Kerry Spot    [ jim geraghty reporting ]
[ kerry spot home | archives | email ]

Image from Bush's healthcare ad, released September 13, 2004.

Dan Rather's defense of his network's reporting on Friday night was so shoddy, it must be reviewed in slow motion to truly appreciate the attempts at spin and evasion. Let us go to the Nexis transcript (my comments are in italics):

RATHER, anchor:

There were attacks today on the CBS News 60 Minutes report this week, raising questions about President Bush's Vietnam era time in the Texas Air National Guard. The questions included in our report were: Did a wealthy Texas oilman, friend of the Bush family, use his influence with the then speaker of the Texas House of Representatives to get George W. Bush a coveted slot in the National Guard, keeping him out of the draft and in the probable service in Vietnam? Did Lieutenant Bush refuse a direct order from his commanding officer? Was Lieutenant Bush suspended for failure to perform up to Air Force standards? Did Lieutenant Bush ever take a physical he was required and ordered to take? If not, why not? And did Lieutenant Bush, in fact, complete his commitment to the Guard?

These questions grew out of new witnesses and new evidence, including documents written by Lieutenant Bush's squadron commander.

This would be a fine place to use the word "allegedly."

Today on the Internet and elsewhere,

Where is elsewhere? Would this be the Washington Post or ABC News you're referring to?

some people, including many who are partisan political operatives,

This belongs in a campaign ad, not a news story. This particular phrasing ignores all the forensic-document examiners who, within hours of your story's broadcast, were telling bloggers that they strongly suspected the documents were forgeries.

concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story,

This is whining. There is no reason for people to "concentrate on the key questions of the overall story" when the central piece of evidence, the smoking gun that your network so proudly touted, is glaringly anachronistic. You've been challenged, and your first instinct is to tell your critics they're missing the point.

but on the documents that were part of the support of the story. They allege that the documents are fake. Those raising questions about the CBS documents have focused on something called superscript,

This is one item, yes.

a key that automatically types a raised 'th.' Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s, but some models did.

Yes, but it appears that typewriters with superscript th's were pretty rare and awfully expensive. Would these have been in an Air National Guard office during this time period?

In fact, other Bush military records already officially released by the White House itself, show the same superscript. Here's one from 1968.

Now you're lying to us, and you're lying badly. These two superscript th's look nothing alike. One was clearly created by a typewriter or document printer at the time because it does not rise above the line of the "1" beside it. The example in the CBS memo rises above the ones, as modern word processors do.

Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s. But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it has been available since 1931.

Yes, for printing books. Was New Times Roman available for typewriters for that era? Again, if it was, it was highly uncommon. And why has no other document from Bush's records from that era been printed in that font? And has anyone found any other document written in than font, by Killian, relating to anything else but Bush?

Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley

Matley is clear his specialty is handwriting; you should have been clearer that his expertise is limited to that area and does not extend to fonts. You should also have mentioned that he believes one cannot verify a signature from a photocopy, which is exactly what CBS had him do.

analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real, but he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people now questioning the documents.

Again, your refusal to name the people questioning the documents is forcing this unartful sentence structure. Matley is concerned about exactly what is being examined by his professional colleagues and competitors.

Because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced and the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned, and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with, which were also photocopies.

This is a key concession that should have been mentioned in the original report. It is nearly impossible to verify the authenticity of a document from a photocopy. Oh yeah, where are the originals? And why were these documents photocopied? Are we to believe Killian typed these memos to himself, (and pretended to be unable to type around everyone else), kept them against National Guard regulations, never mentioned them to his wife or son, and then photocopied them?

Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley did this interview with us prior to the 60 Minutes broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Colonel Jerry Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.

Mr. MARCEL MATLEY (document and handwriting expert): We look, basically, at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not. See I have no problem identifying them. I would say, based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person.

Why did Matley say in an interview with the Los Angeles Times that "he had only judged a May 4, 1972, memo — in which Killian ordered Bush to take his physical — to be authentic. He said he did not form a judgment on the three other disputed memos because they only included Killian's initials and he did not have validated samples of the officer's initials to use for comparison." If what Matley said to the Times is correct, aren't you radically misrepresenting his statements?

RATHER: Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.

First, the signatures would be the only evidence he is qualified to give a professional opinion on. And, as stated earlier, Matley insists one cannot verify a signature from a photocopy.

We talked to him again today by satellite.

Are you surprised that questions come about these? We're not..

Quit editorializing and ask the question.

...but I wondered if you were surprised.

Mr. MATLEY: I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other, and I knew that potentially it was far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit to me, and I knew that. And — but we seek the truth, that's what we do. And, you know, you're supposed to put yourself out to seek the truth and take what comes from it.

Poor Matley. Oddly, instead of asking Matley to explain in greater detail why he thinks the documents are genuine — to address the criticism head-on — Rather asks him whether he is surprised that some people question the validity of the documents. And Matley is lamenting that his work for CBS in this could do potential damage to him professionally. This exchange is almost a non sequitur.

RATHER: Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Colonel Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paperwork, like these documents, was his specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.

When you read through these documents, is there any doubt in your mind that these are genuine?

Mr. ROBERT STRONG (former administrator, Texas Air National Guard): Well, they are compatible with the way business was done at that time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that are discordant with what were the times, what were the situation and what were the people that were involved.

This is a nice supporting witness contending that it is possible Killian would write this memo. It would be nice if he addressed the claims that Killian didn't type and didn't keep memos at home, and spoke to whether the document looks like any other document generated in a National Guard office in the early 1970s.

RATHER: Strong says the highly charged political atmosphere of the Guard at the time was perfectly represented in the newly revealed documents.

Mr. STRONG: It verged on outright corruption in terms of the favors that were done, the power that was traded, and it was unconscionable. From a moral and ethical standpoint, it was unconscionable.

RATHER: It is the information in the new documents that is most compelling for people familiar with President Bush's record in the National Guard. Author Jim Moore has written two books critical of President Bush and his service in the Guard.

What is Jim Moore doing in this story? We've barely addressed any of the technical issues, the skepticism from Killian's wife and son, etc. Say, Jim Moore isn't being interviewed because he passed on the memos to CBS News, is he?

Mr. JIM MOORE (Author): So there's no doubt in my mind that these documents are stating accurately what we know took place from the records that are available.

RATHER: Put it in context and perspective for us, the story and the — what we'll call the counterattack

'Counterattack'? Feeling a little defensive, Mr. Rather

on the story. Where are we right now?

Mr. MOORE: Well, I think what has happened is that some incriminating documents have come out. The White House, I should — you should remember, has not discredited the documents.

So what? How on earth would the White House know whether or not Killian kept personal documents?

They're relying on the blogosphere and other people to do that because the White House probably knows that these documents are, in fact, real.

Objection, your honor! Idle speculation by the witness, who is now claiming the power of telepathy and the ability to read the minds of White House staffers!

RATHER: The 60 Minutes report was based not solely on the recovered documents, but on a preponderance of evidence,

Preponderance of evidence: n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. Greater weight, i.e., 51 percent.

including documents that were provided by what we consider to be solid sources, and interviews with former officials of the Texas National Guard. If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far there is none.

There is a slew of definitive evidence that you just ignored. If this is the best defense CBS can muster, one can reasonably conclude the documents are fake.