PDA

View Full Version : CBS Stands by the documents...


jAZ
09-09-2004, 10:18 PM
This will be interesting...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html

CBS News released a statement yesterday standing by its reporting, saying that each of the documents "was thoroughly vetted by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity." The statement added that CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified individuals who saw them "at the time they were written."

CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards declined to respond to questions raised by experts who examined copies of the papers at the request of The Washington Post, or to provide the names of the experts CBS consulted. Experts interviewed by The Post pointed to a series of telltale signs suggesting that the documents were generated by a computer or word processor rather than the typewriters in widespread use by Bush's National Guard unit.

A senior CBS official, who asked not to be named because CBS managers did not want to go beyond their official statement, named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said that a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone, and that Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."

"These documents represent what Killian not only was putting in memoranda, but was telling other people," the CBS News official said. "Journalistically, we've gone several extra miles."

The official said the network regarded Hodges's comments as "the trump card" on the question of authenticity, as he is a Republican who acknowledged that he did not want to hurt Bush. Hodges, who declined to grant an on-camera interview to CBS, did not respond to messages left on his home answering machine in Texas.

alnorth
09-09-2004, 10:24 PM
Heh, CBS has a very high amount of interest in protecting this story. IF these are forgeries, then CBS takes an ENORMOUS credibility hit.

CBS may be standing by them, but ABC is not, and is now in full-fledged digging mode.

FringeNC
09-09-2004, 10:25 PM
Check Drudge. LOL.

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2004, 10:26 PM
CBS is having SERIOUS meetings right now.. I think heads will roll..

alnorth
09-09-2004, 10:27 PM
CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.

The source, who asked not to be named, described CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather as being "shell-shocked" by the increasingly likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent.

Rather, who anchored the segment presenting new information on the president's military service, will personally correct the record on-air, if need be, the source explained from New York.

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2004, 10:28 PM
Wouldn't one look at the original document settle this? You would easily be able to tell if a typewriter did it wouldn't you?

Also, what kind of a moron would attempt this, and how can CBS be so irresponsible?

FringeNC
09-09-2004, 10:30 PM
Wouldn't one look at the original document settle this? You would easily be able to tell if a typewriter did it wouldn't you?

Also, what kind of a moron would attempt this, and how can CBS be so irresponsible?

And who is this expert that supposedly checked this document out. I wouldn't be shocked if CBS was involved explicitly.

RINGLEADER
09-09-2004, 10:33 PM
Yeah, and according to ABC and the Washington Post, CBS is wrong...

I didn't think Tom Harkin could make a bigger fool of himself than he already has in this election...but holding a press conference talking about docs that turn out to be forgeries is just priceless buffoonery on the part of the Dems...

RINGLEADER
09-09-2004, 10:34 PM
Washington Post leading with story on front page...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html

Donger
09-09-2004, 10:40 PM
I will reserve judgement until things settle down, but I think the "Smoking Gun?" question has been pretty much answered....

Michael Michigan
09-09-2004, 10:42 PM
CBS Stands by the documents...

I have the feeling that right now someone at CBS is squatting and taking a huge dump on these documents.

Donger
09-09-2004, 10:43 PM
Oh, BTW, for those who are interested: http://www.ratherbiased.com/

A long-standing website that has demonstrated Dan Rather's bias over the years.

Although I'm sure jAZ will dispute that Rather has any bias whatsoever....

jAZ
09-09-2004, 10:53 PM
CBS may be standing by them, but ABC is not, and is now in full-fledged digging mode.
I read that bullets at ABC, and of the 5 I think 4 were either debunked at least not beyond the "questions" standpoint.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 10:55 PM
I will reserve judgement until things settle down, but I think the "Smoking Gun?" question has been pretty much answered....
How can you have one while reserving judgement on the other? Seriously.

That doesn't sound like "reserving judgement" to me.

Michael Michigan
09-09-2004, 10:55 PM
I read that bullets at ABC, and of the 5 I think 4 were either debunked at least not beyond the "questions" standpoint.

It's over.


The rest of the old media is ready to throw Rather and CBS under the bus.


It's a damn shame.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 10:56 PM
Oh, BTW, for those who are interested: http://www.ratherbiased.com/

A long-standing website that has demonstrated Dan Rather's bias over the years.

Although I'm sure jAZ will dispute that Rather has any bias whatsoever....
Not at all... I've heard Rather on shows like Letterman. He has strong views.

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2004, 10:57 PM
I read that bullets at ABC, and of the 5 I think 4 were either debunked at least not beyond the "questions" standpoint.

Only takes 1.. Dang Jaz, are you really still thinking they are authentic?

You are hardcore .. :p

Donger
09-09-2004, 10:58 PM
How can you have one while reserving judgement on the other? Seriously.

That doesn't sound like "reserving judgement" to me.

OMG, you actually fell for that?

Donger
09-09-2004, 10:58 PM
Not at all... I've heard Rather on shows like Letterman. He has strong views.

Views? Do you think he is biased then?

jAZ
09-09-2004, 10:59 PM
OMG, you actually fell for that?
Fell for what? That you are gonna wait till things settle down?

Donger
09-09-2004, 11:01 PM
Fell for what? That you are gonna wait till things settle down?

Of course. Am I not being skeptical enough?

jAZ
09-09-2004, 11:02 PM
Views? Do you think he is biased then?
I wouldn't be surpised at all.

Donger
09-09-2004, 11:02 PM
I wouldn't be surpised at all.

You wouldn't be surprised by what?

jAZ
09-09-2004, 11:04 PM
You wouldn't be suprised by what?
If Rather were biased by his strong views.

Donger
09-09-2004, 11:05 PM
If Rather were biased by his strong views.

Which are? You seem to have an opinion about the bias of most news outlets. What about Mr. Rather?

jAZ
09-09-2004, 11:08 PM
Which are? You seem to have an opinion about the bias of most news outlets. What about Mr. Rather?
I haven't watched him in recent months/years, but my impression is that he is the most outspoken/liberally minded of the Big 3 anchors.

KCWolfman
09-09-2004, 11:09 PM
CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards declined to respond to questions raised by experts who examined copies of the papers at the request of The Washington Post, or to provide the names of the experts CBS consulted.

Deny deny deny

Donger
09-09-2004, 11:13 PM
I haven't watched him in recent months/years, but my impression is that he is the most outspoken/liberally minded of the Big 3 anchors.

Ewww. I agree with you.

1. Rather.
2. Jennings.
3. Brokaw.

With this knowledge in mind, did you watch the 60 Minutes piece with sufficient skepticism, especially considering the fact that it may well be that a significant part of that piece was based on phony documents?

jAZ
09-09-2004, 11:18 PM
With this knowledge in mind, did you watch the 60 Minutes piece with sufficient skepticism, especially considering the fact that it may well be that a significant part of that piece was based on phony documents?
Sufficient? Yes.

Did I assume they were forged? No.

Do I think they are forged today? No.

But I'm skeptical of all the corporate owned media outlets. But none of the Big-3 have ever acted like FoxNews. So the level of skepticism is different between everyone else and Fox News.

Donger
09-09-2004, 11:21 PM
Sufficient? Yes.

Did I assume they were forged? No.

Do I think they are forged today? No.

But I'm skeptical of all the corporate owned media outlets. But none of the Big-3 have ever acted like FoxNews. So the level of skepticism is different between everyone else and Fox News.

You are not skeptical of these documents, yet you were skeptical of the audio link that I provided of the "non-boo" incident at Bush's rally?

Please tell me I'm wrong.

RINGLEADER
09-09-2004, 11:25 PM
Jaz, this story is done. The Dems went out and made fools of themselves today jumping on these documents that now turn out to be forged according to forensics experts familiar with authenticating documents. I have no doubt that some people will try to defend them (even if CBS ultimately doesn't), but the whole George Bush-National Guard-Liar story official died tonight. No matter what documents appear after this date, no matter what arguments the moveon crowd wants to make, it will be whittled down by the Bush campaign as a backward-looking attack built on forged documents.

This is another example where you should just push away from the table. The only way you're going to be able to rehabilitate these allegations is if Killian's claims show up in his own handwriting sometime and someone shows up to say they transcribed them.

Absent that, this story is officially DOA.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 11:25 PM
You are not skeptical of these documents, yet you were skeptical of the audio link that I provided of the "non-boo" incident at Bush's rally?

Please tell me I'm wrong.
I'm "skeptical" but that doesn't equate to "assuming they were forged" either.

Fox has shown almost no traditional boundries that they wouldn't cross in order to advocate for Bush and attack a Democrat. Their actions require a different level of skepticism entirely.

(But keep in mind that my comments at the time were 1/2 in jest.)

jAZ
09-09-2004, 11:26 PM
Absent that, this story is officially DOA.
Look away! Look away! Nothing to see here!

jjjayb
09-09-2004, 11:32 PM
Look away! Look away! Nothing to see here!

Or here either:

http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsd1.htm

Michael Michigan
09-09-2004, 11:33 PM
Look away! Look away! Nothing to see here!

One can only hope they think as you do.

The longer this is allowed to drag on, the bigger the fall.

Ugly Duck
09-10-2004, 08:05 AM
I will reserve judgement until things settle down, but I think the "Smoking Gun?" question has been pretty much answered....Contradiction, anyone?

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 08:19 AM
Contradiction, anyone?

Only to the learning impaired.... :)

Chief Henry
09-10-2004, 09:07 AM
Yeah, and according to ABC and the Washington Post, CBS is wrong...

I didn't think Tom Harkin could make a bigger fool of himself than he already has in this election...but holding a press conference talking about docs that turn out to be forgeries is just priceless buffoonery on the part of the Dems...


As a life long resident of IOWA (go hawks). I can say that Tom Harkin
is one of the biggest slime balls in the US Senate. The venom he
spews out weekly on his radio interviews is absolutley brutal.

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 09:28 AM
Authenticity of Papers on Bush In Doubt

By Michael Dobbs and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 10, 2004; Page A01

Documents unearthed by CBS News that raise doubts about whether President Bush fulfilled his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard include several features suggesting that they were generated by a computer or word processor rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter, experts said yesterday.

Experts consulted by a range of news organizations pointed out typographical and formatting questions about four documents as they considered the possibility that they were forged. The widow of the National Guard officer whose signature is on the bottom of the documents also disputed their authenticity.