Killian documents controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Rathergate)
Jump to: navigation, search
Further information: Killian documents authenticity issues and George W. Bush military service controversy
Charles Johnson's animated GIF image comparing what CBS claimed to be a 1973-era typewritten memo with a 2004-era Microsoft Word document made with default settings

The Killian documents controversy (also referred to as Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard in 1972-1973. Four of these documents[2] were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate the documents.[3][4][5] Subsequently, several typewriter and typography experts concluded the documents are forgeries,[6][7] as have some media sources. No forensic document examiners or typography experts have authenticated the documents, and this may not be technically possible without original documents.[8] The provider of the documents, Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, claims to have burned the originals after faxing copies to CBS.[9]

CBS News producer Mary Mapes obtained the copied documents from Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard, in the course of pursuing a story about the George W. Bush military service controversy. The papers, purportedly made by Bush's commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, included criticisms of Bush's service in the Guard during the 1970s. In the 60 Minutes segment, anchor Dan Rather stated "we are told [the documents] were taken from Lieutenant Colonel Killian’s personal files"[10] and incorrectly asserted that "the material" had been authenticated by experts retained by CBS.[11]

The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media.[12] Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the documents for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from other news organizations and independent analysis of the documents obtained by USA Today and CBS raised questions about the documents' validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now – I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,"[13] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[13][14]

Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel led by Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi criticized both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath.[15] CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate them and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."

Contents

[edit] Background and timeline

1st Lt. George W. Bush in uniform. Investigations into his military service led to the Killian documents controversy.

The memos, allegedly written in 1972 and 1973, were obtained by CBS News producer Mary Mapes and freelance journalist Michael Smith, from Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former US Army National Guard officer.[16] Mapes and Dan Rather, among many other journalists, had been investigating for several years the story of Bush's alleged failure to fulfill his obligations to the National Guard.[17]

Burkett had received publicity in 2000, after making and then retracting a claim that he had been transferred to Panama for refusing "to falsify personnel records of [then-]Governor Bush",[18][19] and in February of 2004, when he claimed to have knowledge of "scrubbing" of Bush's TexANG records.[20][21] Mapes was "by her own account [aware that] many in the press considered Burkett an 'anti-Bush zealot,' his credibility in question."[22]

Mapes and Smith made contact with Burkett in late August, and on August 24 Burkett offered to meet with them to share the documents he possessed, and later told reporters from USA Today "that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign,"[23] a claim substantiated by emails between Smith and Mapes detailing Burkett's additional requests for help with negotiating a book deal, security, and financial compensation.[24] During the last week of August, Mapes asked Josh Howard, her immediate superior at CBS, for permission to facilitate contact between Burkett and the Kerry campaign, and Howard and Mapes subsequently disputed whether such permission was obtained.[25]

Two documents were provided by Burkett to Mapes on September 2 and four others on September 5, 2004. At that time, Burkett told Mapes that they were copies of originals that had been obtained from Killian's personal files via Chief Warrant Officer George Conn, another former member of the TexANG.[26]

Mapes informed Rather of the progress of the story, which was being targeted to air on September 8 along with footage of an interview with former Lieutenant Governor of Texas Ben Barnes, who would publicly state for the first time his opinion that Bush received preferential treatment to get into the National Guard.[27] Mapes had also been in contact with the Kerry campaign several times between late August and September 6, when she spoke with senior Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart regarding the progressing story. Lockhart subsequently stated he was "wary" of contact with Mapes at this stage, because if the story were true, his involvement might undermine its credibility, and if it were false, "he did not want to be associated with it."[28] Lockhart called Burkett on September 6 at the number provided by Mapes, and both men stated they discussed Burkett's view of Kerry's Presidential campaign strategy, not the existence of the documents or the related story.[29]

[edit] Content of the memos

The documents allegedly showed that Bush disobeyed orders while in the Guard, and had undue influence exerted on his behalf to improve his record, and included the following accusations:

  1. An order directing Bush to submit to a physical examination.[30]
  2. A note that Killian had grounded Bush from flying due to "failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards," and for failure to submit to the physical examination as ordered. Killian also requested that a flight inquiry board be convened, as required by regulations, to examine the reasons for Bush's loss of flight status.[31]
  3. A note of a telephone conversation with Bush in which Bush sought to be excused from "drill." The note records that Bush said he did not have the time to attend to his National Guard duties because he had a campaign to do (the Senate campaign of Winton M. Blount in Alabama).[32]
  4. A note (labeled "CYA" for "cover your ass") claiming that Killian was being pressured from above to give Bush better marks in his yearly evaluation than he had earned. The note attributed to Killian says that he was being asked to "sugarcoat" Bush's performance. "I'm having trouble running interference [for Bush] and doing my job."[33]

USA Today also received copies of the four documents used by CBS,[34] reporting this and publishing them the morning after the CBS segment, along with two additional memos.[35] Burkett was assured by USA Today that they would keep the source confidential.[36]

[edit] CBS investigations prior to airing the segment

Mapes and her colleagues began interviewing people who might be able to corroborate the information in the documents, while also retaining four forensic document experts, Marcel J. Matley, James J. Pierce, Emily Will, and Linda James, to determine the validity of the memos.

On September 5, CBS interviewed Killian's friend Robert Strong, who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office. Among other issues covered in his interview with Rather and Mapes, Strong was asked if he thought the documents were genuine. Strong stated, "they are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being."[37] Strong had first seen the documents twenty minutes earlier and also said he had no personal knowledge of their content;[38] he later claimed he had been told to assume the content of the documents was accurate.[39]

On September 6, CBS interviewed General Robert "Bobby" Hodges, a former officer at the Texas Air National Guard and Killian's immediate superior at the time. Hodges declined CBS' request for an on-camera interview, and Mapes read the documents to him over the telephone. According to Mapes, Hodges agreed with CBS's assessment that the documents were real, and CBS reported that Hodges stated that these were "the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."[40] However, according to Hodges, when Mapes read portions of the memos to him he simply stated, "well if he wrote them, that's what he felt," and he claims he never confirmed the validity of the content of the documents. General Hodges later asserted to the investigatory panel that he told Mapes that Killian had never, to his knowledge, ordered anyone to take a physical and that he had never been pressured regarding Lieutenant Bush, as the documents alleged.[41] Hodges also claims that when CBS interviewed him, he thought the memos were handwritten, not typed,[42] and following the September 8 broadcast, when Hodges had seen the documents and heard of claims of forgery by Killian's wife and son, he was "convinced they were not authentic" and told Rather and Mapes on September 10.[43]

[edit] Response of the document examiners

Prior to airing, all four of the examiners responded to Mapes' request for document analysis, though only two to Mapes directly:[44]

  • Emily Will noted discrepancies in the signatures on the memos, and had questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the superscripted "th" and the improper formatting of the date. Will requested other documents to use for comparison.[45]
  • Linda James was "unable to reach a conclusion about the signature" and noted that the superscripted "th" was not in common use at the time the memos were allegedly written; she later recalled telling CBS, "the two memos she looked at 'had problems,'"[45]
  • James Pierce concluded that both of the documents were written by the same person and that the signature matched Killian's from the official Bush records. Only one of the two documents provided to Pierce had a signature. James Pierce wrote, "the balance of the Jerry B. Killian signatures appearing on the photocopied questioned documents are consistent and in basic agreement," and stated that based on what he knew, "the documents in question are authentic."[46] However, Pierce also told Mapes he could not be sure if the documents had been altered because he was reviewing copies, not original documents.[47]
  • Marcel Matley's review was initially limited to Killian's signature on one of the Burkett documents, which he compared to signatures from the official Bush records. Matley "seemed fairly confident" that the signature was Killian's. On September 6, Matley was interviewed by Rather and Mapes and was provided with the other four documents obtained from CBS (he would prove to be the only reviewer to see these documents prior to the segment). Matley told Rather "he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies."[48] In the interview, Matley told Rather that with respect to the signatures, they were relying on "poor material" and that there were inconsistencies in the signatures, but also replied "Yes," when asked if it would be safe to say the documents were written by the person who signed them.[49]
  • Both Emily Will and Linda James suggested to Mapes that CBS contact typewriter expert Peter Tytell. Associate producer Yvonne Miller left him a voicemail on September 7; he returned the call at 11 am on September 8 but was told they "did not need him anymore."[50]

[edit] September 8 segment and initial reactions

The segment, entitled "For The Record," aired on 60 Minutes Wednesday on September 8.[51] After introducing the documents, Rather said, in reference to Matley, "We consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."[52]

The segment introduced Lieutenant Robert Strong's interview, describing him as a "friend of Killian" (without noting he had not worked in the same location and without mentioning he had left the TexANG prior to the dates on the memos). The segment used the sound bite of Strong saying the documents were compatible with how business was done but did not include a disclaimer that Strong was told to assume the documents were authentic.[53]

In Rather's narration about one of the memos, he referred to pressure being applied on Bush's behalf by General Buck Staudt, and described Staudt as "the man in charge of the Texas National Guard." Staudt had retired from the guard a year and a half prior to the dates of the memos.

Interview clips with Ben Barnes, former Speaker of the Texas House, created the impression "that there was no question but that President Bush had received Barnes' help to get into the TexANG," because Barnes had made a telephone call on Bush's behalf, when Barnes himself had acknowledged that there was no proof his call was the reason, and that "sometimes a call to General Rose did not work." Barnes' disclaimer was not included in the Segment.[54]

[edit] Internet skepticism spreads

Within hours of the segment, the authenticity of the documents was questioned by posters on Free Republic, a conservative Internet forum, and discussion quickly spread to various weblogs in the blogosphere, principally Little Green Footballs and Powerline.[55] The initial analysis appeared in posts by "Buckhead," a username of Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta attorney who had worked for conservative groups such as the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation and who had helped draft the petition to the Arkansas Supreme Court for the disbarment of President Bill Clinton.[56] MacDougald questioned the validity of the documents on the basis of their typography, writing that the memos were "in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman," and alleging that this was an anachronism: "I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively."[57]

By the following day, questions about the authenticity of the documents were being publicized by the Drudge Report, which linked to the analysis at the Powerline blog in the mid-afternoon,[58] and the story was covered on the website of the magazine The Weekly Standard[59][60] and broke into mass media outlets, including the Associated Press and the major television news networks. It also was receiving serious attention from conservative writers such as National Review Online's Jim Geraghty.[61] By the afternoon of September 9, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs had posted his attempt to recreate one of the documents using Microsoft Word with the default settings.[62] The September 9 edition of ABC's Nightline made mention of the controversy, along with an article on the ABC News website.[63] Although the CBS story is front-page news in the New York Times and Washington Post on September 9, and on two-thirds of a full page within USA Today's news section (which notes the newspaper has also obtained copies of the documents), "There is no discussion in the major news media about whether the memos are authentic."[12] CBS published the reaction of Killian's son, Gary, to the documents, reporting that Gary Killian questioned one of the memos but stated that others "appeared legitimate" and characterized the collection as "a mixture of truth and fiction".[64] In an interview with Fox News, Gary Killian expressed doubts about the documents' authenticity on the basis of his father's positive view of Bush.[65]

[edit] CBS's response and widening media coverage

At 5PM on Thursday, September 9th, CBS News released a statement saying the memos were "thoroughly investigated by independent experts, and we are convinced of their authenticity",[66] and stating, "this report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources,"[67] In an interview, CBS News spokesperson Kelli Edwards said, "CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written."[68] The statement was replaced later that day with one that omitted this claim.[69]

The first newspaper articles questioning the documents appeared on September 10 in The Washington Post,[66] The New York Times[70] and in USA Today via the Associated Press.[71] The Associated Press reported, "Document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines...said she was 'virtually certain' [the documents] were generated by computer. Lines said that meant she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer."[71]

Also on September 10, the Dallas Morning News reported "that the officer named in one memo as exerting pressure to "sugarcoat" Bush's military record was discharged a year and a half before the memo was written.[72] The paper cited a military record showing that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972, while the memo cited by CBS as showing that Staudt was interfering with evaluations of Bush was dated August 18, 1973."[73]

In response to the media attention, a CBS memo said the documents were "backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content" and insisted that no internal investigation would take place.[74] On the CBS Evening News, on September 10, Rather defended the story and noted that its critics included "partisan political operatives."[75]

  • In the broadcast, Rather stated Marcel Matley "analyzed the documents for CBS News. He believes they are real," and broadcast additional excerpts from Matley's September 6 interview showing Matley's agreement that the signatures appeared to be from the same source. Rather did not report that Matley had referred to them as "poor material", that he had only opined about the signatures, or that he had specifically not authenticated the documents.
  • Rather presented footage of the Strong interview, introducing it by stating Robert Strong "is standing by his judgment that the documents are real," despite Strong's lack of standing to authenticate them and his brief exposure to the documents.[75]
  • Rather concluded by stating, "If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none."[75][76]

In an appearance on CNN that day, Rather asserted "I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been."

However, within CBS, Josh Howard spoke at length on the telephone with typewriter expert Peter Tytell. Howard later told the Panel that the discussion was, "an 'unsettling event' that shook his belief in the authenticity of the documents." Producer Mapes dismissed Tytell's concerns.[77]

A former Vice President of CBS News, Jonathan Klein, dismissed the allegations of bloggers, suggesting that the "checks and balances" of a professional news organization were superior to individuals sitting at their home computers "in their pajamas."[78] In response, some conservative bloggers started to refer to themselves as Pajamahadeen.

[edit] CBS' defense, apology

As media coverage widened and intensified, CBS at first attempted to produce additional evidence to support its claims. On September 11, a CBS News Segment stated that document expert Phillip Bouffard thought the documents "could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer Typewriter, available at the time."[79][80] Bouffard's comments were also cited by the Boston Globe, in an article entitled, "Authenticity backed on Bush documents."[81] However the Globe soon printed a retraction regarding Bouffard's comments, as he believed his comments were misrepresented and he had expressed doubts,[82] not "backed authenticity."[83] CBS noted that although General Hodges was now stating he thought the documents were inauthentic, "we believed General Hodges the first time we spoke with him." CBS reiterated: "we believe the documents to be genuine."[79]

By September 13, CBS' position had shifted slightly, as Rather acknowledged "some of these questions come from people who are not active political partisans," and stated that CBS "talked to handwriting and document analysts and other experts who strongly insist the documents could have been created in the 70s,"(emphasis added)[84] The analysts and experts cited by Rather did not include the original four experts consulted by CBS. Rather instead presented the views of Bill Glennon and Richard Katz. Glennon, a former typewriter repairman with no specific credentials in typesetting beyond that job, was found by CBS after posting several defenses of the memos on blogs including Daily Kos and Kevin Drum's blog hosted at Washington Monthly.[85] However, in the actual broadcast, neither interviewee asserted that the memos were genuine.

As a result, some CBS critics begin to accuse CBS of expert shopping.[86]

[edit] 60 Minutes Wednesday, one week later

The original document examiners, however, continued to be part of the story. By September 15, Emily Will was publicly stating that she had told CBS that she had doubts about both the production of the memos and the handwriting prior to the segment, and in interviews, Linda James stated that the memos were of "very poor quality" and that she did not authenticate them,[87] telling ABC News, "I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it understood that I did."[46]

In response, 60 Minutes Wednesday released a statement suggesting that Will and James had "misrepresented" their role in the authentication of the documents and had played only a small part in the process.[88] CBS News concurrently amended their previous claim that Matley had authenticated the documents, saying instead he had only authenticated the signatures.[89] On CNN, Matley stated he had only verified that the signatures were "from the same source," not that they were authentically Killian's: "When I saw the documents, I could not verify the documents were authentic or inauthentic. I could only verify that the signatures came from the same source," Matley said. "I could not authenticate the documents themselves. But at the same time, there was nothing to tell me that they were not authentic."[87]

CBS interviewed Marian Carr Knox, a secretary at Ellington Air Force from 1956–1979 and Killian's assistant on the dates of the memos. Although Knox felt the memos reflected the truth about Bush's alleged service failures,[88] she also stated she did not type the memos, they were not written by Killian, and that she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time in the Guard.[90] Knox said, "The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones," she said. "I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another."[91] The New York Times' headline, including the phrase "Fake but Accurate," became a widely-used derisive comment from right-leaning critics of CBS.[92][93]

At this time, Dan Rather first acknowledged there were problems in establishing the validity of the documents used in the report, stating: "If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story."[94]

CBS also hired a private investigator to look into the matter after the story aired and the controversy began.[95]

Copies of the documents were first released to the public by the White House. Press Secretary Scott McClellan stated that the memos had been provided to them by CBS in the days prior to the report and that, "We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time."[96]

The Washington Post reported that at least one of the documents obtained by CBS had a fax header indicating it had been faxed from a Kinko's copy center in Abilene, Texas,[97] leading some to trace the documents back to Burkett.

[edit] CBS states that use of the documents was a mistake

As a growing number of independent document examiners and competing news outlets reported their findings about the documents, CBS News stopped defending the documents and began to report on the problems with their story. On September 20 they reported that their source, Bill Burkett, "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."[98] While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries, CBS News President Andrew Heyward said,

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[13][14]

Dan Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."[13]

In an interview with Dan Rather, Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS was unable to contact or identify as an actual person. Burkett said he then made copies at the local Kinko's and burned the original documents.[99][36]

On September 21, CBS News addressed the contact with the Kerry campaign in its statement: "It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda."[76] The next day the network announced it was forming an independent review panel to perform an internal investigation.

[edit] Review panel established

Dick Thornburgh, former governor of Pennsylvania and United States Attorney General, was named by CBS to investigate with Louis Boccardi the errors that led to the CBS report.

Soon after, CBS established a review panel "to help determine what errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken."[100] Dick Thornburgh, former governor of Pennsylvania and United States Attorney General under George H.W. Bush, and Louis Boccardi, retired president and chief executive officer and former executive editor of the Associated Press, made up the two-person review board. CBS also hired a private investigator, a former FBI agent named Erik T. Rigler, to gather further information about the story.[101]

[edit] Findings

On January 5, 2005, the Report of the Independent Review Panel on the September 8, 2004, 60 Minutes Wednesday Segment "For the Record" Concerning President Bush's Air National Guard Service was released.[102] The purpose of the panel was to examine the process by which the September 8 Segment was prepared and broadcast, to examine the circumstances surrounding the subsequent public statements and news reports by CBS News defending the segment, and to make any recommendations it deemed appropriate. Among the Panel's conclusions were the following:

The most serious defects in the reporting and production of the September 8 Segment were:
  1. The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;
  2. The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;
  3. The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;
  4. The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;
  5. The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files";
  6. The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;
  7. The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;
  8. The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;
  9. The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and
  10. The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry — a clear conflict of interest — that created the appearance of a political bias.
Once questions were raised about the September 8 Segment, the reporting thereafter was mishandled and compounded the damage done. Among the more egregious shortcomings during the Aftermath were:
  1. The strident defense of the September 8 Segment by CBS News without adequately probing whether any of the questions raised had merit;
  2. Allowing many of the same individuals who produced and vetted the by-then controversial September 8 Segment to also produce the follow-up news reports defending the Segment;
  3. The inaccurate press statements issued by CBS News after the broadcast of the Segment that the source of the documents was “unimpeachable” and that experts had vouched for their authenticity;
  4. The misleading stories defending the Segment that aired on the CBS Evening News after September 8 despite strong and multiple indications of serious flaws;
  5. The efforts by 60 Minutes Wednesday to find additional document examiners who would vouch for the authenticity of the documents instead of identifying the best examiners available regardless of whether they would support this position; and
  6. Preparing news stories that sought to support the Segment, instead of providing accurate and balanced coverage of a raging controversy.

[edit] Panel's view of the documents

The Panel did not undertake a thorough examination of the authenticity of the Killian documents, but consulted Peter Tytell, a New York City-based forensic document examiner and typewriter and typography expert. Tytell had been contacted by 60 Minutes producers prior to the broadcast, and had informed associate producer Yvonne Miller and executive producer Josh Howard on September 10 that he believed the documents were forgeries. The Panel report stated, "The Panel met with Peter Tytell, and found his analysis sound in terms of why he thought the documents were not authentic...The Panel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects."[103]

[edit] Aftermath

[edit] CBS personnel and programming changes

CBS terminated Mary Mapes and demanded the resignations of 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard and Howard's top deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy, as well as Senior Vice President Betsy West, who had been in charge of all prime time newscasts. Murphy and West resigned on February 25, 2005,[104] and after settling a legal dispute regarding his level of responsibility for the segment, Josh Howard resigned on March 25, 2005.[105]

Dan Rather also resigned as anchorman in 2005. It is unclear whether or not Rather's retirement was directly caused by this incident, although many believe that he had to step down a year earlier than planned.[106] Les Moonves, CEO of CBS, stated "Dan Rather has already apologized for the segment and taken responsibility for his part in the broadcast. He voluntarily moved to set a date to step down from the 'CBS Evening News' in March of 2005." He added, "We believe any further action would not be appropriate."[107]

CBS was originally planning to show a '60 Minutes' report critical of the Bush administration justification for going to war in Iraq. This segment was replaced with the Killian documents segment. CBS further postponed airing the Iraq segment until after the election due to the controversy over the Killian documents. "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election," CBS spokesman Kelli Edwards said in a statement.[108]

After the Killian documents controversy, the show was renamed 60 Minutes Wednesday to differentiate it from the original 60 Minutes Sunday edition, and reverted to its original title on July 8, 2005, when it was moved to the 8 p.m. Friday timeslot. It was cancelled in 2005 due to low ratings.

[edit] Mapes and Rather's view of the documents

On November 9, 2005, Mary Mapes gave an interview to ABC News correspondent Brian Ross. Mapes stated that the documents have never been proved to be forgeries. Ross expressed the view that the responsibility is on the reporter to verify their authenticity. Mapes responded with, "I don't think that's the standard." This stands in contrast to the statement of the president of CBS News that proof of authenticity is "the only acceptable journalistic standard." Also in November 2005, Mapes told readers of the Washington Post, "I personally believe the documents are not false," and "I was fired for airing a story that could not definitively be proved false but made CBS's public relations department cringe."[109] As of September 2007, Mapes continues to defend the authenticity of the documents: "the far right blogosphere bully boys...screamed objections that ultimately proved to have no basis in fact."[110]

On November 7, 2006, Rather defended the report in a radio interview, and rejected the CBS investigation's findings. In response, CBS spokesman Kevin Tedesco told the Associated Press, "CBS News stands by the report the independent panel issued on this matter and to this day, no one has been able to authenticate the documents in question."[111]

Dan Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has articulated that he believes that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries — and that even if the documents are false, that the underlying story is true.[112]

[edit] Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS/Viacom

On September 19, 2007, Dan Rather filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and its former corporate parent, Viacom, claiming they had made him a "scapegoat" over the controversy caused by the 2004 "60 Minutes Wednesday" report that featured the Killian documents.[113] The suit names as defendants: CBS and its CEO, Leslie Moonves; Viacom, Sumner Redstone, chairman of both Viacom and CBS Corporation; and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News.[114]

In January, 2008, the legal teams for Dan Rather and CBS reached an agreement to produce for Rather's attorneys "virtually all of the materials" related to the case, including the findings of Erik T. Rigler's report to CBS about the documents and the story.[115]

[edit] Authentication issues

Main article: Killian documents authenticity issues

No generally recognized document experts have positively authenticated the memos. Since CBS used only faxed and photocopied duplicates, authentication to professional standards is impossible, regardless of the provenance of the originals.

Document experts have challenged the authenticity of the documents as photocopies of valid originals on a variety of grounds ranging from anachronisms of their typography, their quick reproducibility using modern technology, and to errors in their content and style.[116]

Other commentators disagreed. Dr. David Hailey, director of the Interactive Media Research Labs in the English Department of Utah State University has argued that the Killian documents were produced on an unspecified typewriter, though he does not assert their authenticity.[117]

The CBS independent panel report did not specifically take up the question of whether the documents were forgeries, but retained a document expert, Peter Tytell, who concluded the documents used by CBS were most likely produced using modern technology.[118]

Tytell concluded ... that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle [and that] the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic.

[edit] Accusations of Bias

Some critics of CBS and Dan Rather argued that by proceeding with the story when the documents had not been authenticated, CBS was exhibiting liberal bias and attempting to influence the outcome of the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Freelance journalist Michael Smith had emailed Mapes, asking, "What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information?" Mapes replied, "that looks good, hypothetically speaking of course."[119] The Thornburgh-Boccardi report found that Mapes' contact with Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart was "highly inappropriate," and that it, "crossed the line as, at a minimum, it gave the appearance of a political bias and could have been perceived as a news organizations' assisting a campaign as opposed to reporting on a story,"[103] however, the Panel did not "find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the Segment of having a political bias."[120] In a later interview with The Washington Post, when asked about the issue of political bias, review panel member Louis Boccardi said "bias is a hard thing to prove."[121] The panel concluded that the problems occurred "primarily because of a rush to air that overwhelmed the proper application of the CBS News Standards."[122]

Some liberals and Democratic critics of the President suggested that the memos were produced by the Bush campaign to discredit the media's reporting on Bush's National Guard service: the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe, suggested that the memos might have originated with long-time Bush strategist, Karl Rove. McAuliffe told reporters on September 10, "I can tell you that nobody at the Democratic National Committee or groups associated with us were involved in any way with these documents," he said. "I'm just saying that I would ask Karl Rove the same question."[123][124] Two weeks later, McAuliffe suggested that GOP consultant Roger Stone and Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie were involved, saying in a press release, "Will Ed Gillespie or the White House admit today what they know about Mr. Stone's relationship with these forged documents? Will they unequivocally rule out Mr. Stone's involvement? Or for that matter, others with a known history of dirty tricks, such as Karl Rove or Ralph Reed?"[125][126] At a community forum in Utica, New York in 2005, U.S. representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) repeated the claim that the documents originated with Karl Rove.[127] No evidence was offered that the memos originated with the Bush campaign. Rove and Stone have denied any involvement.[128][129] In a 2008 interview in The New Yorker, Stone said "It was nuts to think I had anything to do with those documents...[t]hose papers were potentially devastating to George Bush. You couldn’t put them out there assuming that they would be discredited. You couldn’t have assumed that this would redound to Bush’s benefit. I believe in bank shots, but that one was too big a risk."[130]

[edit] See also

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ The name "Rathergate" is used by people who believe the superscripted "th" glyphs in the memos show that they were produced on a computer. For more information, see the companion article.
  2. ^ Two entitled "Memo to File," one "Memorandum," and one "Memorandum for Record," see here for pdf versions at the Washington Post website.
  3. ^ Dobbs, Michael and Howard Kurtz (September 14, 2004). ""Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers."". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2004Sep13?language=printer. Retrieved on 2008-03-14. 
  4. ^ Ross, Brian and Howard Rosenberg (September 14, 2004). ""Document Analysts: CBS News Ignored Doubts."". ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/Story?id=131423&page=1. Retrieved on 2008-03-14. 
  5. ^ "CBS ousts 4 over Bush Guard story.". Associated Press. January 10, 2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6807825/. Retrieved on 2008-03-14. : "Boccardi and Thornburgh found that Mapes had said the documents were authenticated, when in fact she had found only one expert to vouch for only one signature in the memo."
  6. ^ Including Peter Tytell and Thomas Phinney, as well as a self-proclaimed typography expert, Joseph Newcomer, with 35 years of computer font technology experience. See: Last, Jonathan. ""It's Worse Than You Thought". http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/124mrhci.asp?pg=1. Retrieved on 2008-03-10.  The Weekly Standard, January 11, 2005, and Cohen, Sandee. Making Headlines, Not Setting Them, creativepro.com, September 23, 2004.
  7. ^ Also, Bill Flynn, "one of country's top authorities on document authentication."""Officer's Widow Questions Bush Guard Memos."". ABC News. September 10, 2004. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/Story?id=123461&page=2. Retrieved on 2008-03-18.  and document expert Sandra Ramsey Lines: "'I'm virtually certain these were computer generated,'" ""Bush Guard Memos Questioned"". http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/10/politics/main642729.shtml. Retrieved on 2008-03-12.  CBS News, September 10, 2004
  8. ^ "Because the memos were copies, Matley said in a recent interview, "there's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them." Kurtz, Howard, et al., ""In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries."". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31727-2004Sep18_2.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-12.  The Washington Post, September 18, 2004. Marcel Matley was one of the four document examiners originally retained by CBS to examine the Killian documents.
  9. ^ Dave Moniz, Kevin Johnson and Jim Drinkard (September 21, 2004). ""CBS backs off Guard story"". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cover-guard_x.htm. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. 
  10. ^ TB report, p. 137.
  11. ^ TB report, p. 137: "This statement was without factual support...It is without question, however, that Matley [the expert referenced] did not authenticate any of the documents in question."
  12. ^ a b Memmot, Mark (September 21, 2004). "Scoops and skepticism: How the story unfolded."". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-guard-scoops-skepticism_x.htm. Retrieved on 2008-03-21. 
  13. ^ a b c d "Dan Rather Statement On Memos". CBS News. September 20, 2005. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  14. ^ a b "CBS Names Memo Probe Panel". CBS News. September 22, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  15. ^ "Thornburgh-Boccardi report" (PDF). CBS News. http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21. 
  16. ^ Burkett, Bill. ""What do you say?"". http://www.onlinejournal.com/bush/031903Burkett/031903burkett.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-12.  onlinejournal.com, March 19, 2003.
  17. ^ See Ripley, Amanda (September 13, 2004). ""The X Files Of Lt. Bush: A flurry of contested memos and memories sheds more heat than light on his record"". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040920-695873,00.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-25.  and Dobbs, Michael (September 12, 2004). ""Gaps in Service Continue to Dog Bush"". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14627-2004Sep11.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-25. 
  18. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 53.
  19. ^ Moniz, Dave; Drinkard, Jim; and Kevin Johnson (September 21, 2004). ""Texan has made allegations for years"". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-burkett-side_x.htm. Retrieved on 2008-03-13. 
  20. ^ Bill Burkett (March 19, 2003). "What do you say?". Online Journal. http://onlinejournal.com/bush/031903Burkett/031903burkett.html. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  21. ^ Michael Rezendes (February 13, 2004). "Doubts raised on Bush accuser". Boston Globe online. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/13/doubts_raised_on_bush_accuser?mode=PF. Retrieved on 2005-12-20. 
  22. ^ Robinson, Walter V. (December 11, 2005). "Truth and Duty: a distorted lens". The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/12/11/truth_and_duty_a_distorted_lens/?page=2. Retrieved on 2008-03-13. 
  23. ^ Johnson, Kevin; Moniz, Dave; and Jim Drinkard (September 20, 2004). "CBS arranged for meeting with Lockhart". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-20-cbs-documents_x.htm. Retrieved on 2008-03-14. 
  24. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 60–62
  25. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 64–65
  26. ^ Dave Moniz, Kevin Johnson and Jim Drinkard (September 21, 2004). "CBS backs off Guard story". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cover-guard_x.htm. Retrieved on 2008-03-14. 
  27. ^ [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml "New Questions on Bush Guard Duty"]. CBS News. September 8, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml. Retrieved on 2008-03-14. 
  28. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 90–91
  29. ^ Carl Cameron et al. (September 22, 2004). "Kerry Aide Talked to Bush Guard Docs Figure". FoxNews.com. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132996,00.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-14. 
  30. ^ "Memorandum, May 4, 1972" (PDF). http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-17. 
  31. ^ "Memorandum for Record, August 1, 1972" (PDF). http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-17. 
  32. ^ "Memo to File, May 19, 1972" (PDF). http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-17. 
  33. ^ "Memo to File, August 18, 1973" (PDF). http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-17. 
  34. ^ Moniz, Dave and Drinkard, Jim (2004-09-09). ""Guard commander's memos criticize Bush."". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-09-bush-guard-memos_x.htm. Retrieved on 2008-03-17. 
  35. ^ "Bush documents obtained by USA TODAY" (PDF). http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-17. 
  36. ^ a b Dave Moniz, Kevin Johnson and Jim Drinkard (September 21, 2004). "CBS backs off Guard story". USA TODAY. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cover-guard_x.htm. Retrieved on 2005-12-20. 
  37. ^ "Bush Guard Memos Questioned.". CBS News, Associated Press. September 10, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/10/politics/main642729.shtml. Retrieved on 2005-12-20. 
  38. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p.88
  39. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 129.
  40. ^ Michael Dobbs and Mike Allen (September 9, 2004). "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html. Retrieved on 2004-12-20. 
  41. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg 103
  42. ^ Ralph Blumenthal and Jim Rutenberg (September 12, 2004). "An Ex-Officer Now Believes Guard Memo Isn't Genuine". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/politics/campaign/12guard.html?ex=1135227600&en=70edb1f42aa3edfe&ei=5070. Retrieved on 2005-12-20.  Registration required.
  43. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg 12
  44. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp 84–86
  45. ^ a b Howard Kurtz, Michael Dobbs and James V. Grimaldi (September 19, 2004). "In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries."". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31727-2004Sep18_2.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-17. 
  46. ^ a b CBS/AP (September 15, 2004). "GOP Slams CBS on Bush Memos"". CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/politics/main643838.shtml. Retrieved on 2008-03-17. 
  47. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 86
  48. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp 98–99
  49. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg 101
  50. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 108–110
  51. ^ Transcript of CBS segment
  52. ^ David Folkenflik (September 13, 2004). "Rather's doubters unmoved"". The Baltimore Sun. http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bal-to.cbs13sep13,1,3810194.story?coll=bal-features-headlines. Retrieved on 2008-03-17. 
  53. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 128–129
  54. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg. 130
  55. ^ Howard Kurtz (2004-09-20). "After Blogs Got Hits, CBS Got a Black Eye". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34153-2004Sep19.html. 
  56. ^ "Nation & World: "Buckhead," who said CBS memos were forged, is a GOP-linked attorney". The Seattle Times. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002039080_buckhead18.html. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  57. ^ Wallsten, Peter (September 18, 2004). """Buckhead," who said CBS memos were forged, is a GOP-linked attorney"". The Seattle Times. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002039080_buckhead18.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-17. 
  58. ^ Grossman, Lev (December 19, 2004). ""Blogs have their day."". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/personoftheyear/2004/poyblogger.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. 
  59. ^ Hayes, Stephen F. (September 9, 2004). ""Is it a hoax?"". The Weekly Standard. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/596astgo.asp. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. 
  60. ^ Boehlert, Eric (September 10, 2004). "Swift Boat flacks attack CBS". Salon.com. http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/10/forgery/. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. 
  61. ^ Jim Geraghty (September 10, 2004). ""About that Bush document."". National Review Online. http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTFmODM3ZWI1MjY4NjQwNTdhMzg1MTE5NjJkNGMxMWY. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. 
  62. ^ Wallsten, Peter. "No disputing it, blogs are major players." LA Times, September 12, 2004. "”My Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as ‘authentic,’ “ Johnson wrote, posting images of his creation and the CBS document."
  63. ^ ""Officer's Widow Questions Bush Guard Documents"". ABC News. September 10, 2004. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=123461&page=1. Retrieved on 2008-03-19. 
  64. ^ "New Scrutiny Of Bush's Service". CBS News. September 9, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/10/politics/main642489.shtml. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  65. ^ Rosen, James (September 10, 2004). "FOX Interviews Commander's Son". http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132047,00.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-25. 
  66. ^ a b Michael Dobbs and Mike Allen (September 10, 2004). "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush". The Washington Post. p. A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. 
  67. ^ ""CBS Stands By Bush-Guard Memos"". CBS News. September 10, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/11/politics/main642787.shtml. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. 
  68. ^ Moore, Art (September 9, 2004). ""CBS News denies Bush docs forged."". WorldNetDaily. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40376. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. 
  69. ^ "The Note". ABC News. September 10, 2004. http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Sept1004.html. Retrieved on 2007-03-20. 
  70. ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. and Rutenberg, Jim (September 10, 2004). "Commander's Son Questions Memos on Bush's Service". http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/politics/campaign/10guard.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. 
  71. ^ a b Associated Press (September 10l 2004). ""Authenticity of new Bush military papers questioned."". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-10-bush-guard_x.htm. Retrieved on 2008-03-19. 
  72. ^ Slover, Pete (September 11, 2004). ""More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic"". Dallas Morning News, Seattle Times. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002032742_bushguard11.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-24. 
  73. ^ Kurtz, Howard (September 11, 2004). ""Rather Defends CBS Over Memos on Bush". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12809-2004Sep10.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-25. 
  74. ^ ""Bush Guard Memos Questioned"". CBS News. September 10, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/10/politics/main642729.shtml. Retrieved on 2008-03-12. 
  75. ^ a b c "CBS Evening News Transcript" (PDF). CBS News. September 10, 2004. http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1D.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  76. ^ a b "A Look Back At The Controversy". CBS News. January 11, 2005. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665817.shtml. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  77. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg 174
  78. ^ Last, Jonathan (September 27, 2004). ""What Blogs Have Wrought"". The Weekly Standard. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/640pgolk.asp?pg=2. Retrieved on 2008-03-20. 
  79. ^ a b "CBS Evening News Transcript" (PDF). CBS News. September 11, 2004. http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1E.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  80. ^ "Further scrutiny lessens doubts on Bush memos / Some skeptics now say IBM typewriter could have been used". San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68NEKR1.DTL. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  81. ^ "Authenticity backed on Bush documents". The Boston Globe, September 11, 2004.. http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents/. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
  82. ^ [http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000838.php INDCJournal: (UPDATED: "At Least" 90% Positive They're Fake) Are the CBS National Guard Documents Fake?]
  83. ^ Globe repudiates title of September 11 article."For the Record". The Boston Globe, September 15, 2004. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/15/for_the_record/. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
  84. ^ "CBS Evening News Transcript" (PDF). CBS News. September 13, 2004. http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1F.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  85. ^ Kevin Drum (September 10, 2004). "Killian Memo Update". Washington Monthly. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004669.php#261559. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  86. ^ Emery, Noemie (September 21, 2004). ""Dear Mr. Rather,"". The Weekly Standard. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/660naguj.asp. Retrieved on 2008-03-24. 
  87. ^ a b "CBS' experts say they didn't authenticate Bush memos". CNN. September 15, 2004. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/bush.guard.memos/index.html. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  88. ^ a b "CBS News affirms its intention to continue to report all aspects of the story" (PDF). CBS News. September 15, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  89. ^ "CBS Defends Bush Memos". CBS News. September 15, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/politics/main643541.shtml. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  90. ^ Robert Crowe and Julie Mason (September 15, 2004). "Ex-staffer: Bush records are fake; Secretary to military officer says she never typed the memos". The Houston Chronicle: p. A7. 
  91. ^ Maureen Balleza and Kate Zernike (September 15, 2004). ""Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says"". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html?ex=1095912000&en=3f67b230dff29e57&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1. Retrieved on 2008-03-24. 
  92. ^ ""The fake but accurate media."". The Weekly Standard. September 27, 2004. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/634lbcgo.asp. Retrieved on 2008-03-24. 
  93. ^ Taranto, James (September 15, 2004). ""All the News that's Fake but Accurate."". The Wall Street Journal Online. http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005624. Retrieved on 2008-03-15. 
  94. ^ Kurtz, Howard (September 16, 2004). "Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect; CBS Anchor Urges Media to Focus On Bush Service". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-25. 
  95. ^ Hagan, Joe (February 27, 2005). "CBS News' Boss Hired Private Eye To Source Memos". The New York Observer. http://www.observer.com/node/50441. Retrieved on 2008-03-24. 
  96. ^ Scott McClellan briefing, September 15, 2004, at [1]
  97. ^ "CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's". The Washington Post. September 15, 2004. p. A06. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  98. ^ Rutenberg, Jim and Prendergast, Mark J. (September 20, 2004). ""CBS Asserts It Was Misled by Ex-Officer on Bush Documents"". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20CND-GUAR.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin. Retrieved on 2008-03-25. 
  99. ^ "CBS Statement On Bush Memos". CBS News. September 20, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644539.shtml. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  100. ^ "CBS News Statement On Panel". CBS News. September 22, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/22/politics/main644969.shtml. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  101. ^ Hagen, Joe (March 13, 2005). "Dan Rather's Long Goodbye: Who Done It?". The New York Observer. http://www.observer.com/node/50507. Retrieved on 2008-03-24. 
  102. ^ Dick Thornburgh and Louis D. Boccardi, Review of the Independent Review Panel. CBS News: January 5, 2005
  103. ^ a b Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg. 175
  104. ^ Jacques Steinberg (February 26, 2005). "2 Involved in Flawed Report at CBS Resign". The New York Times: p. B18. 
  105. ^ "Final Figure in '60 Minutes' Scandal Resigns". The Associated Press. March 25, 2005. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151180,00.html. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  106. ^ "Who killed Dan Rather?". Salon.com. March 9, 2005. http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/03/09/rather/index.html. Retrieved on 2007-03-23. 
  107. ^ Carter, Bill (January 11, 2005). ""Analysis: Post-Mortem of CBS's Flawed Broadcast"". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/business/media/11network.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=36f0636021244f73&hp&ex=1105506000&partner=homepage. Retrieved on 2008-03-24. 
  108. ^ Zernike, Kate (2004-09-25). "'60 Minutes' Delays Report Questioning Reasons for Iraq War". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/politics/campaign/25cbs.html?ex=1253851200&en=5c69abd689bb79d5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt. Retrieved on 2007-09-20. 
  109. ^ ""Final Days at "60 Minutes"". The Washington Post. November 11, 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/10/DI2005111001414.html?nav=nsc. Retrieved on 2008-03-25. 
  110. ^ Mapes, Mary (2007-09-20). "Courage for Dan Rather". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-mapes/courage-for-dan-rather_b_65257.html. Retrieved on 2008-01-22. 
  111. ^ Baker, Mike (2006-11-07). "Rather defends discredited 60 Minutes segment in radio interview". AP. http://www.heraldsun.com/state/6-785989.html. Retrieved on 2006-11-10. 
  112. ^ "Transcript of WPTF interview with Dan Rather". The News & Observer. http://www.newsobserver.com/308/story/507427.html. Retrieved on 2006-11-09. 
  113. ^ [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20874051 ""Rather files $70 million lawsuit against CBS Newsman alleges network made him ‘scapegoat’ for discredited story""]. Associated Press. September 20, 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20874051. Retrieved on 2008-03-24. 
  114. ^ A PDF copy of the suit can be found on at [2].
  115. ^ Gilette, Felix (January 23, 2008). ""CBS Agrees to Hand Over 'Rigler Report' to Rather's Legal Team"". The New York Observer. http://www.observer.com/2008/cbs-agrees-hand-over-rigler-report-rathers-legal-team. Retrieved on 2008-03-24. 
  116. ^ Kurtz, Howard Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags' Washington Post Accessed April 2006
  117. ^ David Hailey, PhD. "The Second of Two Examinations of the "Killian Memos"". http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/index.htm. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  118. ^ "Thornburg-Boccardi Report, Appendix 4" (PDF). CBS News. http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21. 
  119. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg. 62
  120. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi Report, pg. 211
  121. ^ The Washington Post, January 11, 2005; Page A01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2148-2005Jan11.html
  122. ^ Thornburgh-Boccardi Report, pg. 221
  123. ^ Noelle Straub (September 11, 2004). "CBS; Guard memos are authentic; Dems rip Bush's service". The Boston Herald: p. 10. 
  124. ^ Robert Sam Anson (September 20, 2004). "Who Is Buckhead? Kerry Assaulter Seemed Prepped". New York Observer: p. 1.  via Lexis/Nexis
  125. ^ Matthew Continetti (October 4, 2004). "The Case of the Phony Memos". The Weekly Standard.  via Lexis/Nexis
  126. ^ Stephen Dinan and Bill Sammon (September 22, 2004). "Kerry camp rejects CBS link". The Washington Times: p. A01. http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040922-122835-2135r.htm. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  127. ^ "Opinion Journal Best of the Web". February 23, 2005. http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006331. Retrieved on 2006-03-20. 
  128. ^ "Rove rejects charges he was CBS source". The Washington Times. September 22, 2004. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040922-101433-4296r.htm. Retrieved on 2005-12-21. 
  129. ^ "Parties lob accusations over suspect papers". USA Today. September 21, 2004. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cbs-parties_x.htm. Retrieved on 2005-12-21. 
  130. ^ Toobin, Jeffrey (June 2, 2008). ""The Dirty Trickster"". The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all. Retrieved on 2008-06-14. 

[edit] External links

[edit] Killian documents .PDF files

[edit] 60 Minutes II, September 8 transcript

[edit] Statements of the CBS document examiners

[edit] The Thornburgh-Boccardi Report

[edit] Document analysis

[edit] Overview Timeline at USA Today

[edit] Further reading

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy"
Personal tools
Languages