The WaPo - "Dozens Of Inconsistencies"

Dan Rather was back with his latest final word in defense of his controversial Killian documents.

The Washington Post, in a story on p. 8, puts up a huge "No-Sale" sign on the latest CBS defense; this is real, foot-on-the-throat journalism of the sort that may salvage the credibility of the mainstream media; as a comparison, the NY Times is offering "sit in my lap" coverage of CBS, doing almost no homework and asking easier questions.

WaPo first:

Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers

By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

Fans of Jim Geraghty at the Kerry Spot will recognize this argument - last Saturday Jim cited Matley writing exactly that in a 2002 article.

And let's offer props to Brad DeLong for asking the right question (link?) - enough, already, with describing abstractly what different typewriters were capable of doing in 1972; someone should obtain other authenicated documents from Killian's National Guard office and compare them to the "forgeries". Brad's wish is the WaPo's command:

A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.

The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word.

The WaPo offers evidence I had not seen elsewhere (although each day brings new ideas; I apologize if I have overlooked anyone, and shameless promotion of yourself or others is encouraged in the comments).

"New to me" from the WaPo:

• Word-processing techniques. Of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents. Nor did they use a superscripted "th" in expressions such as "147th Group" and or "111th Fighter Intercept Squadron."

... Factual problems. A CBS document purportedly from Killian ordering Bush to report for his annual physical, dated May 4, 1972, gives Bush's address as "5000 Longmont #8, Houston." This address was used for many years by Bush's father, George H.W. Bush. National Guard documents suggest that the younger Bush stopped using that address in 1970 when he moved into an apartment, and did not use it again until late 1973 or 1974, when he moved to Cambridge, Mass., to attend Harvard Business School.

...• Stylistic differences...

In memos previously released by the Pentagon or the White House, Killian signed his rank "Lt Col" or "Lt Colonel, TexANG," in a single line after his name without periods. In the CBS memos, the "Lt Colonel" is on the next line, sometimes with a period but without the customary reference to TexANG, for Texas Air National Guard.

The WaPo cites the new "expert" introduced last night by CBS, and promptly blasts him. There is no oxygen for CBS in this piece.

By comparison, the NY Times expresses skepticism but offers "Dan a little snuggle", from the headline on:

CBS Offers New Experts to Support Guard Memos

When the CBS News anchor Dan Rather defended himself on camera and in interviews last Friday against questions being raised about documents he had used to bolster a report on President Bush's National Guard service, he and network executives considered the case closed.

Mr. Rather himself said emphatically: "CBS News stands by, and I stand by, the thoroughness and accuracy of this report, period. Our story is true."

Yet there he was again, on "The CBS Evening News" last night, presenting even more experts to attest to the authenticity of several documents purportedly dating back to the early 1970's suggesting that Mr. Bush received favorable treatment in the Guard.

OK, a skeptical, ironic tone, but is that a substitute for facts and questions?

Even inside CBS News there was deepening concern. Some of Mr. Rather's colleagues said in interviews that they were becoming increasingly anxious for him to silence the critics by proving the documents' validity and as new questions about their origin arose. Most declined to be quoted by name.

Now we have a gossip column? Did you talk to Marcel Matley, the CBS expert?

One of the experts CBS News said initially helped convince it that the documents were genuine, a handwriting expert named Marcel B. Matley, said in an interview yesterday that he believed the signature in the documents to be that of Colonel Killian. Asked if the signature could have been lifted from an official document by Colonel Killian and pasted onto forgeries, Mr. Matley said: "Sure. But we can't draw a conclusion from a possibility."

That's it? When you read how the WaPo led with Matley, your faces will be red.

Mike Wallace and Andrew Heyward (the CBS News president) express hopeful confidence, an expert calls for transparency, and we segue to two experts - Richard Katz, who supported CBS on their show last night, and Bill Glennon, who offers this compelling evidence:

Bill Glennon, a technology consultant and I.B.M. typewriter specialist who had posted his thoughts on the memos on a blog and was quoted over the weekend in publications including The New York Times, said CBS called him Monday morning. The producer asked him to come in and look at the memorandums and say whether he thought that an I.B.M. typewriter could have produced the documents. He said he was initially leery of talking. "Because quite honestly there's some people out there, they're scary," he said. "You don't agree with them, you offer opinions that don't jibe with theirs and you get a target on your back."

Oh, so that's why it is so hard for CBS to find supporting experts! The hit-men of the VRWC! Thanks for sharing.

Mr. Glennon was in charge of service for 1,000 contracts for I.B.M. typewriters for 15 years, starting in late 1972, around the time the memorandums were produced. He spent 15 minutes with the CBS documents, he said, and believes that they could have been created using the kind of typewriters he worked with at I.B.M.

OK, good job by Bill Glennon to get that far, but I think his 15 minutes are up; terrible job by the NY Times to stop here, but they do - the experts have left the building and the article ends.

As I said, the comparison to the WaPo suggest that the Times reporters are working on some other story.

Comments

[Sydney T]

How does Mately's comment: "The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals." jibe with Rather's comment that the documents were "first generation" originals?

[mikem]

"Oh, so that's why it is so hard for CBS to find supporting experts! The hit-men of the VRWC! Thanks for sharing."
Hilarious.
The white flags are starting to pop up. How do journalism professors sleep at night after watching their charges perform junior high whining on the national stage?
Watch for Dan Rather to retire due to "death threats".

[abb1]

Final proof.

[Dan]

This is really silly. CBS' line now seems to be that the authenticity is "disputed" but that's to be expected, so lets move on.

CBS continues to insist (this time via Glennon) that the documents "could have been" created on a typewriter available at the time. If so, then CBS should state what model and what accessories were needed to do so. They should then point to other documents available from the TxANG that have similar characteristics or try to reproduce the documents on the model typewriter they believed was used. But they won't.

Bottom line, the probability that the documents are forgeries is at least 50%; the probability that CBS failed to do due diligence on this story is approaching 100% and the probability that CBS has intentionaly misled the public is at least greater than 0%.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"Brad's wish is the WaPo's command"

Actually, I pointed out to him and his merry band of brothers that they could do that for themselves with documents available at awolbush.com. Maybe Brad deleted that comment, found his conscience bothering him, and restored the idea as his own.

[Brad DeLong]

Re: "Of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents. Nor did they use a superscripted "th" in expressions such as "147th Group" and or "111th Fighter Intercept Squadron.""

That's it. Dan Rather is done. Stick a fork in him.

I surrender.

Now may I keep my horse for the spring plowing?

[Dean]

Prof DeLong:

By "surrender," do you mean that we should just drop the topic? Or do you mean that, since the documents were apparently forgeries, that two distinct lines of inquiry now need to be addressed:

1. The obvious one: Who supplied these documents?

2. The more serious one: What does it say about a major news organization that it could be so easily duped? Was this because of bias (the same bias that is said not to exist, yet doesn't ever seem to wind up affecting Democratic politicians)? Was it simply because of hubris (and whose)? Was it because perhaps the quality control hasn't ever been there, at least not for many years?

It is worth recalling that the surrender of Vicksburg or Island #10 did not result in the end of the war.

[capt joe]

Brad, thank you

[Forbes]

Dean:
Not so hard on BDL. I'm certainly not a defender of his, he can speak for himself, but you don't really expect him to carry water for the CBS critics, do you?

Once the defenders stop defending, as you suggest, only half the battle is over. So keep plowing ahead, at least BDL isn't standing in your way!

It now makes it easier to ask, and perhaps get answers to, the questions regarding sourcing, document chain of custody, etc. Dan Rather has two choices--he can retire badly disgraced, or mildly embarrassed--it's his call.

[Slartibartfast]

That's it. Dan Rather is done. Stick a fork in him.

I second this: well done, Professor DeLong.

[TM]

Very gracious, prof. Of course you may keep your horse for the spring plowing; it looks like CBS will provide the fertilizer.

[Jim Durbin]

The blog they're referring to is DailyKos.

Bill Glennon posted to Kos, and CBS is now touting him as an expert.

That's as delicious as it is wrong.

[Brad DeLong]

Re: "Do you mean that, since the documents were apparently forgeries, that two distinct lines of inquiry now need to be addressed: Who supplied these documents? What does it say about a major news organization that it could be so easily duped?"

We need to find out the answer to the first question. As to the answer to the second, we know it already: our press corps is incompetent to a remarkable degree... pretty men (and women) in front of cameras who know nothing about finance, law, war, diplomacy, education, social services, and now it turns out document authentication...

[TM]

As to the incompetence of the press corps, Hugh Hewitt was promoting "open source" journalism - in that world, CBS would have put the darn memos on its website, generated lot of traffic and discussion, and we would have drawn some conclusions about their authenticity. The CBS role (I infer) would be to post their interviews with various experts and provide commentary. Sort of like a Big Blog.

Obviously, the main stream media currently have better ability to make phone calls and conduct interviews - 5,000 cranks in pajamas cannot telephone Robert Strong, or Gen. Hodges. But there are other parts of a story that they do horribly.

Somewhat relatedly - I can't quite turn this into a Big Thought, but it strikes me that the media we see today is based on a model created by Vietnam (Pentagon papers) and Watergate - the overarching story line is that the Institutional Authority is hiding something, and our media watchdogs will dig for The Truth. (If the 50's were just that way, well, let me know).

Now, wild irony - Dan Rather has become what he beheld - he is the Institutional Authority saying "take my word for it", and has become Johnson/Nixon. Meanwhile, the rest of us try to crack the CBS cover-up of their sources. And if these memos came from the DNC, and CBS is hiding their dirty tricks, well, the political significance seems to be huge.

Even more ironic - the meltdown was triggered by Vietnam era "documents" - Vietnam provides the starting point and endpoint for this model of the media.

If anyone wants to steal that thought (IS it a thought?) feel free. I am finding it interesting in a "yes, but your point is..." way.

[Greg F]

Brad DeLong wrote:
“…who know nothing about finance, law, war, diplomacy, education, social services…”

Add science and math (specifically statistics) to that list.

[Roy N]

On Aug 25,'04 Bill Burkett wrote on the On Line Journal about Bush, "I know from your files that we have now reassembled, the fact that you did not fulfill your oath, taken when you were commissioned to "obey the orders of the officers appointed over you". I know that you not only lied to the American people in 1994, but have lied consistently since then. Mr. Bush, not every serviceman except you is incompetent. When you failed to show up as ordered for duty, they simply recorded the truth."

Is this why Mary Mapes contacted him, to get the files?
Who is we? What are reassembled files?