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

Who did this damage more?

[tao_of_biology]

Whilre sincerely trying to stay neutral here...

So, who did this damage more? CBS aired their very-hyped 60 minutes episode that now seems to have totally and unfairly libeled Bush. The damage was done in peoples' minds immediately... and after the fact, 60 minutes and CBS and Dan Rather can come and say, "Whoops." Regardless of what you think about Bush, this isn't totally fair and I think he'd have a good case for libel, if he wasn't president. Shouldn't there be some other ramification other than loss of public trust?

But, since the documents were so quickly shown to be BS (only the documents, the story might actually be true)... it seems to have really, really hurt the democrats and apparently back fired on the apparently-not-so-impartial Dan Rather. It makes the Democrats look like conspirators and more than a little slimy. That they're so worried that they'd need to plant false evidence smearing Bush. I'm not saying this is true, but it definitely could have that appearance to people.

So, given the short attention spans of the public--who did this help or hurt the most? I think the argument could definitely be made both ways. And, I can definitely see motivation for both parties to manufacture these documents and hand them over to CBS... I mean, weren't they exposed a little TOO fast?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[PatHMV]

In fact, I was slightly off in my recollection of New York Times v. Sullivan, but not in the way you suggest. I said that the actual malice test was separate from the reckless disregard test. In fact it is not. Here's what the court said:

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made [376 U.S. 254, 280] with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

Sullivan does not itself define reckless disregard. Its definition has been flushed out in several subsequent opinions of the court. Fundamentally, the court has said that it must ultimately come down to a case-by-case analysis. In St. Amant v. Thompson, the Supreme Court in 1968 fleshed out what it meant by reckless disregard. The court stated:

The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. Nor will they be likely to prevail when the publisher's allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation. Likewise, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.

In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the Supreme Court found actual malice through reckless disregard because of a newspaper's extreme departure from the normal standards for investigation followed by responsible journalists:

In short, the evidence is ample to support a finding of highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.

Now, was it really necessary to resort to infantile personal insult?

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.

It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[trentfoley]

The Bush administration created these documents!

They heard that CBS was investigating the story and they immediately went in to damage control. The documents were clandestinely delivered to Kerry supporters so that they would then be given to CBS. They were made to be so juicy that CBS wouldn't be able to see through all of the drool that they were obvious forgeries.

The Bush family has a history in the intelligence business. I wouldn't put this past them.

Sure, the documents are forgeries, but is the story true or false? As it stands now, the story is in a quantum state, awaiting the collapse of a wave function.

I agree with another poster, "Kodos 2004"

John Kerry's coffin called...

[Anonymous Coward]

It said, "No more nails please."

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:Look at the those MEMOS! Look only at the MEMOS

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The story was well researched

Um. No. Even CBS News says now that the story never should have gone on the air.

includes a lot of interviews

Mostly interviews that torpedoed the story. But you didn't hear anything about those on 60 Minutes.

including, now, to the secretary who says "I didn't type those. But I typed ones that said about the same thing"

That's not at all what she said --go read the transcripts --and she's also the same person who was quoted in the Dallas Morning News as saying that the thought Bush was "selected, not elected." No possible agenda there, no sir.

The Globe (and CBS) showed pretty darn conclusively that Bush reneged, was AWOL, that it was covered up/excused, and that he's lying and/or stonewalling when he says different and at the same time, he and his proxies are attacking Kerry's war record.

Wow. That's the precise opposite of what the record actually shows. Amazing.

Did George W. Bush sign up for a six-year commitment? Yes. Did he fulfill every obligation during his service? Yes. When he transferred to Alabama, did he give up his flight status because there was no place on the flightline for him? Yes. Did he request an early discharge? Yes. Was he granted that early discharge? Yes.

Is there any evidence at all that George W. Bush did anything improperly or incompletely? No. Ben Barnes insists that he pulled strings for Bush, but he simply can't produce any evidence to that effect, and everybody else involved maintains that it simply isn't true.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your personal hatred, now.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The charges themselves have been all but corroborated by the White House

That's not correct.

and certainly nobody is denying the content is true.

Also not correct.

The only (campaign) issue is whether these actual embodiments are from the time period they claim to be.

Actually, the campaign issue is whether a major news organization used memos which it either (1) knew or (2) reasonably should have known were falsified as the basis for a story which was released with the intent of influencing the outcome of the election.

Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?

How can you not?

The point is that Bush dropped the ball when he was supposed to be defending the country in the 1970's, a job he got by virtue of being his father's son in the first place.

See, those are the two allegations that these memos were alleged to support, but that in the absence of these memos turn out to be completely unfounded. Ben Barnes has been alleging that somebody pulled strings to get Bush into the Guard since the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race. There's absolutely no evidence to support that allegation. In fact, in 1999, Barnes himself recanted his own story through his attorney. And the "he disobeyed an order" thing was concocted out of whole cloth, apparently either by Bill Burkett or by somebody who then passed the story on to Burkett.

These are two allegations which simply are not true. And yet you're repeating them like they're revealed gospel. Could it be that you're suffering from Dan Rather Syndrome?

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.

Nothing

[xpccx]

I think the lawsuit against Fox over bovine growth hormone proves that this will cost them nothing. From what I gather, Fox reporters were pressured by Fox executives to alter their news story in order to paint a prettier picture about the effects of BGH. When the reporters didn't change the story they were fired. A lawsuit insued and Fox has won on appeal because, get this, the FCC doesn't require news agencies to tell the truth.

So, whether this was done on purpose or accidentally, from a legal perspective it matters little.

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.