CBS and Rather Admit Mistakes in Bush Documents

Vexler writes "The word this afternoon from CBS regarding the authenticity of the national guard memos of President Bush is that they cannot be trusted, confirming what several document experts had already suggested. In Dan Rather apologized for a 'mistake in judgment.' I have to wonder though: What would be the price CBS (or CNN, during the 2000 presidential election in which the final tally from Florida was changed several times before they realized that a recount may be needed) would pay for 'mistakes' of this type? What are some of your thoughts regarding 'moderating' (think /.) a news agency when it admits that more than just an honest mistake has been committed in its reporting?" There is still one big question remaining unanswered, too: who forged the memos? Where did they come from? Burkett, the man who provided them to CBS, won't say where he got them.

Comments

Vote Tabulation

[christopherfinke]

...during the 2000 presidential election in which the final tally from Florida was changed several times before they realized that a recount may be needed.

Does anyone else think that no counting of votes or reporting of results should occur until all polls in the nation have closed? Situations like the one in 2000 could be avoided, and voters in western states would not feel that their vote doesn't matter, since the results of the eastern states would not be public.

Hindsight is 20/20

[etymxris]

Remember, the question to ask here is not, "Are the documents authentic?" but rather, "Was CBS justified in believing the documents to be authentic?" Of course, if they did not believe the documents to be authentic, but ran the story anyway, that would be even worse.

The point is that there are always going to be mistakes made. Demanding 100% accuracy is unrealistic and does more harm than good. Mistakes are only blameworthy if they are caused by carelessness. Not to say that CBS is not blameworthy, but we should be sure to ask the right questions here.

Re:Hindsight is 20/20

[Otter]

Before airing the story, they checked with (in the last version of the story, AFAIK) four forensic experts -- three of whom now claim to have warned them that the documents were fake.

In any case, the real issue isn't the mistake, it's the cover-up. If they had retracted the story immediately, it would have been much more forgivable but there is simply no excuse for the way they stonewalled until it was clear that the problem wasn't going away. And the "apology" here doesn't address that issue at all.

Re:My two questions

[kalidasa]

Don't forget that Karl Rove has been known to do things like bug his own office. The assumption that this was a coordinated attack on GWB is just that, an assumption based upon the (perfectly legitimate anywhere except in politics, where this sort of thing usually ends up favoring the target) logic that GWB's campaign wouldn't forge documents that make them look bad. Do I think there are people on the left capable of doing something like this? Sure. But don't assume that just because the obvious benefit (if the documents hadn't been all but proven to be forgeries) would have redounded to Kerry means folks with Kerry's best interests at heart forged them.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[ConceptJunkie]

You know, it's ironic that everyone is saying to just move on and get past the circumstances surrounding Kerry's Purple Hearts and Silver Star, because according to the military, he earned them and deserved them, and yet the DNC is beating up on Bush even though he received an honorable discharge, in other words, according to the military, he did his job.

How is that the military's word is good enough for one candidate and not the other. I would love to see one campaign where a double standard isn't so blatantly applied by either side. As it is, I need to keep duct tape wrapped around my head to keep it from exploding.

Here's an idea: Let's give Kerry credit for serving bravely and honorably and let's give Bush credit for serving, even if it wasn't in combat.

Here's the real question: Who's going to keep the Islamofascist nutjobs from blowing me up?!

I still can't see what tortured logic you are applying to blame this issue on the Republicans. Dan Rather destroyed himself (and he's been doing it for years). I didn't give him any credibility before all this happened. You ever hear the nickname "Red" Dan Rather? It's been around for years, even decades.

Courage, indeed. CBS has gotten to the point where they can't even pretend to be objective. I'd trust the National Enquirer before those clowns.

Re:There's no libel here

[Watcher]

Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?
Oh boy. I'm no fan of Bush (I voted for him in 2000, and I'm not voting for him this time around), but just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you can conveniently ignore the fact that these documents were forged. Even if they are talking about something that really did happen in the early seventies, they are forgeries, and therefore nothing more than mean spirited fiction. They are not evidence, and no amount of good intentions on anyone's part can change that, no more than some of the more fanciful stories about Clinton that have been proven false are somehow correct because they were "morally justified".

You can't apply one standard to the group you agree with, and then apply another standard to those you don't. That's just hypocrisy.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Try this.

A Boston Globe story? You've got a lot of balls posting that link in here.

In fact, there is no evidence to support that Bush was not AWOL.

Except, you know, for the fact that he was honorably discharged, not an honor conferred upon them what don't show up. And the public record of Bush's attendance. And the expert opinion of Lt. Col. Lloyd given upon examining the records. And the dental check-up that you guys love to forget about.

Except for all that evidence, there's no evidence at all.

Hell, even CBS News admits that ample evidence of the president's honorable service exists.

Here, we have evidence to specifically incriminate him, and none to save him.

Oooh, one quote taken out of context and misrepresented. (He was talking about an event that happened in the winter of 1968, dumbass.)

You baffle me. "There's no evidence at all! Except for all that evidence, which doesn't count because the Boston Globe which never, ever lies told me so!"

Loser.

Bad intel - WMD and WNG (W Natl Guard)

[code_rage]

You would think after the fiasco about media credulity of Iraq WMDs, the media would be more suspicious of this sort of thing. In both cases, evidence was uncritically accepted because it fit with a preconceived notion of the facts.

We knew Saddam had developed and used WMDs in the past, we knew that Saddam had disobeyed UN resolutions in the past, we knew that Saddam had cheated on international weapons inspections in the past. Why wouldn't he have WMDs? When evidence was presented, everyone was ready to accept it. Even the Joe Wilson story (Niger yellowcake) didn't keep people from accepting the worst case scenario.

Similar thing with the Bush National Guard records. We know that Bush jumped to the head of the applicant list through the good ol' boy network. We know that he did not perform the duties he signed contracts for.

There was nothing in the content of the forged memos that raised suspicion -- instead it was abbreviations and typography that gave it away. Interestingly, the same was true of the Niger yellowcake documents -- one of the big giveaways was that the names of govt officials were not contemporary with the dates on the documents.

Even old pros like Rather need to learn: just because evidence seems to fit does not make it true.