CBS Statement: Read between the lines

[RevCheesehead]

Most of the stories about CBS have been redacted by other sources, such as AP. I decided to read THE STATEMENT ITSELF from CBS:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644539.shtml

"Bill Burkett, in a weekend interview with CBS News Anchor and Correspondent Dan Rather, has acknowledged that he provided the now-disputed documents used in the Sept. 8 "60 Minutes Wednesday" report on President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard.

"Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, also 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.

"Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former Guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point. Burkett’s interview will be featured in a full report on tonight’s CBS Evening News with Dan Rather (6:30-7:00 p.m., ET/PT)."

>snip<

"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. Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust.”

*************************

The real question here is where did Burkett get these documents? Who is the confidential source?

Nowhere does CBS acknowledge these documents are forgeries. That claim is coming from the White House spin. CBS only acknowledges that they should not have gone ahead with the story without verification of the source of the documents.

[liberal N proud]

1. Carl Rove????? n/t

[RevCheesehead]

3. The documents have NOT BEEN PROVEN TO BE FORGERIES.

The question is the source. And notice that the WH has never claimed these documents were forgeries. That came from Buckhead.

[KingofRock]

5. Why would a Democrat pass along forgeries for Rove?

[newsguyatl]

2. you're exactly right

so, just as was the case with the original reporting on this, the real meat of the story is being ignored. and dimson once again is protected.

[KingofRock]

4. What do you expect them to say?

We are a bunch of morons and we used forgeries. If you really want to "read between the lines" thats what you would get.

[Nashyra]

7. CBS has stated that "they would not have aired the story in the

"SAME MANNER" read that they do not say they would not have aired the story at all, get ready IMHO for the CBS people to come out with a story about the content of the memos and the missing documents or verification to in fact prove that * did serve in Alabama or that he served honorably.

[RevCheesehead]

10. BINGO. This story ain't over.

[Nederland]

6. Oh please give it up

This story is something we want to die, not live another week.

[Sparkle]

11. Yeah, we should give it up but I still want someone to

provide evidence that these documents are forged. I want a confession. Will Burkett confess tonight?

[Nederland]

15. You have it backwards

Its wrong to think that a news organization should assume a document is authentic until proven a forgery. Any journalist worth their salt assumes that any source is questionable until proven accurate. By failing to catch what took the blogs about 15 minutes to see, CBS screwed up royally and possibly screwed us in the process. I'm just hoping this story dies before Rove finds a way to like it to Kerry.

[RevCheesehead]

18. wait a minute....

the signatures were verified as authentic, no?
the secretary verified the content, no?
the meat of the story itself is correct, no?
CBS was assured of the authenticity of the docs from Burkett, no?
the spin from the right began the q of forgery, no?

CBS's statement never admitted the docs were forgeries, despite what McClellum says.

I am waiting for Dan's interview tonight to hopefully clarify the source of the documents.

[ClassWarrior]

22. The only conclusive way to prove they are forgeries...

...is by proving the contents false. Prove it.

23.

[theboss]

30. That's just silly

I think the content is largely true. But if they were written three months ago, they are still forgeries.

[RevCheesehead]

34. where do you get that? ("written 3 months ago")

[theboss]

36. I'm saying if they were recently written, they are fakes

The content may very well be true, but if the document is a fake, the story is dead.

[InLoveWithLegolas]

43. Hold the Phone!

I may be a low number poster, but I'm no idiot.

The whole point of forging something is to pass it off as real.

To say that if the "contents" of the forgery are true it's not a forgery is ridiculous!

I could make money that contains all the required "contents" of a legitimate bill, but it won't keep me out of prison when I get convicted of counterfeiting!

I really think we need to stop focusing on anything having to do with the Vietnam era. Most people I talk to are far more interested in what is going on NOW!!!

The rest is just a distraction and it doesn't further the cause of change.

[jarab]

44. Welcome, InLoveWithLegolas !!

...O...

[Nederland]

27. wait a second

CBS says they cannot prove the authenticity of documents. If you can't prove the authenticy of something, you shouldn't use it in a news piece. That's just basic journalism, and CBS failed to apply it in this story.

[sonicx]

17. Us discussing it won't keep it alive.

It will die when CBS and the media stop reporting it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. ANY independent media is now dead

get over it and move on

[Blue_Roses]

9. Yeah and look at the difference already in how the media is spinning it

Check out how Yahoo tried to mesh Kerry in this crap:

" "CBS is now for the first time publicly acknowledging that the documents were likely forged and they came from a discredited source," McClellan said. "There are a number of serious questions that remain unanswered and they need to be answered. Bill Burkett, who CBS now says is their source, in fact is not an unimpeachable source as was previously claimed. Bill Burkett is a source who has been discredited and so this raises a lot of questions. There were media reports about Mr. Burkett having senior level contacts with the Kerry campaign."

Kerry has not even touched this story!


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=4&u=/ap/20040920/ap_on_el_pr/bush_guard_questions


GOD, people get a fucking clue!!!!! Why can't people see Karl Rove's smary little fat fingers all over this!!! EXPOSE THE LITTLE FAT FUCK!!!!

[PROGRESSIVE1]

12. Because the "librul" media is owned by Corporate Repugs.

:grr:

[RevCheesehead]

13. a technicality: it was not YAHOO, but AP who meshed the two together.

That's why I got suspicious in the first place. I had an EXCELLENT professor in college who insisted that we rely on PRIMARY SOURCES for information, and only then, refer to the secondary sources.

People usually cannot distinguish commentary from statement. I think that's the failure of the media today. For clarity, AP should have said "the white house spokesperson, when asked for comment, replied.."

[Blue_Roses]

16. I know and see how it can happen

to the discredit of a man who didn't have a damn thing to do with this? Rove at it again. He got tired fo the swiftboaties so now he's on to Dan. Dan unfortunately took the bait.:(

[hexola]

14. They cant authenticate the memos...ever.

Even if the next person is exposed and fesses...then what do we have...that wont add any cred to this...

As longs as all they (CBS) have are Xeroxes - you cant prove anything about these documents...real or fake.

[jumpstart33]

19. "Unable to authenticate" is a far cry from "forgeries."

Burkett has to tell the whole truth before they wipe him out. I hope he has a sealed envelop somewhere. He outhg to realize that the only thing that will save face for him is to come forth with the whole truth.

[hexola]

21. More than that...

Burketts source needs to be outed (the implication was Burkett was protecting a source)...they will have more answers than Burkett...

[michigandem2]

20. they are unable to authenticate..but also unable to prove tehy

are forgeries...they can't prove anything...

[AmyStrange]

23. and notice the WH hasn't called the contents of the memos lies...

that's the significant thing to me. They are afraid to in case the authentic docs show up.

Also remember the deadline the court imposed on releasing ALL of the docs by this Friday to the AP who sued for them under the FOIA,

d

[KayLaw]

24. This is wrong

No, Rather should have held off on the story or reported it a different way, but he was misled not only by Burkett, but the White House who told him the documents were authentic.

The Kitty Kelly book was coming out with all this information, anyway, so no Democrat had anything to gain from this stunt.

Now John Kerry is being hurt, though he is a complete innocent. The heat is off Bush and the focus put on documents and Dan Rather.

I think the Democrats should ask for an investigation. We need to find out who gave the documents to Burkett and how MacDougald knew and posted so much complicated data with a few hours of show's airing. I'd also like to know why Cox was denied his investigation.

I don't think whoever is behind all this should get away with it.

[RevCheesehead]

25. I don't recall the WH authenticating anything.

Do you have another source?

My understanding is that the WH said they had no recollection of any such documents. Then CBS faxed copies to them. The best I can remember is * saying "I don't recall ever having seen those documents before."

Why would he? They were in a CYA file.

[KayLaw]

45. Here's a link

It was Dan Bartlett.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&destination=register&nextstep=gather&application=reg30-politics&applicationURL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31727-2004Sep18.html

If this doesnt' work, just do a Google search. It was Howard Kurtz's column in the WaPo.

[RevCheesehead]

26. CNN is now claiming docs are forged.

Their leading teaser for Wolfie just announced:

Coming up - how CBS was duped into airing false documents.

DO YOU SEE THE SPIN??????????????????

on edit:
and is it any coincidence that Wolf's report will run concurrently with Dan Rather's report???????????????

[Protected]

28. Come on, it's time to let this go

Dan Rather: Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically.

There's no reading between the lines. CBS screwed up in a mega fashion and now it's time for Kerry and the DNC to distance themselves as far as possible from this mess. The right wing blogs will be working overtime to link Kerry up with this garbage and I hope Kerry's staff will strike that down before it happens.

[RevCheesehead]

29. Sorry, I don't agree: - read the rest of his statement:

"Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-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."
*********
misled on how the source got the papers
would not have gone ahead with story AS IT WAS AIRED

Nowhere does anyone, Dan or CBS, acknowledge these documents are forgeries. More importantly, the content has never been proven to be wrong - from Dan, CBS, or THE WHITE HOUSE. Dan is saying if he knew there were Q's about the source, he would have held off on the story.

[theboss]

31. Nowhere are they saying that they stand by the story however

To me, that's the real sign that CBS is starting to panic. Unless Rather pulls a big rabbit out of his hat tonight, CBS is going to be viewed as having zero credibility for a long time.

[AmyStrange]

35. and nowhere has the WH said the story is a lie...

they're too afraid real docs will show up.

Remember this Friday is the deadline for the WH to release ALL docs as ordered by a judge in the AP FOIA suit,

d

[hexola]

38. They dont have to...

This will spin with the average American as if the ENITRE story is false and not just he memos...

We have just forfeited the entire TANG controversy...IMO

[AmyStrange]

40. until the authentic docs show up they don't...

remember this friday is the deadline for the WH to release ALL the docs per a judge's order via AP FOIA suit,

d

[AmyStrange]

32. He would have aired the story...

and had the secretary on to authenticate the contents and at the same time bring up the questions about their authenticity of them to CYA,

I wonder how that would have been spun by the RW,

d

[Protected]

33. ????

Not going ahead with the story "as it was aired" probably means that Dan Rather wishes that he didn't use these documents and simply aired more of the Ben Barnes interview.

Who cares about the content of the memos or the rest of the segment now? A significant amount of doubt has been cast over the authenticity of the documents so it doesn't matter whether the content is accurate or not. People aren't going to believe it.

[AmyStrange]

37. or maybe having the secretary on...

at the same time they aired the doc to show atleast the contents is true,

d

[RevCheesehead]

39. But that's the same argument the Swifties use

who cares if the story is true or not? Just cast doubt, and move on.

Look, my entire point of starting this post was to point out that the AP reporting of the CBS statement had its own interpretation. And networks like CNN have taken that as their starting point, and are now reporting about "the alleged forgeries."

If you go to CBS.com and read the statement, and Rather's statement, you cannot arrive at these conclusions. You may have your suspicions, but you cannot prove forgery. Reasonable doubt? Sure. But you can't prove forgery.

[Protected]

41. The story was a "mistake" as CBS said.

CBS News has thrown their hands up and said that they can't prove that the memos are authentic. The simple fact remains that CBS News was all giddy when Dan Bartlett didn't question the memos so the segment went to air without enough fact checking.

Does that automatically make them forgeries? No, it doesn't, but the lack of authenticity of the memos blows a huge hole in the reporting of the story, even if the story itself is true.

[RevCheesehead]

42. just to parse it further:

It's not the content
It's not the authenticity

It IS the source
and it is the timing of the report

Should they have waited? Sure
Did they err in reporting too soon? Apparently so

Do we know the complete story, and is this the end of it? No.