L.A. Times Buries Questions About Authenticity of CBS Documents
Well, it’s official. Of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, the only paper with a shred of credibility left is the Washington Post.
Yesterday, all three papers ran breathless front-page stories about the CBS-sponsored documents that supposedly proved George W. Bush had received favorable treatment while in the Texas Air National Guard. The documents consisted of four memos allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Bush’s commander at the time.
As I detailed yesterday, two internet blogs (Power Line and INDC Journal) raised serious questions regarding the authenticity of those documents. By the end of the day, leading document experts across the country were in agreement that the documents had almost certainly been forged. Blogs were clearly the prime movers of this story, as the Washington Post has acknowledged. My friend Bill from INDC Journal was quoted by name in this Chicago Sun-Times article.
Of the three major national newspapers that trumpeted the documents’ allegations yesterday on their front pages, the only one to run a front-page story detailing these developments today is the Washington Post. The New York Times and L.A. Times bury the questions about the documents’ authenticity inside the paper. The L.A. Times story runs on page A18, for crying out loud.
There is no excuse for this. None.
Worse, the L.A. Times story works hard to spin the controversy as a minor, purely partisan issue.
The L.A. Times story bears the headline Guard Memos Fuel Another Vietnam-Era Battle. Note that the headline contains no reference to the strong possibility that these documents were forged. The spin is apparent right there. Now that we’ve cited the memos to smear Bush, and now that they appear to have been forged (obviously by Democrat partisans), let’s forget about this. It’s just another Vietnam controversy. Nothing to see here, folks.
The sub-head is perhaps even worse: “CBS defends letters that seem to impugn Bush’s service as some question the documents’ authenticity. Partisans on both sides engage.” See? It’s just a partisan issue. Let’s ignore the fact that the “some” who question the documents’ authenticity include some of the leading experts on forged documents in the nation. Better to imply that only partisans have any doubts.
The story does contain one apparent exclusive: snippets of an interview with the daughter of Lt. Col. Killian, the alleged author of the possibly forged documents. Upon reading the quotes from Killian’s daughter, it’s clear why this is an exclusive. She has nothing useful to say, and what she does say is misleading. But it does fit the L.A. Times storyline that the question whether the documents were forged is a tempest in a teapot:
Killian’s daughter said Thursday that her family knew nothing about the source, or authenticity, of the 32-year-old documents.
Nancy Killian Rodriguez said only that her father, who died in 1984, had “admired George Bush and was proud of the fact that he pinned his [flying] wings on him.”
“You can imagine all this from our perspective,” Rodriguez said in a telephone interview from her home in Brownsville, Texas. “Why is a man who passed away 20 years ago being brought up on something that happened 30 years ago and what does that have to do with what’s going on in the world right now?”
I’m sure it comes as news to Killian’s widow that she knows nothing about the authenticity of the documents. Because that’s not what she told ABCNEWS yesterday:
Marjorie Connell — widow of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the reported author of memos suggesting that Bush did not meet the standards for the Texas Air National Guard — questioned whether the documents were real.
“The wording in these documents is very suspect to me,” she told ABC News Radio in an exclusive phone interview from her Texas home. She added that she “just can’t believe these are his words.”
Or how about Killian’s son, who has also questioned the authenticity of at least one of the memos.
Naturally, not one word of any of this appears in the slanted L.A. Times story, which falsely implies that nobody in Killian’s family has any doubts about the documents’ authenticity.
I don’t know how a paper can run a front-page story on these documents, and then justify burying such serious questions about the authenticity of those same documents in a story on page A18 — one which completely omits some of the most significant details regarding the suspicious nature of the documents.
I’d like to hear them try to justify this. Because I just don’t see how it’s possible to do with a straight face.
The naked partisanship of the “papers of record” is sad to behold. That’s why we need bloggers like powerline (and you) to break through the liberal echo chamber.
Comment by Stephen Johnson — 9/10/2004 @ 8:30 am
Thank you, Patterico. Your comments and perspective are accurate as usual. I constantly gnash my teeth over the LA Dogtrainer, but it shows up on my doorstep daily because my husband loves the sports section. Todays “burial” on page 18 is just their way of saying “nothing to see here, folks, just keep moving.” Shameful and disgusting.
Comment by Nancy — 9/10/2004 @ 8:32 am
see http://selectric.org/selectric
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 9/10/2004 @ 9:53 am
The NYT article is page A17 in the Metro edition. That would be — wait, let me count — 1700% deeper in the paper than yesterday’s article.
Comment by Jonathan — 9/10/2004 @ 10:44 am
THE CBS FORGERY FALLOUT
If this all goes down the way it currently seems to be on track to, the exposure of the CBS/Dan Rather smear-scandal may very well go down in history alongside Matt Drudge’s exposing of the Lewisnky story as the clear…
Trackback by Calblog — 9/10/2004 @ 11:28 am
THE CBS FORGERY FALLOUT
If this all goes down the way it currently seems to be on track to, the exposure of the CBS/Dan Rather smear-scandal may very well go down in history alongside Matt Drudge’s exposing of the Lewisnky story as the clear…
Trackback by Calblog — 9/10/2004 @ 11:28 am
I have a cynical view of the MSM as would anyone trying to keep up with the myriad double standards and hypocrisies employed by our “keepers of democracy” in order to elect their candidate and advance their ideologies. With that said, Dan Rather, who should be trying to repair his already damaged credibility as he nears retirement, has instead threatened career suicide. He insists that his colleagues support him and accept his word that the documents are authentic despite the many expert opinions that they are forgeries. No doubt CBS will resist any further inquiries, as they did on the SBVT allegations and subsequent Kerry campaign admissions.
It must be frustrating and disheartening to be a young journalist and discover that your newspaper or network places ideology and partisanship before professionalism. Imagine the sickening realization that awaits the truly curious, when they realize that their job requires blinders.
Thank heaven for the blogosphere!
Comment by mikem — 9/10/2004 @ 11:34 am
PATTERICO –
L.A. Times Buries Questions About Authenticity of CBS Documents” href=”http://patterico.com/archives/002690.php”>”L.A. Times Buries Questions About Authenticity of CBS Documents.”…
Trackback by PRESTOPUNDIT -- "Kerry in Cambodia" Wall-to-Wall Coverage — 9/10/2004 @ 12:33 pm
Patterico, you have restored my faith in the LAT/Tribune Company’s local monopoly, The Baltimore Sun.
While the original 60 Minutes/TANG story ran on yesterday’s Page A1, today’s a-few-doubts-expressed follow-up was on Page A6. That’s 300% better than the parental unit’s Page A18!
Comment by AMac — 9/10/2004 @ 3:25 pm
I never trust the Washington Post as it can slide
around on where the news is important. One day
come out with something like today and tomorrow
will change their stand. I think they want us to
think they are fair and balanced, but once they
have done the “good guy fairly honest deal”, they
change their attitude. Sneaky.
ABC does this too, the NYT is just the NYT and
is always biased. No guessing with them.
Comment by Carole — 9/10/2004 @ 6:04 pm
So Dan Rather and CBS have decided to give the finger to the American public. I had almost started feeling sorry for old Dan, given the position he has put himself in, but no chance of that now. They refuse to present the documents for examination and demand that the many experts who have declared the online copies to be forgeries back off and accept their assurance. Forget that, Dan and CBS. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. Your reputation is shot and given your performance this campaign, good riddance.
Comment by mikem — 9/10/2004 @ 6:29 pm
Has anyone seen this: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/9633814.htm
Seems like “…the man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to “sugar coat” President Bush’s military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written…” The plot sickens.
Comment by LuluJean — 9/10/2004 @ 8:26 pm
Instapundit (Glenn) has a link to this at ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html
[HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS: Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."
Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud".]
NO shame!
Comment by mikem — 9/10/2004 @ 8:37 pm
“The L.A. Times story runs on page A18, for crying out loud. There is no excuse for this. None.”
Let’s try to be grownups about this for a moment, and look at the situation from the point of view of the LA Times.
They have Craigslist eviscerating the classified listings side of their business (which pays most of the bills) faster than they can lay off journalistic staff (you may not be aware of this but believe me they are). Then you bloggers are on the other side, not seeking a long-term accommodation but instead looking to (and looking likely to) utterly destroy their editorial credibility.
The only asset they have left is the million or so (guessing here, no idea really) subscribers they have left who don’t even know that blogs exist. They’re talking to them, not to you. What do you expect them to do, commit ritual suicide right in front of your eyes? Of course they are going to keep pretending none of this is happening, they have no other way to respond.
This is as good as it gets. You feel you’re not getting through, but they feel they are being slaughtered. In this instance they are right. Just keep plugging away.
Comment by ZD — 9/10/2004 @ 9:39 pm
Rather Duped in Memogate?
“Assuming that at least some of the documents are indeed forgeries as they now seem,” Goldberg says in an email to RatherBiased.com, “This is what happens when a news organziation operates in a bubble–a comfy liberal elite bubble. They…
Trackback by Sneakeasy's Joint — 9/11/2004 @ 2:15 am
I picked up the WaPo Express (I think that’s what they call it) on the Metro ride in yesterday specifically to see how they were handling the story. Front page attacked W on the basis of the memos. Page three mentioned the son and widow were questioning the authenticity of the memos. No mention of the many technical issues.
So tossed that after my three-stop ride and checked the real WaPo in the newstand in my building. WaPo did have it page 1 there with more discussion of the problems.
So, most people killing time got the lies.
Keep up the good work. I think this whole incident, and the speed with which it happened, represents a turning point. That’s not to saw we can expenct rapid change, but he fact that some second-tier conventional media are now referencing web-based freelance news sources regularly is significant.
Comment by Dan S — 9/11/2004 @ 6:12 am
Just picked up the Dog Trainer this morning, and lo and behold, the story is now on Page A1 (albeit below the fold, and in the “context” of the overall “substance” of the 60 Minutes II story).
Overall, its a mixed bag. It claims the subscript “th” and the font used in the letter are the most serious allegations regarding the authenticity of the memo, while ignoring the more serious questions raised by the kerning of the letters of the memo, the incorrect use of military protocol to date the memo and address the parties mentioned in the memo, the fact that the memo refers to a retired General, and the doubts of the authenticity of the signature.
On the other hand, the article does note that Hodges claims he was mislead by CBS News, and that CBS News is accusing him of changing his story. Also, the article juxtaposes the mutually exclusive rantings of Terry McAuliffe — that “this is about credibility, the credibility and character of the president…” and that the memo was planted by Karl Rove.
Overall, about as good a job as one can expect from the LAT.
Comment by Sean — 9/11/2004 @ 9:26 am
[...] Bush’s TANG service upon documents obtained from an anonymous source, the L.A. Times splashed the story on its front page. Mayb [...]
Pingback by Patterico's Pontifications » The Sgrena Suppression: Due to Suspicion of CBS News? — 5/3/2005 @ 1:48 am
[...] onymous source who was deemed “unimpeachable” by Dan Rather – your paper splashed that all over the front page. So: [...]
Pingback by Patterico's Pontifications » Responding to Howard Kurtz — 5/4/2005 @ 12:55 am