Beldar on Rathergate

I played a small but enthusiastic part as one of bloggers who were scrutinizing Dan Rather, "60 Minutes," and CBS News during the 2004 Ra^thergate controversy.
....

The problem, though — as I noted at length when Rather first filed his case, here and here — is that Quinn's hands are effectively tied by the fact that his client was spectacularly gutless in its dealings with the psychotic prima donna who for so long occupied its anchor chair. Quinn's defense for CBS News won't be that Rather and Mapes and their entire team were incompetent, biased frauds who committed the worst kind of journalistic malpractice to change the outcome of a presidential election and then, when caught, tried to cover it up. CBS had ample, compelling, even glorious "good cause" to fire Rather no matter what time term remained on his contract or what other terms it contained to guarantee his preeminence at the network.

But CBS didn't do that. Instead, it convened the Thornburgh-Boccardi Panel, whose ultimate report was far from a bare-knuckled or clear-eyed assessment of the culpability of Rather and CBS News' top brass. CBS News eased Rather out, rather than immediately throwing his sorry butt on the street.

And now, instead of defending itself against Rather by using the awesome mechanisms of the law to prove, once and for all, the essential truths of Ra^thergate — including the indisputable fact that the Killian memos were pathetically obvious forgeries — CBS News' defense is not that Rather is a crazed scoundrel and a national disgrace, but that CBS fully performed its contractual obligations to Rather.
....

Rather, Thornburgh, and the CBS bus

Scott Johnson at Powerline looks at a piece by Edward Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University.  He argues for Rather's defense:

....

Rather did little reporting for the segment, but led the defense. Within three weeks the network caved and said it shouldn't have relied on the documents. That concession was viewed as acknowledging fundamental problems with the segment's veracity. So were the conclusions of the review panel headed by Thornburgh and Boccardi.

But their 223-page report did no such thing.

Though sharply critical of the network's strident dismissal of critics, the panel never concluded the broadcast was wrong -- that Bush's military record wasn't marked by favoritism and dereliction. Nor did it ever say the disputed documents were bogus. Instead, the panel concluded the documents couldn't be proven genuine, and for a simple reason: They were photocopies. And experts are reluctant to vouch for the authenticity of any document when they can't inspect its paper and ink.

Wasserman cites the Thornburgh-Boccardi report in support of his argument here, but It is hard to believe that Wasserman has read it. If he has read it, this professor of journalism ethics needs to be reminded that it's not ethical to withhold from your readers relevant evidence directly contradicting your thesis.

Such as:

(1) The source of the documents: The documents on which Rather's story relied were asserted to have came from Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian, then Lieutenant Bush's commanding officer. The documents purport to derive from his "personal file." Killian died in 1984; his family denies that the documents emanated from him or them. The lack of any evidence to substantiate the provenance of the documents in Lieutenant Colonel Killian's "personal file" by itself highlights the absurdity of the argument for their authenticity.

....

(2) The font/typestyle of the documents: The Thornburgh-Boccardi report provides the analysis of forensic document examiner and typewriter expert Peter Tytell, both in the text and at greater length in the report's Appendix 4. Tytell is a diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Documents Examiners and a highly qualified expert on the issues raised by the typographic characteristics of the documents. Tytell examined the official Bush Guard documents as well as the CBS documents procured from Burkett and concluded that the Burkett documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle.

According to Tytell, Times New Roman was designed in 1931 for the Times of London and was only available on typesetting and other non-tabletop machines until the desktop publishing revolution in the 1980s. Tytell concluded that the Times New Roman typestyle was not available on a typewriter in the early 1970s and that the Burkett documents must have been produced on a computer. The Thornburgh-Boccardi report states: "The [Thornburgh-Boccardi] Panel met with Tytell and found his analysis sound in terms of why he believed that the documents are not authentic." If the documents are not authentic, they are frauds.

....

(3) The content of the documents: Rather's defenders such as Wasserman ultimately rely on the contents of the documents to authenticate them. However, if the documents did not come from the personal file of Lieutenant Colonel Killian, if the documents were not typed on a typewriter, they cannot be authentic regardless of their content. Even if the documents "meshed" perfectly with the official Bush Guard records, they would still be frauds.

And they don't mesh.  All in all...

Thus the bad faith of the CBS TANG story pales next to that of Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley. Regardless of Dan Rather's level of culpabity for the story as originally broadcast, the story itself is a classic of institutional and professional disgrace. It is odd at the least that a professor of journalism ethics is insensitive to it. For a more clear-eyed view of Rather's lawsuit, by the way, see Bill Dyer's "Rather v. CBS: Experts, 'boardroom truth' versus 'courtroom truth,' and settlement values."

 

Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are still peddling the same fraud that CBS was peddling on September 8, 2004 in the story on President Bush's TANG service. Edward Wasserman has now come to their assistance in peddling the fraud. Whatever the state of their knowledge then, Rather and Mapes must know now that they are peddling a fraud. Although Wasserman portrays Rather as a victim, he is in fact a perpetrator who has yet to acknowledge his offense.

Buckhead on the Rathergate docs

Buckhead has a few comments about how he determined the Bush National Guard documents were fale.

So, how did I know? The short answer is that I am 47 years old and I am not a blithering idiot.

The long answer is at the other end of the link.

Rather poor track record?

The Weekly Standard's Philip Chalk looks at Dan Rather's track record. His conclusion: He has not declined as a reporter. He just wasn't that great to begin with.

It was a different lie--one delivered on national news, and at the expense of children--that caused Rather trouble at the time. As reporters from around the world descended on the Texas city, Rather went on the air with a local Methodist minister who made a stunning claim: Children at Dallas's University Park Elementary School had cheered when told of the president's death.

Great story, though. Outside Texas, it fit in with the contemporary notion that Dallas was a "City of Hate". Within Texas, it targeted an elite community, seen as jealously guarding its privileged position. Too bad it wasn't true...

...continued in full post...

Approached earlier by the same minister with what was a second-hand account, Barker himself had run the story by the school's principal and some teachers, all of whom denied it outright. Because of the shooting, which took place at 12:30 p.m., the principal had decided to close the school early, though without telling the students why. The children at the school--including three of Barker's own--were merely happy to be going home early, he was told. There couldn't have been any spontaneous cheering at the news of Kennedy's murder, because no such news had been announced. <snip> "Rather came to me, and I said, 'My kids are in school there, and I checked it out, and there's not a darn thing to it,'" says Barker. "He said, 'Well, great--I'll just forget it.' But instead of forgetting it, he went out and did this gut job on Dallas and its conservatism," with the preacher's story at the center of his report.

And here's a point that may strike a familiar chord:

With the discredited account likely to be challenged by the local affiliate's editors before being fed to New York, Rather sidestepped a customary film-editing session with Barker and arranged to file the report live instead, Barker says. "And so here's Dan with the preacher, telling this story about kids at UP cheering when told the president was dead."

Can we say, "too good to check"?

And of course, as Mark Twain would have predicted:

Barker's local TV and radio crews scrambled to arrange on-air interviews with teachers to rebut the story, but the lie had already traveled halfway around the world and would become an enduring part of JFK assassination lore.

When you strike at a king...

...you must kill him.

Wizbang shares his thoughts on the wisdom in this sentence, and how so many people have gotten in trouble because they ignored it.

George H.W. Bush didn't take down Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War, and that caused 12 years of grief.

Osama didn't succeed in taking down the US, and paid for it.

Dan Rather failed to take down George W. Bush, and is no longer an anchor at CBS. (Though in this case, the effect might well have been a case of Mutually Assurred Destruction, had the truth not surfaced way too soon.)

Indeed, you can find cases like this throughout history. At the start of the Vietnam war, only two of the three North Vietnam airfields were bombed. Had the third been bombed, the south and its allies would have had air supremacy, and the war would have taken a very different course. Instead, we saw most of a decade of slowly bidding up the cost of the war, auction style, until one side or the other finally dropped out.

And in Larry Niven's "Known Space" series, the Kzinti lost their first war with humankind, and never had a chance thereafter. They had this bad habit of always attacking before they were quite ready.

Brainstorming for CBS

Hugh Hewitt has an idea for CBS. What can they do to replace Dan Rather and 60 Minutes? Let his audience brainstorm about it, maybe they can come up with some ideas.

Well, I have a suggestion.

I'm quite the fan of Iron Chef, a cooking show, imported from Japan, where a famous and/or accomplished chef challenges one of the Iron Chefs to a battle. They are given one hour to produce a variety of dishes, which are judged on taste, presentation, and originality.

Oh, yes. At the start of cooking, they are presented with a surprise theme ingredient, which both must use in all their dishes.

CBS could put on a show called "Iron Anchor". Dan Rather could play the part of Chairman, and three noted anchors from CBS could be the Iron Anchors. Each week, a noted anchorman would challenged one of the Iron Anchors to battle, and they would have some time period to put together a news broadcast based on some surprise theme news item.

Camera crews could follow both anchors around the city and record their interviews with witnesses, their research, how they find sources, etc. (Maybe we give them 24 hours, like they did for one of the big challenges they did near the end of the Iron Chef show.) At the end of this, they each give a fifteen minute broadcast, which is then judged by the panel, based on presentation, content, and taste.

The winner gets to feel real good about having won.

If CBS (or anyone else) picks this up, I want a cut.

Joseph Newcomer was wrong

Dr. Joseph Newcomer, whose 20-page (when printed out) analysis of the CBS memos concluded they were either complete forgeries or were made by a small elf spinning them out of gold after Dan Rather guessed his name, has responded to the Columbia Review of "Journalism".

Go to LGF to read his comments. Here, I'll merely note that the good doctor has as much as admitted to a serious miscalculation:

Never forget that Charles Johnson of LGF produced the actual, definitive, conclusive, inarguable example which proved that the memos were forgeries, within hours of their release. Of course he was delighted that there was substantial scientific justification for his conclusion. Any researcher is always pleased when an independent scientist can reproduce his results using a different approach. What is sad here is that Johnson’s obvious simple experiment was denigrated by those who were incapable of logical thought. My mistake was to think that such people could be convinced by additional compelling evidence. This led me into this whole fray.

I've compared deniers of bias in the media with creationists. Both groups have in common that they rally the troops to combat a pernicious idea that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but not beyond an unreasonable doubt.

Blog-proofing attempt?

Hat tip: TKS.

Charles Johnson notes that CBS has apparently altered their PDF files to prevent cutting text to the clipboard. Oh, yeah. That'll stop them. If there's one thing we know about bloggers, it's that they can't type.

Mapes would Rather not

Mary Mapes looks like she may not go away quietly.

"If there was a journalistic crime committed here, it was not by me," a bitter-sounding Mapes said in a statement last night. "I am concerned that [the actions of CBS network chief Les Moonves] are motivated by corporate and political considerations - ratings rather than journalism."

Other commentaries have pointed out that if CBS is taking the position that the memos may be authentic, and there's no evidence of bias, Mapes' firing may be an example of scapegoating.

Do you suppose Gloria Allred would take her case?

More on the Thornburgh report

Little Green Footballs takes a look at the report, and finds it hard to reconcile the conclusion of "no forgeries" with Appendix 4.

You don't say...

The Poynter Institute has a PDF file with Mary Mapes' statement in the wake of the ^Thornburgh report.

So what does she have to say about it? "It's not my fault, the memos checked, and they're lying about me."

Really.

Much has been made about the fact that these documents are photocopies and therefore cannot be trusted, but decades of investigative reporting have relied on just such copies of memos, documents and notes. In vetting these documents, we did not have ink to analyze, original signatures to compare, or paper to date. We did have context and corroboration and believed, as many journalists have before and after our story, that authenticity is not limited to original documents. Photocopies are often a basis for verified stories. Before the Bush/Guard story aired, the newly found documents that supported it were thoroughly examined and corroborated. The contents of the new documents mesh perfectly, in large ways and small, with all previously known records. The new documents also were corroborated by retired Gen. Bobby Hodges, the late Col. Killian’s commander, who said that the documents showed Col. Killian’s true sentiments as well as his actions in the case. After the broadcast, Marian Carr Knox provided the same corroboration in her televised interview. Yet, despite the panel’s recognition of the heretofore unchalleneged integrity of my work in the past, the panel was quick to condemn me here on the basis of statements of people who told my associates and me very different versions than what they told the panel. <snip> It is noteworthy the panel did not conclude that these documents are false. Indeed, in the end, all that the panel did conclude was that there were many red flags that counseled against going to air quickly.

I have a feeling at least one of the four scapegoates will decide not to take the fall for Dan Rather.

The Thornburgh Report

One of the talking points in the wake of the report is kind of interesting.

I'm reading statements to the effect that the airing of the alleged Killian memos was due to a failure to follow standard journalistic procedures and a "rigid and blind" defense of the report.

Although the timing of the report and other actions taken by CBS prompted suspicions of political bias, the report says, "the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the segment or its content."

You know, I think if I were running any news organization when something like this happened, I'd rather cop to a political bias charge and lose credibility on one or two issues (news about one or two political parties) than try and claim this was the sort of error that could strike any report my organization produced.

In other words, tell the public to be skeptical about reports in one or two very specific areas, rather than telling them this sort of problem could affect any of the reports they hear at any time.

The No (one else's) Spin Zone

(Hat tip: Captain's Quarters)

I've quit watching the O-Reilly factor, and have pretty much never tuned in to his show. I may skim an editorial, simply because I have a hard time not reading any English text that happens to find itself in front of me. My reason for tuning out is confirmed in his latest editorial in the New York Daily News.

He doesn't like the fact that Dan Rather got called on his gross carelessness in the case of the alleged Killian memos. He proceeds to make a series of totally bogus arguments against those who have dared to call Rather on this. His parting shot:

Unfair freedom of speech did him in. This is not your grandfather's country anymore.

Bill, would you like a little cheese with that whine?

Peer review

Here's a paper I intended to look up as soon as it was out of embargo. Well, the embargo ended months ago. Better late than never, I suppose.

Peer review is one of those things the writers of journal articles go through. In a way, it's a quality control program for science. It may not sound very exciting, but it's one of those things we might want to know more about. And it may turn out to be useful in areas other than the science journals.

In science, peer review could be very useful in sorting through the claims we read in the papers or hear on broadcast media. Peer review turns out to be useful in other areas, as well.

The whole business with the CBS memos was an example of peer review, or really, distributed review. The documents were poseted on the web, and people who had some degree of expertise could look at them. Within hours, a consensus had emerged, despite the fact that a few maverick news outlets dissented. Not everyone who the documents over was an expert in any facet of document analysis, but enough were expert in at least one that the documents had a very thorough review in a very short time.

In a way, the entire blogosphere is a distributed review system. Someone who has knowledge about some aspect of life will follow particular stories. He'll post links, or at least cut and paste, and often comment on the stories. Other people are free to chime in with their observations, and if someone is all wet, we're sure to hear about it in very short order.

Anyone know what the "shopper effect" is? It's a peer review system. If a new product is good, people will hear about it, and usually from their friends. If a new product stinks, they'll really hear about it. (I have a couple of good recipes for tilapia, and I've been telling my friends about what a good fish that is.) This kind of thing happens all the time, and it's the reason why you don't have to spend hours on the web researching every item on your grocery list.

Anyway, this looks like a neat article. Peer review. It's not just for science anymore.

Seek not perfection...

One of the regular panelists at Loscon regularly makes the point that it doesn't whether or not our government is perfect. What's far more important is the error correction mechanisms in place.

The panelist programs computer games, and knows there's no such thing as a perfect system – at least not one with any complexity. Rather than trying to build a system with no flaws and no faults, you build one that can handle those flaws and faults in a graceful manner.

Ra^therGate has illustrated just how effective an error correction process can be, even when the underlying process demonstrates a grievous flaw.

Logic dictates that those of us who care about the integrity of the underlying process should examine what made the blogosphere such an effective error correction mechanism, and work to duplicate it elsewhere.

Of course, there are ever those who would light a single smoke bomb rather than curse the light.

Bush memo analysis -- Piled higher and Deeper (Ph.D)

It looks like Professor David Hailey has produced a report showing the Bush memos could have been made using a typewriter in 1972. If you had Photoshop on hand, so you could paste a superscripted "th" in the right place as needed.

It seems the working files containing the intermediate steps were left up in an unsecured directory.

This, by the way, should be a lesson on computer security for everyone. It's easy to overlook basic precautions and leave computers wide open to anyone who wanders by.

About those unwashed masses...

An article I read a couple of years ago made the point that police officers surveyed tend to think they shoot and drive considerably better than they actually do. It would appear journalists think more of their own skill levels than may be justified by objective measurements of their performance.

However, just to balance things out, it appears journalists think a lot less of the same skill set in non-journalists than objective tests might justify.

RATHERGATE UPDATE: This excellent column notes that news media people know less than they think -- but that more importantly, they sharply underestimate what ordinary people know...

People accumulate knowledge.

I've accumulated a lot of knowledge on my way to a BS degree in physics.

I've accumulated a lot of knowledge in the pursuit of various hobbies.

I've accumulated a lot of knowledge by just being curious about things, and checking out books from the library.

So have a lot of other people.

I've made the point to my "adopted nephews" that no matter how big and strong they get, there's always someone out there who can beat them up. (So don't start fights just to show off.)

Likewise, no matter how much you know, there's always someone out there who knows more than you do.

And that's even more true if you don't know as much as you think you do.

Where the RatherGate memo came from?

Ah, there it is! I've been looking all over for it!

Hat tip: Hobbs Online.

John Kerry in gote*

* If you don't already play go, you might take a look at it. It's a neat game. When you are in sente, a move you make must be answered to prevent significant losses.

If you are in gote, a move you make can be ignored. On the topic of the CBS memos, and indeed, on the entire issue of Bush's service in the Guard, Kerry appears to be in gote.

Also, take a look at:

Memogate: The Real Story

Is this the Bush Memogate Strategy?

CBS -- News?

Blaster's blog notes the "bafflement" among journalists that CBS does things no serious journalism organization would do.

A quote from Ayn, for all you objectivists out there: "Check your premises."

*chortle*