, kerned, spaced copy of these documents; and/or another document whose provenance is known that looks like these documents in each of the questioned aspects; as well as addressing the issues raised by the people who knew Killian. There are probably other convincing proofs that I can't think of, but that might be provided if they are real. These seem like reasonable standards for such an issue. Posted by: John Lynch at September 12, 2004 1:51 AM | Permalink It is all very nice to know that machines existed that could reproduce these documents and that they were very common. Indeed, I'm shocked that no one has yet provided any contemporaneous memos from the 111th that match the typestyle. I'm also surprised that no one, least of all CBS or the Boston Globe, has identified the specific model and typeset used to create the documents so that they can be reproduced as a proof to the world. My hat is off to Microsoft, which, amazingly, managed to reproduce the typeset of this common machine (which no one has yet identified) with such precision that thirty-year old documents are nearly a precise match. Bravo, MS, bravo! Of course, these are crappy copies were talking about and CBS claims to have superior versions. Heaven forbid a news organization should be transparent in its evidence or anything. Moreover, because these documents are not in any way relevant to the story, I'm surprised CBS made such a bid deal out of them in the first place. For even bringing the issue up, they should be blamed for all the controversy. If they had ignored them, as many seem to council, even CBS in its defense, then this controversy would never have arisen. Posted by: Ernest Miller at September 12, 2004 2:47 AM | Permalink And until they're resolved to your satisfaction, it's guilty until proven innocent? http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-artmail.php?article=12551 Here's a new "smoking gun" from LGF. Do you think these two alternating memos look the same? The copy effect makes it hard to really compare, but several letters are noticeably different. Hugh Hewitt cites the following manual as some kind of proof, but sadly it lacks a copyright date: http://www.ibmcomposer.org/docs/Selectric%20Composer%20Operations%20Manual.pdf Still, this manual for the Composer uses a similar font, and has examples of perfectly centered justified type. In fact, the justified type seems to be the only real difference between the Composer and Selectric. Given the lengthy and complicated instructions for justifying type, I suspect that was the major component in the large price difference. Oddly, although the manual is for the celebrated "Composer", the typeball looks identical to the one used on the Selectric II that I owned, and most of the standard features sound like the typewriter I had in Iowa. Since the keys were on the typeball (or element as IBM called it), this would suggest anything a Composer could type, a Selectric II could type as well. In fact, the manual states "Single-Element typing was introducted with the IBM "Selectric" Typewriter, and the came concept is fundamental to the IBM "Selectric" Composer. If the Composer elements were, as they appear, interchangeable with Selectric II elements, then anything the Composer could type could be typed on the Selectric, especially a simple memo. I can understand your wanting to see the element that produced this memo. So would I. But so far, no amount of research has been able to let me find out how many different typeballs were made by IBM. let alone what was on them. The only thing that is absolutely clear is that IBM created elements that had superscripts, and they had a Times New Roman element. Did they update the TNR ball to include superscripts? I don't know. Do you? It's easy to ask questions, but obviously it's proving hard to get those answers. Still, I would think it wise to refrain from crying forgery since the technology to do such a memo obviously existed at that time. Posted by: Mark Gisleson at September 12, 2004 3:10 AM | Permalink Guilty until proven innocent? Is this a court of law? Should I simply accept the authority of CBS and Dan Rather? Should I not expect them to adhere to standards of transparency and openness? There are legitimate questions about the authenticity of the documents. At the very least, if CBS expects that we should accept the documents as authentic, it is reasonable to expect them to provide more information about the documents and why CBS considers them authentic. At this point, I am not asking CBS to reveal any sources. However, I fail to see why CBS cannot reveal the name of all the experts who examined the documents and why CBS has asked the one they did name not to speak with the media. Furthermore, CBS has said they have access to more accurate versions of the document. Why shouldn't they make those copies available to independent experts? Is this too much of a burden? Are these unreasonable requests? If CBS doesn't provide this information, am I not permitted to question why? Yes, I've seen those "smoking guns." The CBS memos and the modern version from MS Word are remarkably similar in may respects, suspiciously so. Are the identical? That cannot be proven given the poor quality of the CBS memos. Neither, however, can it be shown that they did not both originate from MS Word. Unfortunately for CBS' credibility, the suspicions remain. One would think that a news organization whose credibility is seriously questioned would do everything it ethically could to dispell those questions. There are many things I don't know, and seeing a machine that would be capable of producing the memo would be an important piece of evidence in support of their authenticity. However, it is not the only evidence that would do so. Other contemporaneous documents in the same typeface would also support their authenticity. As would more accurate reproductions of the memos that experts could exam |
Print