More on the Revisionist Columbia Journalism Review Piece on Rathergate
Plenty of people have taken apart Corey Pein’s lousy revisionist history in his Columbia Journalism Review piece on the CBS forged documents scandal. Much of the criticism focuses primarily on details relating to typography. I’d like to focus on a couple of non-typographical points.
The first point is one I have not seen made elsewhere. It focuses on this passage from the article:
The very first post attacking the memos — nineteen minutes into the 60 Minutes II program — was on the right-wing Web site FreeRepublic.com by an active Air Force officer, Paul Boley of Montgomery, Alabama, who went by the handle “TankerKC.” Nearly four hours later it was followed by postings from “Buckhead,” whom the Los Angeles Times later identified as Harry MacDougald, a Republican lawyer in Atlanta. (MacDougald refused to tell the Times how he was able to mount a case against the documents so quickly.)
That last sentence is an excellent example of the art of insinuation. You could put it in a textbook. But it’s not journalism.
Buckhead/MacDougald has already publicly explained the circumstances of his early suspicion of the documents. Buckhead explained to me in an e-mail (quoted in the update to this post of mine) how he accessed the documents. And the details of Buckhead’s “case” against the documents are as transparent as they could possibly be: they’re right there in the very post in which Buckhead first expressed his concerns. What more does Pein need to know?
Apparently, Pein doesn’t want to know. He clearly feels more comfortable with making dark insinuations than he is doing research.
Second, let’s please get over this idea: “Dan Rather trusted his producer; his producer trusted her source.” Poor Dan Rather; poor Mary Mapes. Their only crime was that they got suckered.
Dead wrong. This analysis ignores the fact that the folks at CBS ignored a mountain of evidence that was staring them in the face before the story ever ran, and gave no meaningful broadcast time to the dissenters. They were not duped — they tried to dupe their viewers. And they do it all the time. I’ve covered this ground before, in detail. RatherBiased.com has a nice summary as well.
The fact that a piece like this appears in a publication associated with this nation’s top journalism school speaks volumes about the state of that profession.
P.S. Meryl Yourish has more on the typography. (I had to say that or she was going to hurt me.)
two things about columbia are relevant.
1. This school had a Prof say in ’01 that the 911 attacks were *OUR* fault!
2. They have been strongly backing the MSM and Viacom in particular for the last five months. This is a continuatin of their stand.
Rod Stanton
Comment by Rod Stanton (7edfd7) — 1/4/2005 @ 2:56 pm
‘two things about columbia are relevant.
1. This school had a Prof say in ’01 that the 911 attacks were *OUR* fault!’
How is that relevant to the CJR?
Comment by actus (b9c382) — 1/4/2005 @ 6:04 pm
Excellent analysis. Blogs not only critique the news. They do an equally good job on critiquing the critiques.
On a tear there P…
Comment by Justin Levine (f341b1) — 1/4/2005 @ 7:17 pm
Re MacDougald. My memory is that he refused to acknowledge he was Buckhead. It was Buckhead that posted the first Word document comaparison to the “Killian” memos. He could not comment on his involvement in the post without acknowledging he was Buckhead. He was unwilling to do this.
This is far different than refusing to explain his rapid response. Again this appears to be another distortion intended to deceive.
Corky Boyd
Sanibel FL
Comment by Corky Boyd (db8a98) — 1/4/2005 @ 8:01 pm
For all the commentary about the typography of these forged memos, what has been completely overlooked is the phoney formatting of the documents to begin with. The 111th FIS (Bush’s Air National Guard unit) was not stationed at P.O. Box 34567, Houston, TX. The 111th FIS was stationed at Ellington AFB, TX. Also note the rather strange sequential string of numbers for the post office box — not something one encounters very often. Those of us with USAF Reserve/Air National Guard background picked up on this immediately.
Comment by Mescalero (40a264) — 1/4/2005 @ 8:15 pm
For all the commentary about the typography of these forged memos, what has been completely overlooked is the phoney formatting of the documents to begin with. The 111th FIS (Bush’s Air National Guard unit) was not stationed at P.O. Box 34567, Houston, TX. The 111th FIS was stationed at Ellington AFB, TX. Also note the rather strange sequential string of numbers for the post office box — not something one encounters very often. Those of us with USAF Reserve/Air National Guard background picked up on this immediately.
Comment by Mescalero (40a264) — 1/4/2005 @ 8:15 pm
I still want to see Rather’s definition of “unimpeachable source.” The guy who eventually turned up was a known crank, but even if you argue that, “unimpeachable” isn’t even close. Or was Rather talking about the Kerry folks?
Comment by Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 1/4/2005 @ 8:37 pm
Corky,
As far as I know, you are completely 100% wrong in everything you say. If you’d care to substantiate it with some authority — like a link? — I’ll listen. Otherwise, I encourage everyone reading this to ignore your flawed “memory.”
Comment by Patterico (756436) — 1/4/2005 @ 9:15 pm
Oh, and Corky: when you talk about a “another distortion intended to deceive,” were you talking about your own comment? Because that’s sure what it looks like.
Comment by Patterico (756436) — 1/4/2005 @ 9:17 pm
I loved this bit from Pein’s piece:
What efforts did CBS make to track down the original source? What warnings did CBS’s own experts provide to 60 Minutes II before air time? These are matters for the independent commission, headed by Lou Boccardi, former chief of The Associated Press, and Dick Thornburgh, the former U.S. attorney general.
They are? Jeez, when the subject is an MSM journalistic entity like CBS News, apparently investigative journalism can just curl up and go to sleep. He’s happy to wait for the official pronouncement. I doubt he’d be as patient with a certain Republican administration.
My take on Pein’s piece is that he’s not so much trying to discredit bloggers so much as he’s arguing that the MSM shouldn’t follow the blogosphere’s lead when blogs break a story. More in this vein here.
Comment by Brian O'Connell (858f0c) — 1/4/2005 @ 9:46 pm
Er … why are you jumping all over Corky? He appears to be agreeing with you. I believe he’s saying that since MacDougald (perhaps initially) declined to acknowledge he was Buckhead, he shouldn’t be accused of refusing to explain Buckhead’s rapid response. (In other words, MacDougald couldn’t be expected to explain the actions of someone he wasn’t even admitting was him.)
I don’t know whether or not MacDougald actually did decline to acknowledge he was Buckhead, but just assuming for a moment he did, Corky’s “distortion” comment clearly was directed at CJR. Is that so hard to understand? Not a nice way to treat a friendly poster, seems to me.
And for the record, while CJR is “associated” with Columbia’s J-school, as a practical matter the two function as independent operations.
Comment by Q-Chan (b9390a) — 1/5/2005 @ 11:58 am
Q-Chan,
You’re probably right, and assuming that you are, I apologize to Corky. I had read his comment as unfriendly — accusing Buckhead of being a liar. Now that I read it again, I think your interpretation is probably correct.
However: my memory is that MacDougald did acknowledge to the L.A. Times reporter that he was Buckhead — but simply refused to comment any further. So Corky has that wrong. Also, I am unaware that Buckhead posted any Word document comparison to the “Killian” memos. So I think Corky has that wrong too.
If anyone thinks I am the one who is wrong, I am happy to look at your proof.
Comment by Patterico (48891a) — 1/5/2005 @ 12:45 pm
Oh, sure. Mention the typography of the memo, and don’t mention me.
It’s okay. I’m not the least bit bitter about the Wizbang Weblog Award.
Nope. Not at all.
Nuh-uh.
(So if I bump you and Totten off, does that mean I’m the winner?)
Comment by Meryl Yourish (e6699d) — 1/5/2005 @ 10:00 pm
Information in this site is aimed toward foreigners on the Internet and expatriates in Thailand, having the loved ones visiting the areas during the disaster, to get the information about their friends, relatives or colleagues. For Thai nationals, we recommend that you start at the Government official website website and jump from there.
Comment by Faustinus (056ff6) — 1/10/2005 @ 7:10 am
Pein says that, “MacDougald refused to tell the Times how he was able to mount a case against the documents so quickly.” He ignores that fact that these memos were such obvious fakes that it wouldn’t take someone familiar with USAF correspondence more that 10 seconds to identify them as such. They flash on the screen during the broadcast and I said to my wife, “they’re fake.”
Comment by TankerKC (4987de) — 1/12/2005 @ 6:40 am