New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | September 21, 2004

Cathy Young weighs in on Rathergate.

Comments

|9.21.04 @ 12:25PM|#

"As I tried to follow the early debate on the CBS memos, I was utterly confused by the cacophony of agenda-driven charges and countercharges, insults, and clashing pronouncements by self-styled experts whose credentials had to be taken on faith...No offense to the upstart blogs, but what finally settled my doubts was reporting by mainstream media such as ABC News and The Washington Post."

Ditto. No offense to present company, but nothing from the internet helped me make up my mind about this at all. Not the shouting the comments section, nor even the pronouncements from the Reason crew, who I find to be pretty reliable sources in partisan catfights. "R.C. Dean," "Dan," and "Tech Central Station" inform me that the case is closed. Whoopie.

|9.21.04 @ 12:29PM|#

joe-

Although I wasn't immediately convinced by the blogosphere, the blogosphere definitely performed a valuable function by providing the counter-arguments and information in a rapid manner. They definitely sped up the process of exposing the forgery.

|9.21.04 @ 12:30PM|#

Always remember 45% percent of the US population believe in UFO's and that 20% are medicated for mental illness so some people will most likey believe Dan Rather no matter what others say.

Why did CBS need the memos anyhow for that segment when they had the secretary all along?

|9.21.04 @ 12:35PM|#

Also, I don't think I've seen a single blogger admit error the way Rather did on the news last night. Between the complete lack of responsibility and the cacoon-like cross-pollenization between like-minded boards, the pajama people don't seem to see any reason to back off any charge, because there will always be a good-sized (for the internet) audience, and a mob of other bloggers, who will back their claims no matter what solid evidence comes to light, or how definitively old evidence is demolished. Heck, there are still bloggers, people with considerable audiences, claiming that the Swift Boat Yadda Yaddas have made credible charges!

Compare this to CBSNews, supposedly the avatar of arrogant, stubborn insularity on television; the time between the airing of the memos and the denunciation of them was, what, a week?

I'm glad the bloggers raised the questions, but I'm also glad we had someone more reliable to answer them.

|9.21.04 @ 1:10PM|#

And let's face it, the bloggers had every reason to gloat when, shortly after Klein's statement, new information surfaced suggesting that those vaunted checks and balances at CBS News had failed rather miserably in this case.

Weren't these the same checks and balances used on the Iraq intelligence and Chalabi claims at the CIA? I guess nobody is perfect! ;)

|9.21.04 @ 1:18PM|#

I was pretty well convinced by the blogs. It was more than likely the memos were forgeries when it was obvious you could sit down with MS Word in default mode and reproduce an exact copy. What a joke.

What's weird though is all the rightwing blogs I read are absolutely consumed with Dan Rather and his apologies, or lack thereof, while most of the lefties are concerned about the usual stuff, Kerry, the war, stupid comments by Denny Hastert, etc.

Why the fixation on Dan? Does anybody even watch the CBS evening news?

|9.21.04 @ 1:21PM|#

The blogosphere's ability to expose mistakes more quickly removes the old line's ability to to influence time-sensitive events. Rather's lies could have affected voter behaviour, then the truth emerged after Kerry won.

[S]omeone more reliable than an admitted liar? Interesting...

|9.21.04 @ 1:25PM|#

Why the fixation on Dan?

Fuck Dan Rather. Why the fixation on Vietnam?

|9.21.04 @ 1:29PM|#

If it weren't for the bloggers, would we even be discussing this right now?

"I'm glad the bloggers raised the questions, but I'm also glad we had someone more reliable to answer them." --joe

I hope you're not referring to CBS...

|9.21.04 @ 1:30PM|#

letter from Acme Dry Cleaners:
Dear Mr. Rather we found a cum stain on your blue dress.We will take care of it , you just keep on deniaing.

|9.21.04 @ 1:34PM|#

trainwreck nails my own thoughts.

The most surprising moment of Rathergate to me was when I realized that I didn't care at all. I realized that a guy like Rather could sink or swim and no one would really care outside of the industry. He is a dinosaur that for years successfully defined his pronouncements as News that has been made irrelevant by the pourous nature of the information gate he has been keeping.

Wisdom of Crowds 1, Gatekeepers 0

|9.21.04 @ 1:40PM|#

"Also, I don't think I've seen a single blogger admit error the way Rather did on the news last night."

Oh, the irony.

|9.21.04 @ 1:45PM|#

Most of the article reads as a belief in the ultimate supremacy of "appeals to authority." IE, a story isn't true until "reputable" news sources like the Washington Post reports it.

The "appeal to authority" has _always_ been a logical fallacy. The only excpetion has been when a person does not have the sufficient information with which to make a reasonable conclusion.

And that's just the point of the internet. It provides an absurd amount of information so as to lessen the reliance on what have always been unreliable "appeals to authority."

The information was clear the next day that there were some questions to ask and it ALL came from the blogs. While maybe there existed some theoretical machine that _could_ have typed the memos, how come none of the other verified documents had proportional spacing? How come Killian's signature looked different? Even if it was theoretically possible for Killian to use said machine, was there any reason outside of these memos to believe that he actually did?

Then when limited "experts" chimed in with observations, you could and verify the accuracy. For example someone in the military claimed that the abbreviation "Lt." shouldn't have the period after it. Sure enough scanning through the verified docs, nowhere do you see that abbreviation. Another military expert chimed in that your physicals were scheduled for the month of your birth and it made no sense to order Bush to take a physical two months before he had to. This claim also checked out.

People posted links to the instruction manuals from the typewriters claimed to have been able to type the documents and then showed various reasons why the machine couldn't produce certain aspects of the document (letter-spacing, centering, etc.)

Soon the blogosphere WAS contacting experts whose credentials are easily verifiable: Bouffard, Flynn, Lines. They all concurred that the documents appeared to be forgeries but couldn't conclude definitively without access to the originals and more research.

At this point, the MSM finally did descend on CBS at which point the access the MSM does have exclusivity on (access to people: Killian's relatives, Hodges, the secretary, Staudt, CBS' document experts) finished CBS off.

Without this critical aspect of the story, the unmasking of CBS probably doesn't happen.

The accuracy of a claim is self-contained and is not dependent on who happens to be reporting it. Sure, when we lack the significant information and expertise to verify that claim, we're left with little choice but to rely on experts. But we need to understand that those experts may be incorrect (and may be claiming expertise in an area where they actually have none) and when available, we should feel free to check the claims against the information available to us.

The blogs did that and came away with a huge scalp. Were they based on partisan ideology? Of course, but as I said, the accuracy of a claim is not based on the identity of the claimants. Who else BUT Bush supporters would go through the intiale trouble necessary to call the docs into question? As we need to start to realize, EVERYBODY is a partisan to something in some way or another. There are no disinterested "truth-seekers" and the quicker we rid ourselves of this childish notion, the quicker we'll adapt to far more open and sophisticated system of information processing. So good on the blogs.

|9.21.04 @ 1:51PM|#

EcoDude, I was referring to the print and broadcast media in general.

Mr. Vee, not having enough information to make a good judgement is not the exception, but the rule. On controversial issues, I typically only have enough information to make an informed judgement on that limited set of issues that are close to my own field of expertise, and even then only about half the time.

Yes, the internet provides a lot of data, but as any paper-dumping tax cheat can tell you, too much information leaves you as helpless as none at all.

|9.21.04 @ 1:58PM|#

The fun part of this story was that it was so obvious so soon to anybody who looked into it that the documents were completely, obviously, horribly fake. Watching the "pros" at CBS try to stonewall so transparently was a kick, when the proof was there for any amateur.

|9.21.04 @ 2:05PM|#

"Mr. Vee, not having enough information to make a good judgement is not the exception, but the rule."

Only on types of information where a clear determination is not possible because the information doesn't exist for anyone. (EG, whether invading Iraq was a good or bad idea).

For other things, like the legitimacy of documents, whether clutch hitting exists, whether more domestic violence happens on Super Bowl sunday than other years, whether continental drift is a plausible theory, etc., etc...

The information is attainable for those motivated to compile it. It is the cornerstone of science that knowledge is best gained through testing of hypothesis rather than belief in an "unimpeachable source."

IOW, a magazine that decides that the best way to gather information is to rely on "trusted" sources, would be better titled as "Belief" and not "Reason."

|9.21.04 @ 2:13PM|#

"The information is attainable for those motivated to compile it."

Yes, but of the issues that are important for one to know about in order to be an informed voter, how many could I really educated myself about to the degree where I could responsibly claim to know what I have to know? Heck, there are thousands of pages, if not tens of thousands of pages, published every year by the Congressional printing service - I wouldn't even be able to find out what the issues up for debate were if I limited myself to finding all my own source data and wading through it.

|9.21.04 @ 2:26PM|#

"Yes, but of the issues that are important for one to know about in order to be an informed voter, how many could I really educated myself about to the degree where I could responsibly claim to know what I have to know?"

Lots, really. One good thign about the blogs is the ability to cut to the chase. Those who know where the information is can link to it (such as an IBM Selectric Composer operating manual).

Such issues might be:

Halliburton - Halliburton is likely losing money in Iraq and their stock is not doing particularly well. Cheney's salary is locked in and not dependent on profits. The appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to warrant criticism, but if Cheney's benefiting from this personally, I have yet to see any evidence of it.

$87 Million vote - Kerry's main objection was that he wanted the money to be a loan to the new Iraqi gov't. So his flip flop there was more an il-advised statement ("I voted for it, before I voted against it") rather than an actual policy shift. The Republicans are hammering a poorly worded statement (glass houses?) and not a real flip flop.

The bigger point is of course we often are forced to rely on "expert" sources, but we need to understand that our knowledge from those sources is limited and be prepared to adjust when new information becomes available. With the drastic increase in available information, this can now be done more regularly and more accurately.

Shannon Love|9.21.04 @ 2:28PM|#

Legacy media will continue to dominate news gathering and distribution for the same reason that Microsoft dominates the software industry: in an environment of weak property rights only the big boys can reliably get paid for their work.

Few can make a living blogging and no one can make a living doing original reporting and publishing it on the internet. Pure internet media outlets, even in the computer media, are rarely successful. It very hard to make a living when the minute you reveal the fruits of your labor, everybody in the world can copy it for free. Bloggers are worse off than the pamphleteers old. At least the pamphleteers had the option of charging by the sheet.

I don't see this dynamic changing anytime soon. Blogging and other internet enabled forms of research and commentary will expand but I don't think they will be able to displace legacy media unless somebody creates a viable economic model for them.

|9.21.04 @ 2:28PM|#

I'd 'rather' that this story would go away, to be honest.

Yes, the documents are totally bogus, but I know the real ones are out there somewhere. If anyone reading this can come up with them, please mail them to me, and I'll comp you the postage out of the CBS petty cash fund. Please.

|9.21.04 @ 2:29PM|#

Also, I don't think I've seen a single blogger admit error the way Rather did on the news last night.

What a crock. Rather stuck to his story when, in all likelihood, he had to have known that the provenance and authenticity of the documents was highly suspect. He only caved when he had no other choice.

Also, several of the bloggers in this incident did, in fact, admit and correct errors where they occurred.

I'm not ready to apply some godlike level of power or authority to the bloggers, but they are (on both sides) a valuable critical eye on the media (among others).

As for the document issue, I was convinced by the superposition of the released pdf file and the newly created word document. From that evidence, there was no credible explanation other than forgery.

As for the MSM, they still have a useful purpose, as they are the bodies with the resources necessary to do a lot of the investigatory work, but one thing they are not, and should never be considered to be, is an authority.

|9.21.04 @ 2:42PM|#

"Rather stuck to his story when, in all likelihood, he had to have known that the provenance and authenticity of the documents was highly suspect. He only caved when he had no other choice."

Actually, Rather admitted there were problems with his reportage within a couple days of its airing, and admitted his error and apologized within a week.

That's not "digging in," that's taking the time to check, recheck, and confirm - exactly those things he is being criticized for not doing.

I think it's great that the pajama people caught a mainstream nooz outfit with its pants down. Rather, and the whole CBS crew, deservedly have egg on their face for running this story, and for (initially) behaving as if they didn't need to respond to the questions that came up. But a lot of this piling on Rather seems to stem from a certain impatience which, itself, can be a hindrance to good journalism. And a lot, of course, seems to come from a desire to beat on Dan Rather, who seems to provoke a lot of personal animosity from conservatives.

It looks to me like the (new) system worked. Face it, bloggers, you're not overthrowing the ancien regime, you're reforming it.

|9.21.04 @ 2:52PM|#

I will add, he didn't have to be so rude and contemptuous, even if he was going to dismiss the early questions as partisan.

|9.21.04 @ 3:03PM|#

Actually, it was closer to a week (or a bit more) before Rather started qualifying the details of his report. His first statement after the credibility of the documents was questioned basically said that he stood by their authenticity, in addition to blasting any criticism as partisan.

I'd give him more credit for journalistic integrity if he had displayed it in the first place before airing those memos.

The kind of checks and balances provided by the bloggers, especially applied to the media, is definitely a good thing. It's going to be a symbiotic relationship, and if the scrutiny of the online world makes the mainstream think twice before airing a story based on poorly researched evidence, that will benefit everyone.

|9.21.04 @ 3:06PM|#

"That's not "digging in," that's taking the time to check, recheck, and confirm - exactly those things he is being criticized for not doing."

He did no such thing. He looked for "support" not more information. He clinged to whatever straw of possible support he could find and smeared whoever dared question him as "partisan operatives." He then went with the "fake but accurate" line of attack instead of addressing the real issue.

Conservatives hammer Dan Rather because he's been in need of a hammering. A list of things CBS did horribly wrong:

1. They co-ordinated a news piece with a political party with a major stake in the upcoming election. (Barnes and Lockhart now have their prints all over this).

2. They selectively presented the sides of the argument they wanted to hear (Barnes, the memo, Matley) and completely ignored contrary opinions (Killian's wife and his son, their document experts, Staudt).

Conservatives and liberals have every right to make arguments and claims and not have them all immediately dismissed with childish "consider the source" type dismissals from the mainstream media and (unfortunately) my fellow libertarians. "Bush is lying because he's a lying liar who lies."

|9.21.04 @ 3:11PM|#

"Actually, Rather admitted there were problems with his reportage within a couple days of its airing, and admitted his error and apologized within a week."

He stuck to his story well past the point it was obvious BS. Once upon a time "a couple days" may have been fast, but under the circumstances, Rather was stonewalling.

|9.21.04 @ 3:13PM|#

Ditto. No offense to present company, but nothing from the internet helped me make up my mind about this at all

I don't think any of us were holding our breath waiting to see when you'd learn how to distinguish fantasy from reality, joe. After all, you still think none of the SBVT allegations have been confirmed.

Also, I don't think I've seen a single blogger admit error the way Rather did on the news last night.

True. When bloggers admit to error, they generally come out and say that they were wrong. Rather lied and stonewalled for two weeks and then tried to pin the blame on other people. You don't normally see "admissions of error" like that in the blogosphere.

|9.21.04 @ 3:17PM|#

Joe once again amuses as he attempts to insult intellects by giving Rather the benefit of the doubt..."check, recheck and confirm," indeed.

Rather, Mapes and co. are not stupid. They were obviously so eager to facilitate a (as Max Cleland put it) "counterattack" that journalistic standards were blatantly disregarded.

Funny how Joe's litany leaves out the collusion/coordination aspect, i.e., the DNC "fortunate son" ads ran the day after Rather's hit piece. What a shock: Both were about the National Guard and preferential treatment!!

This has a significant probability to blow up inside the Kerry campaign...not only Joe Lockhart...McAuliffe, call your lawyer from the Global Crossing investigation.

|9.21.04 @ 3:18PM|#

Joe once again amuses as he attempts to insult intellects by giving Rather the benefit of the doubt..."check, recheck and confirm," indeed.

Rather, Mapes and co. are not stupid. They were obviously so eager to facilitate a (as Max Cleland put it) "counterattack" that journalistic standards were blatantly disregarded.

Funny how Joe's litany leaves out the collusion/coordination aspect, i.e., the DNC "fortunate son" ads ran the day after Rather's hit piece. What a shock: Both were about the National Guard and preferential treatment!!

This has a significant probability to blow up inside the Kerry campaign...not only Joe Lockhart...McAuliffe, call your lawyer from the Global Crossing investigation.

|9.21.04 @ 3:23PM|#

"Once upon a time "a couple days" may have been fast, but under the circumstances, Rather was stonewalling."

See, this is my point - old media is slower and more deliberate than blogs, since making an error has much graver consequences. In addition, there are cultural differences - old media just moves slower, because it comes out of an older tradition. Finally, it takes a lot longer to turn an aircraft carrier than a speedboat.

I think a lot of pajama people are interpretting the time it took for CBS to asknowledge the error of their ways as entirely the result of stonewalling and dishonesty, when much of it is more reasonably seen as coming from the slower, more deliberate operating pace of the format.

I wouldn't want to see the big nooz sources become as quick and sloppy as blogs, most of which make errors of this magnitude on a weekly basis, without their credibility suffering. (No criticism intended, that's the nature of the beast).

Nor would I want to see blogs become as slow and staid as traditional news source, since the massive amount of info they provide adds to the breadth of the news sources we have access to (even if you do have to take their product with a grain of salt).

My point is, the two forms of news media complement each others strengths and weaknesses, and the mutual hostility needs to be kept in check.

|9.21.04 @ 3:32PM|#

Rather clearly went off the deep end in defending his story, but would you have had him denounce his sources and story as soon as the first questions hit the web? Let's face it, there are a lot of people out there willing to use dishonest claims to undermine the credibility of stories that they don't like, and their claims shouldn't be accepted without a great deal of backchecking.

A blogger can renounce a story as soon as an email punctures its premise, because bloggers don't generally put the resources into building stories, and compiling evidence, to support what they post. "Here's what they're saying at antiwar.com" or whatever, and you're got a story to post.

Old media doesn't work like that, and network reporters have good reason to consider their research departments to be more reliable than political blogs. Or they should have good reason, anyway. Rather really dropped the ball here.

|9.21.04 @ 4:09PM|#

"I think a lot of pajama people are interpretting the time it took for CBS to asknowledge the error of their ways as entirely the result of stonewalling and dishonesty, when much of it is more reasonably seen as coming from the slower, more deliberate operating pace of the format."

Maybe I could believe that if the documents in question were not so obviously forged. It's not like these were careful masterpieces or anything, someone opened up word, changed nothing, and started typing. It took the blogosphere approximately a day to conclusively demonstrate them to be forgeries in such a manner that a six year old with Down's Syndrome knew Dan was full of crap. There's nothing reasonable about their behavior.

They took documents they basically knew to be fake (any document expert would have given them a thumbs down... so either they got one and ignored it or failed to even *attempt* to verify them in a see-no-evil rush to get their story out), and broadcast them. They failed so badly that incompetence isn't even possible in this case. The only way the could have done this was willfully.

"their claims shouldn't be accepted without a great deal of backchecking."

well at least we know that CBS has the free time, because they're obviously not checking their own stories.

Shannon Love|9.21.04 @ 4:11PM|#

joe,

"would you have had him denounce his sources and story as soon as the first questions hit the web?"

No, but I would expect that he could have said he would investigate the allegations and get back to everybody. He didn't do that.

On the Friday following the report he ran a story denouncing those questioning the memos has sinister political partisans. He ran previously shot footage of his graphologist. He hammered home that he was right and that there was no legitamate cause to even to begin to question the report. Later he absolutely denied that CBS was conducting an internal investigation.

This wasn't about the speed of the respective medium, it was about Rather trying to denying and bully his way his mistake. If Rather had just acknowledged the complaints about the story and said he would investigate he could have covered himself in glory. Instead, he admitted error only after external sources in the major media ran him to the ground.

|9.21.04 @ 4:15PM|#

joe at 12:35 --

Also, I don't think I've seen a single blogger admit error the way Rather did on the news last night...the time between the airing of the memos and the denunciation of them was, what, a week? I'm glad the bloggers raised the questions, but I'm also glad we had someone more reliable to answer them.

joe at 2:42 --

Actually, Rather admitted there were problems with his reportage within a couple days of its airing, and admitted his error and apologized within a week. That's not "digging in," that's taking the time to check, recheck, and confirm - exactly those things he is being criticized for not doing.

joe at 2:52 --

I will add, he didn't have to be so rude and contemptuous, even if he was going to dismiss the early questions as partisan.

joe at 3:32 --

Rather clearly went off the deep end in defending his story, but would you have had him denounce his sources and story as soon as the first questions hit the web? ...network reporters have good reason to consider their research departments to be more reliable than political blogs. Or they should have good reason, anyway. Rather really dropped the ball here.


Well, I'm glad to see you're quicker than Rather in admitting your errors.

|9.21.04 @ 4:18PM|#

Book recommendation:

Javier Cercas, Soldiers of Salamis.

|9.21.04 @ 4:20PM|#

"Well, I'm glad to see you're quicker than Rather in admitting your errors."

From my long experience in wrangling with joe I can tell you that he will soon explain the whole chain in a way that leaves him with no doubt that you are a contemptible liar.

|9.21.04 @ 4:25PM|#

Yes, I know all of that, and have said so. Repeatedly. In post after post. Aarrgghhh!

I'm pointing something IN ADDITION TO those points, not as a refutation of them.

I belive many Rather critics, especially you, Brian Cook, are making the same mistake I suspect Rather of making - believing something to be true because you really, really WANT it to be true. It is possible to irrationally accept something on faith, and have your prejudice later confirmed. The documents were NOT as obviously forged as you claim. Many of the initial claims about them - that Times New Roman didn't exist in 1972, that typewriters capable of proportional kerning or whatever the hell it's called weren't available back then, that the signatures were obviously faked (in fact, they have been authenticated), that Lt Col Wossname didn't have a problem with Bush's service - have all beeen, themselves, debunked. Someone pointed out that Word can produce an exact copy of an old typewriter's appearance. Know what else can do that? An old typewriter! The idea that Rather must have known they were fake, because their fakery is so obvious, is a bit of a stretch.

My take is this: Rather thought he had good reason to believe the documents were genuine (wishful thinking, but good faith nonetheless). Many of his critics ARE irresponsible hacks who whine like fanbelts whenever he wipes with his left hand, so a "there they go again" reaction is understandable, if still inappropriate. Put these together, and Rather's failings here look a lot less sinister than those who are inclined to see the devil over his shoulder claim.

|9.21.04 @ 4:44PM|#

OK joe, I'll distill it down to two of your posts:

12:35 --

I'm glad the bloggers raised the questions, but I'm also glad we had someone more reliable to answer them.

3:32 --

...network reporters have good reason to consider their research departments to be more reliable than political blogs. Or they should have good reason, anyway. Rather really dropped the ball here.

Hmmm... looks like refutation to me...

|9.21.04 @ 4:45PM|#

Um, Col? None of those statements contradict each other. I didn't claim Rather handled the situation perfectly at any point, nor did I join the "it's unforgiveable!" pile-on.

What "error" am I supposed to admit.

(JDM, I don't accuse everyone of being dishonest when they disagree with me. Just those who are dishonest.)

|9.21.04 @ 4:48PM|#

Oh, I see. You thought I was referring to Rather himself when I mentioned "someone more reliable." Is that it?

You must have missed the part where I wrote, "EcoDude, I was referring to the print and broadcast media in general" in response to exactly the same mistake.

|9.21.04 @ 5:02PM|#

Keep firing, Colonel. joe delights in jumping on the abbreviated arguments of others, and squirms when caught making similar leaps himself. He's a bit of a shape-shifter, as what he says and what he means have a mutable relationship.

"If it bleeds, we can kill it"

|9.21.04 @ 5:12PM|#

joe,

That was clearly not me. Note the period after the rank.

|9.21.04 @ 5:14PM|#

"Many of the initial claims about them - that Times New Roman didn't exist in 1972, that typewriters capable of proportional kerning or whatever the hell it's called weren't available back then, . . ."

From what I've read, these features were very rare on typewriters back then, and only available on the more expensive models. Not something you would likely see on a NG typewriter. So even if these features existed, they raise a red flag which CBS missed.

|9.21.04 @ 5:20PM|#

I can understand why Joe might be slow to accept the blogger's arguments in this case, but I fail to see why Cathy has to wait until big media pronounces.

|9.21.04 @ 5:39PM|#

Someone pointed out that Word can produce an exact copy of an old typewriter's appearance. Know what else can do that? An old typewriter!

Sorry joe, no points for that.

It isn't that Word cannot essentially duplicate a typewritten document, it is that a typewriter (from any era, including today) cannot exactly duplicate a document typed in Word using the default settings.

All the arguments about advanced typewriter and / or typesetter capabilities in the 1970's won't change the fact that the forged (and that's what they are) documents were clearly produced on a modern computer word processor, and that even the slightest bit of honest investigation would make that painfully clear.

|9.21.04 @ 5:45PM|#

I am amazed that you can still find something to argue about in this matter. :)

|9.21.04 @ 5:51PM|#

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but...

1) Some people here are upset that joe didn't accept the conclusions of the blogosphere as rapidly as they thought he should. (gasp!)

2) joe is trying to defend his deliberation by pointing out that some plausible counter-arguments were raised. e.g. Apparently some typewriters back then could in fact make those fonts and whatnot. Upon learning this, joe chose to wait a little while to learn more before accepting the claims of the blogosphere.

3) HOWEVER, joe is going too far in defending Rather's slow response. I like Shannon Love's suggestion. Rather could have simply said "Our investigation thus far suggests that the documents are legitimate, but we will investigate the new allegations and report back when we know more."

|9.21.04 @ 6:01PM|#

thoreau,

Thanks for the Cliff Notes version. :)

|9.21.04 @ 6:50PM|#

"I don't accuse everyone of being dishonest when they disagree with me. Just those who are dishonest."

Oh. My bad then. Thanks for clearing that up.

|9.21.04 @ 6:51PM|#

"I don't accuse everyone of being dishonest when they disagree with me. Just those who are dishonest."

Oh. My bad, then. Thanks for clearing that up.

|9.21.04 @ 7:04PM|#

I, for one, don't buy the supposed dismay at how Rathergate has sucked up all the air and bandwith for two weeks, diverting attention from more important stories. I don't disagree that it has done this, I just don't believe that people are dismayed about it for the reasons they say. Rather, remember, droned for a bit about how the Swiftvets controversy was taking too much time in the media, and maybe it was time to move on. Apparently, a story that had no more (actually, less) factual or eye witness support than the Swiftvet allegations - but that was expected to be devastating to Bush - was a more efficient use of MSM time. Okay. Sure.

So. If Brit Hume comes up with documents - from an unimpeachable but confidential source, mind you - purporting to be typed by, say, one of John Kerry's commanding officers in Vietnam, detailing this officer's extreme reluctance to sign off on one of Kerry's medals cos he didn't feel that Kerry had actually earned it, or had lied about something connected to it....and many bloggers immediately saw glaring - big, giant, unmistakably glaring - anomalies, inconsistencies, and anachronisms, and within a day had proved almost incontestably (and within two days, completely incontestably) that the documents were Word-produced forgeries; but Hume refused to recant or explain, and accused his accusers of liberal bias, and said - hey, this guy says that commanding officers in the swamps of Vietnam did SO have extremely expensive top of the line typewriters capable of cutting edge typesetting...what do you think the reaction in the MSM and on the left hand side of the blogosphere would be? Would NPR feel that the whole who did it/why'd they do it/how'd they do it story was so unimportant? Think any left of center bloggers would find the story to be garnering too much attention?

And if Fox tried to say - ok, maybe the documents aren't verifiable (Rather still hasn't said that they are forgeries) but, gee, folks, what's really important is what the papers say, not when they were typed - you think their NY studios wouldn't be reduced to burning rubble within 24 hours?

|9.21.04 @ 7:12PM|#

You are all setting the clock wrong between Rather's story and mea culpa. A major broadcast story like this does not get written, produced and aired in a few hours, like a Blog post. It most certainly went through several layers, including legal, over a period of time before even being scheduled to air. The fact that everyone signed off on this before the words came out of Rather's mouth does not speak highly for CBS.

The bloggers can take due credit, not for convincing Joe (who would make a really bad juror), but for making sure that a forgery was unearthed and a monumental error was not swept under the carpet.

This is not even a liberal/conserave thing. The bloggers get credit for keeping the NY Post's front page buffoonery about Kerry's VP choice on the front burner, when Murdoch and Co. wanted it wiped from memory.

It is revolutionary to have a quivering mass of human effort and opinion acting as a real-time, self-correcting view of history as it unfolds. Speaking as a member of the MSM, I give the bloggers, comment makers, and document un-fakers all the credit in the world.

Think about where you will be getting your news from the next time someone lets you know that they're "America's Most Watched Newscast" or that they are the arbiter of "All The News That's Fit To Print."

|9.21.04 @ 7:14PM|#

While you guys get therapy for your shoulders from patting your backs, know that this story is not over. Somebody set Rather up and you can bet CBS is tracking it down.

And Rather's stonewalling for a few days or a week is laughable compared to our fearless leader's explanation of why he didn't take his physical and quit flying jets. HINT: $50,000 to anybody who can come close to proving Shrub showed up in Alabama.

Otherwise, nice job, bloggers. Now get to work.

|9.21.04 @ 7:34PM|#

Gadfly: Bush's faults are well established. If only someone would present a decent candidate in opposition. Seems there's a current events lesson about removing a leader without having solid replacement ready.

Our system does not give the option of voting "no confidence". There is no candidate ABB. We have to pick somebody off a preset list or make an infinitesimal write-in statement. Or stay home. If you only want GWB removed, tell me why JFK is the best best of those options. Because he's the only one than could get your goal achieved? Not sufficient for me, and riskier re: that current events lesson. However, if you send me $1000, I'll mark any line you want.

|9.21.04 @ 8:21PM|#

Gadfly,

First, it's up to the accusers to provide proof, so when you show the -proof- that Bushie was Awol (or worse), you'll actually have something meaningful to say. That's why this whole memo thing is so hilarious. If that forged 'proof' is the best the left can do, there's precious little substantiation for your claims.

Second, even apart from that, what he may have done 30 some years ago is pretty much irrelevant at this point. There's certainly some things that he's done as president that warrant questions and criticisms, and the left would look much better if they'd quit bitching and moaning about Guard duty, and work on legitimate current complaints.

Third, Kerry made a HUGE mistake using his Vietnam service as a prop for his platform. Even if you discount -everything- the swifties say, there are still legitimate concerns about his behaviour in that service (or at least what he did after), and the resulting storm of noise, true or not, hurts him severely as a candidate. To top that off, it's pretty hard to find an actual platform in his campaign.

I would be thrilled to death for Bush to be replaced, but even if Kerry had a chance in hell (and that seems unlikely at this point), there's no meaningful indication that he could actually do the job.

|9.21.04 @ 8:34PM|#

Somebody set Rather up and you can bet CBS is tracking it down.

It appears that CBS specifically searched for the documents. They contacted Burkett, not the other way around. Yeah, CBS is tracking it down, all right . . .

And Rather's stonewalling for a few days or a week is laughable compared to our fearless leader's explanation of why he didn't take his physical and quit flying jets. HINT: $50,000 to anybody who can come close to proving Shrub showed up in Alabama.

Who gives a rat's ass about Bush's NG service?

We know Bush's record as president.

The problem that the Dems have is that their guy wants to run on his Vietnam record, and the Swiftees put that record in question.

|9.22.04 @ 1:10AM|#

Kerry made a HUGE mistake using his Vietnam service as a prop for his platform.

Ah, but the fact that he served in Vietnam is what seemed to make him the most "electable" of the Democratic candidates during the primaries. If he failed to exploit his service, the Democrats may as well have nominated Howard Dean.

|9.22.04 @ 1:51AM|#

The problem with Joe's argument about the discrediting of the blogs complaints about the memos is that he doesn't understand the complaint.

The problem with the proportional spacing, times roman font, centering, superscript, word breaks, uniformity in print thickness and so on. It isn't the ability for any of these things to be produced on a 1972 typewriter. It is the ability to produce _all_ of these things at the same time and the complete and utter lack of verified documents from the same office that resembled the CBS docs in the slightest. Independent experts _were_ consulted and to a man/woman they all said the memos were probably forgeries.

And still there were a few things that a 1972 typewriter COULD NOT DO. All typewriters, proportionally spaced or not, leave the same white-space between characters. This wasn't in the memos. The documents matching up exactly with Word does actually raise big questions because Word uses a much more complicated and precise letter spacing technique than even the most complicated typewriters back then.

By Friday night, the blogs had sufficiently strung up CBS to most reasonable people's satisfaction. I think the blogs' ability to do such a thorough demolishing of the memos were one of the big reasons other media outlets jumped on CBS so quickly; they knew they were betting on a winner.

|9.22.04 @ 10:02AM|#

Scat,

"If you only want GWB removed, tell me why JFK is the best best of those options."

John Kerry is a mature, experienced, responsible person, with a history of crossing the aisle on important matters (Balanced Budgets) and of fighting creepy government corruption (BCCI, Iran Contra), who, most importantly, WON'T GO OFF HALF COCKED on any zany adventures in pursuit of any REALLY BIG IDEAS.

How'zat?

|9.22.04 @ 10:06AM|#

To those of you so patiently explaining the gory details of typefaces and fonts, thanks a lot.

But I'm not arguing for the documents' authenticity. I'm just pointing out that for a few days, the matter was sufficiently obscure, and many of those making the charges sufficiently partisan and/or disreputable, that it was perfectly reasonable to withhold judgement.

|9.22.04 @ 10:47AM|#

John Kerry is a mature, experienced, responsible person, with a history of crossing the aisle on important matters (Balanced Budgets) and of fighting creepy government corruption (BCCI, Iran Contra), who, most importantly, WON'T GO OFF HALF COCKED on any zany adventures in pursuit of any REALLY BIG IDEAS.

Insufficient, and most likely untrue, in the ways that matter. For one, it seems to me that his ideas for health care qualify as going off half cocked on a zany adventure in pursuit of a really big (and really bad) idea.

I don't care for either candidate, as both have huge GAPING flaws. We're basically in the devil you know / don't know situation, and Kerry isn't putting enough on the table for me to feel like going for the unknown.

|9.22.04 @ 11:02AM|#

RDale, whether you like Kerry's incremental health policy recommendations or not, they are neither radical nor half-baked. Compare what Kerry is saying to what Tom Harkin or Dennis Kucinich said during their primaries. Hell, compare it to what old George Bush said during his campaign vs. Clinton - they were arguing about whether a national health program should cover 100% of the public (Clinton), or whether 97% was good enough (Bush)!

PS - the Devil you know gave you the Iraq Grand Game, Mission to Mars, the Medicare Drug Benefit scam, and the farm bill.

|9.22.04 @ 12:25PM|#

Actually, when you compare the Bush campaign's handling of a bad situation (the drop in poll numbers and the various bad news/political attacks) vs the Kerry campaign's handling of similar, you get the impression that the Bush people are cool and collected and the Kerry people are on the verge of an emotional breakdown.

I'd suggest that Kerry supporters avoid discussions that include terms like mature, experienced, responsible . . .

|9.22.04 @ 1:55PM|#

How like a Bush supporter, Don: don't pay attention to the candidate! Look at all those people he hired to make up for his failings!

|9.22.04 @ 2:03PM|#

How perfectly Don't post captures the mind of a Bush voter: "Don't pay attention to the candidate. Just look at all those people he hired to make up for his failings!"

|9.22.04 @ 2:05PM|#

"Don's post" that is.