« Sen. Kerry's kid sister, useful fool of terrorists, warns Australia against keeping faith with America | Main | NYT: CBS News to crater on Rathergate — "Too flawed to have gone on the air" »
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Newsweek sez Rathergate source received memos "anonymously through the mail"
Newsweek's Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff, and Anne Belli Gesalman serve up this report on the possible source of the forged Killian memos, and what may turn out to be suspected source Bill Burkett's "defense" to suggestions that he himself may have forged them (boldface added; hat-tip InstaPundit):
Emily Will, a documents expert approached by CBS to examine the memos, told NEWSWEEK that she was told by a CBS News producer that the network's source had received the memos anonymously through the mail. Intense scrutiny has centered on the role of William Burkett, a former National Guard official who charged last February that he saw Bush Guard documents in a trash can in 1997 — an allegation that Guard officials strongly denied. A source who worked with CBS on the story said Burkett was identified by a producer as a conduit for the documents. Three days before the broadcast, Burkett e-mailed a friend that there was "a real heavy situation regarding Bush's records" about to break. "He was having a lot of fun with this," said the friend, Dennis Adams. Burkett told a visitor that after the story ran, Rather phoned him and expressed his and the network's "full support."
A prudent news producer, having retained a document authentication expert and wishing to acquaint her with background information to help her assess certain documents' authenticity, should certainly have passed along this sort of information — as a red flag to emphasize the degree of skepticism the expert should employ. But thus does initial prudence (since abandoned) become, after the fact, an admission against interest on the part of the unnamed CBS News producer.
Multiple-hearsay problems aside, if Burkett in fact told CBS News that the documents mysteriously appeared in his mailbox, then is Burkett's mailbox Dan Rather's "unimpeachable source"? Is the mailbox of a noted crank an especially credible mailbox? What exactly then would an "impeachable source" be in Dan Rather's estimation — the ghost of Julius Caesar communicating with Mr. Burkett in a séance?
We grieve along with Mr. Burkett if, as he told an unidentified journalist per Newsweek's report, "since he began speaking out, unnamed assailants [have] killed his dog" — but we must wonder if that happened before or after said dog ate Mr. Burkett's homework.
Newsweek also reports these disappointing half-measures within CBS News:
While CBS News president Andrew Heyward has publicly backed Rather, the network has quietly assembled a team of additional producers to work the case. Rather is privately telling colleagues he remains "confident" that the story, and the memos, will be vindicated.
Kudos for the "team of additional producers"; jeers for letting Rather and his original team remain involved in any way.
Posted by Beldar at 04:14 PM in Mainstream Media, Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Newsweek sez Rathergate source received memos "anonymously through the mail" and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
» C BS. C BS Run. Run, C BS, Run (Part 8) from Les Jones Blog
Tracked on Sep 19, 2004 10:43:09 PM
» CBS Close to an Admission (of being misled) from bLogicus
Tracked on Sep 20, 2004 12:35:56 AM
Comments
(1) The Raving Atheist made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 4:43:54 PM | Permalink
If they were mailed then presumably there's a postmark. I have to assume that CBS asked to see the envelope, given that they knew it was anonymously sent. I wouldn't be surprised if Burkett drove to somewhere down near the TANG offices and mailed it to himself.
(2) Beldar made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 5:09:35 PM | Permalink
Of course the only reason Burkett's claims last spring of seeing the "document destruction" had any credibility was that he had access to Texas Air National Guard offices where that supposedly happened. The vigorous denials from all he fingered then, or offered as his supporting witnesses, plus the fact that no personnel records were stored in those offices, combined to debunk those claims even to the satisfaction of the mainstream media.
Thus, by the time he was in contact with CBS News on the Killian forgeries, Burkett's only arguable connection to Bush's service, or records about them, was as a discredited crank. Why would a legitimate source choose to mail documents anonymously to him, rather than, say, directly to CBS News?
CBS News certainly should have insisted on examining the mailing envelope, I agree. If they didn't, and it's no longer available for inspection, I suspect that Mr. Burkett will claim that he'd already discarded it. (Perhaps his poor dog ate that too.) Whether the "anonymous mailer" assertion if it pans out, and I stress that at this point it's just an interesting lead that needs further exploration ultimately succeeds in saving Mr. Burkett from being believed to himself be the forger, it nonetheless further damns CBS News.
(3) A Comment made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 5:20:10 PM | Permalink
So the authoritative basis for the memoranda is less authoritative than professed.
Makes me wonder if:
1. CBS thought that everyone who counted (other news agencies) would choose to concentrate on the negative allegations in the 60 Minutes II story and shunt any question about the documents to the side at least for the time being.
2. That, in the event anyone did question the authenticity of the documents, the prestige of CBS as a news organization would (at least temporarily) override objections as well as that the basis for some of the documents is in fact (1LT Bush was grounded for not taking a flight medical).
3. That anybody who did follow through in questioning the documents authenticity could be shrugged off as partisan operatives from the Bush camp, RNC, or shadowy covert operatives, like the SBVFT.
4. That by the time a serious review of the documents was done, the other media would be kind of locked into having followed CBS's lead, and the election would be over (with hopefully a Kerry win).
5. There would be relatively minor repercussions from the story, given past history and the presence of (I may have this wrong) Sullivan vs New York Times which would make a lawsuit (say by Bush, since the Killians don't count) would be difficult, time consuming, costly, and hardly worth the trouble since it wouldn't change election results.
That the blogosphere brought the authenticity of the documents into immediate focus in a understandable fashion must have weighed on the decision of other MSM to take a critical look at what CBS alleged and what their proof was. While other editors and reporters might not like to see Bush win over Kerry, they also have to decide on what they are staking their reputations. If the memoranda had been "over the top" but plausibly from that time period (1972-1973) probably they would have gone along with CBS. But given the discrepancies, they probably had to sit down and seriously think about what they were going to do about it.
(4) The Raving Atheist made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 5:33:53 PM | Permalink
Why would a legitimate source choose to mail documents anonymously to him, rather than, say, directly to CBS News?
Ah -- but he's NOT a "discredited crank," in the eyes of the Rather wing of the MSM. Remember, even according to WaPo, (and even as of last Friday) Burkett is a "Well-Regarded Texan" whose lawyer is that connected Van Os guy. And according to Newsweek, "Burkett told a visitor that after the story ran, Rather phoned him and expressed his and the network's 'full support.'" So it's not suprising that Rather would think than only unimpeachable world-class anonymous mailers would associate with Burkett -- especially since Rather thinks that former typewriter repairmen are more credible than certified forensic document examiners.
(5) stevesturm made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 5:35:49 PM | Permalink
I don't think Burkett was the source. At least not CBS's source. Here's my thinking
(6) The Raving Atheist made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 5:40:29 PM | Permalink
And remember, Rather's primary on-camera source is Ben Barnes, who pretendds that he decided to tell the "truth" only after a recent tearful visit to the Vietnam Memorial (even though he told the exact same story five years ago). And whose own daughter is now calling him a liar.
(7) Jumbo made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 5:49:08 PM | Permalink
Excuse me, but haven't the high priests of the Cult of Big Media pontifivated for years that one way to insure that something NEVER sees the light of day is to pass it "over the transom"? That they absolutely MUST know the sourcing of an item (to protect against fraud and set-ups, don't you know), but that they'll protect the source unto death?
Although I DO believe that CBS was overjoyed to have a document which , however fraudulent, provided them a pretext to report what they were already dying to say,I don't for a minute buy that they didn't know where the docs came from.
Besides,hasn't CBS done everything in its power to convince the world that no one should rely on anything they report ever again?
(8) MaDr made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 5:56:19 PM | Permalink
To believe the documents were anonymously mailed to CBS, one would have to throw out the Kinko's fax of 9-02 6:41PM. Could these documents have been faxed from Kinko's to someone else who then mailed them anonymously to CBS? Not for arrival on 9-03 when Mapes told Howard - "we've got them". Maybe CBS did receive the documents anonymously earlier, and after running them by Burkett for "content authentication", they were faxed from Kinko's. But if that's true why weren't James and Will contacted before 9-03 to have them on standby? Also, couldn't an overnight delivery or courier have ensured that the documents shown to Strong on 9-05 weren't Kinko's faxes?
If the documents were indeed anonymously sent, how could they ever accurately be characterized as from an "unimpeachable source"? Could Mapes have misled Will to avoid the sticky issue or confidentiality of the source, or as Beldar suggested "as a red flag to emphasize the degree of skepticism the expert should employ." and protect the confidentiality of the source?
I guess it's possible that CBS did receive the memos anonymously. Can't run with these without something to base them on. How 'bout that old crank Burkett? Maybe we can verify them through him. If he could fax us documents in his possession and they match ours, then we'd have some proof. Mapes didn't know when Burkett would respond much less whether he could provide copies of the same docs - so Will and James were not put on standby. This still doesn't clear up why Strong saw the Kinko's "stamp". Why couldn't he have been shown the presumably better quality, non-faxed anonymous memos?
(9) Steven Jens made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 8:29:43 PM | Permalink
If Burkett received the documents by mail, did he get hard-copies, or were they on a floppy disk?
(10) J_Crater made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 8:53:16 PM | Permalink
Drudge reporting that Dan will interview Bill Burkett on CBS this week.
Heading into the farse phase of RatherGate.
(11) dennisw made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 9:03:22 PM | Permalink
This proves the MSM can actually investigate. That they have the resources. Too bad they're too brainwashed to give the Swift Vets such extravagant coverage. How come they're too lame to demand John Kerry's medical records and the "war hero's" military records?
(12) The Raving Atheist made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 9:10:08 PM | Permalink
I hope someone takes DNA samples of "Dan Rather" and "Bill Burkett" on the upcoming CBS interviews so were can check that they're not imposters.
(13) MaDr made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 9:15:45 PM | Permalink
With blabbering Burkett wheeled into the spotlight, regardless of his role, what excuse will the MSM have for not fully exposing his history/background? I'm sure most, as will Rather, use him as an opportunity to re-introduce all the previously discredited smears against Bush. Since CBS is announcing Burkett's appearance ahead of time, the MSM can just write their pieces now, correct as necessary on Wed evening, and mail 'em in.
(14) The Raving Atheist made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 10:03:23 PM | Permalink
From the way CBS has been grumbling about the Freepers (according to RatherBiased.com), I suspect Rather will use the Burkett interview to engage in speculation about where the "mystery" package of documents came from.
Burkett: "I lost the envelope, Dan, but it was postmarked from North Carolina."
Voiceover: "The lawyer formerly known as 'Buckhead' lives in North Carolina."
(15) Rick made the following comment | Sep 19, 2004 10:56:26 PM | Permalink
Dead dog, huh? Well, red state and blue state America are even--remember Kathleen Wiley's late cat?
Cordially...
(16) Heavy B made the following comment | Sep 20, 2004 2:19:02 AM | Permalink
For cult fans of "The Princess Bride"...
Dan "Vezzini" Rather: Unimpeachable!
Inigo the Blogger: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
(17) Heavy B made the following comment | Sep 20, 2004 2:20:44 AM | Permalink
For cult fans of "The Princess Bride"...
Dan "Vezzini" Rather: Unimpeachable!
Inigo the Blogger: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
(18) Heavy B made the following comment | Sep 20, 2004 2:21:11 AM | Permalink
For cult fans of "The Princess Bride"...
Dan "Vezzini" Rather: Unimpeachable!
Inigo the Blogger: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
(20) GoMax made the following comment | Sep 20, 2004 2:07:24 PM | Permalink
Why isn't more made of Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes ADMITTING to pulling strings for people? The arrogance of that guy sitting on TV blasting some 20 year old kid for accepting his help is just amazing.
And Dan Rather isn't even taken back by this guy pretty much admitting that he did this for hundreds of people.
Perhaps its obvious that Barnes is lying about everything, but it helps the story. Who knows?
(21) GoMax made the following comment | Sep 20, 2004 2:22:17 PM | Permalink
Ben Barnes is one of eight who have actually given and/or raised more than $500,000 for the DNC. Maybe Ben thought if he did this interview for CBS then he wouldn't have to beg people for more money.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/politics/main624711.shtml
The comments to this entry are closed.
