Why was our national broadcaster so keen to get taken in by a likely fraud (likely to be exposed as such despite the protestations of a Rather biased fellow)? When and how will they begin to retract their unambiguous presentation of the story as hard news? Why did they imply at the beginning of their smearticle that the documents came from the Whitehouse (‘The documents released by the White House show the suspension also resulted from his failure to take his annual medical test as required.’) when the Whitehouse was just passing on what had been passed to them, as the Beeb smearticle notes in its third from last paragraph?
John Podhoretz explains the controversy and how the accusatory evidence against Bush is unravelling online, and suggests why certain people were such suckers for this one. I am reminded just how reluctant and slow the BBC were to report the SwiftVet allegations until long after it was being reported by ‘respectable’ (I use the term advisedly) outlets.
Update: Take it away, Mr Steyn.
I was puzzled as to why the 10 ‘o ‘clock news carried a long winded interview with the father and other relation of a terrorist suspect who appeared in court in London today. The purpose of this exercise appeared to be to allow these associates to plead ‘not guilty’ on behalf of the suspect (e.g. ‘he’s never been in trouble before’ , ‘his father worked for the civil service for x years , etc etc – so what!!!), even though this is an ongoing case.
From now on,will every criminal suspect’s family be afforded such freedom of national news airtime to plead their case whilst it proceeds through the courts , or will this honour be for muslim terror suspects only???????
It’s 9.42am British Summer Time, Saturday 11 Sep. The BBC story Ed linked to last night, “New Bush military memos released”,
seems quite unchanged. No mention of doubt over the authenticity of the documents despite the fact that plenty of US major media outlets are all over the story. No correction of the error that they were released by the White House.
Not even a stealth edit (yet) on the Beeb’s page “New Bush military memos released”.
Little gems like “The memos add details to the row over Mr Bush’s military service in the war” have not been amended to reflect the growing evidence of a political dirty trick with possible complicity of a major player in the mainstream media.
Of course the fawning respect within the BBC for Dan Rather is in evidence here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2797199.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2029634.stm
It took a fraction of a day for anti-Bush criticisms made on 60 Minutes to find their way onto BBC Online.
I suspect it will take a whole lot longer for any correction or retraction to make it past the Guardianista’s who put together BBC Online.
Has anyone heard any mention of this suspected document fraud anywhere on BBC airwaves?
Large sections of the US press are calling the documents fake, even if CBS and its allies at the liberal NY Times and Boston Globe try to defend. So far not one credible authority has been produced by CBS to support the authenticity of the docs – while a succession of real experthave pointwed out all the signs of fakery.
How come we know that – but the BBC does not tell us ? This is a big issue in the US – what on earth are all those highly-paid BBC US-watchers playing at ?
This has all the hallmarks of the Gilligan/Dyke fiasco – reporter makes major boob, management dies in a ditch defending him against all the evidence.
The term RatherGate seems to be catching on. I doubt that BBC will take this up.
Apparently the Haloscan comments don’t recognize the superscript code. I tried to insert the superscript ‘th’ in the above post. Oh well.
The silence from THFC, Johnb, RB Superglaze and the assorted ‘anonymouses’ etc on this subject is faintly interesting if not surprising.
Your precious BBC needs you!
Mmmm- not a squeak from the anony-mouses. Not a change in the story, either.
The Beeb 1550hrs Fri 10 Sep: “With regards this news story about President Bush and the military memos, we have done just this. It is a news story that is highly pivotal to the American election agenda and therefore of interest to the public. If it was the case that CBS confirmed that the memos were not authentic then the BBC would certainly report it as again, it would be of public interest. These claims at present remain unfounded and have not been reported in the British media. We are responsible for presenting all the facts, we do not operate our news reporting on the basis of selected truths nor we would ever report a news item if we did not have sufficient evidence to support it.” notice that the Beeb will not run anything until CBS themselves admit they lied. Rather (Ouch) naughty behaviour all round by the Beeb
Very interesting post Dave T., and so fiskable it is untrue!
“If it was the case that CBS confirmed that the memos were not authentic then the BBC would certainly report it”. Why wait for CBS to inevitably declare they’ve been hoaxed? There is plenty of evidence in the public domain that suggests these memos are forged. The BBC could lead the way on this story instead of leaving it to the Blogosphere.
“These claims at present remain unfounded” • er, it is the claims about Bush that are unfounded and therefore according to the BBC’s criteria shouldn’t have been reported. The memos’ inclusion of superscripts and proportional fonts, are conclusive proof of the hoax.
“We are responsible for presenting all the facts” – dead right, so do so!
“We do not operate our news reporting on the basis of selected truths nor we would ever report a news item if we did not have sufficient evidence to support it” • cue scornful laughter.
Re Dave t’s quote: Very amusing. Dan Rather is now the Voice of God to the Beeb. (And he a Texan!)
“It is a news story that is highly pivotal to the American election agenda” – could be, but probably not in the way they’re hoping.
It seems like Dan Rather’s career could possibly be heading for a Piers Morgan-type derailment.
Certainly CBS News is currently a laughing stock, probably even amongst their ideological soul mates within the mainstream media.
It is clear that CBS, AP (who recently reported a lie concerning a GOP crowd’s reaction to Bush’s get-well-soon to Clinton) and, of course, the BBC are rooting for Kerry.
That is all very well for CBS and AP, but NOT for a publicly funded institution like the Beeb.
I’m presently listening to the BBC’s “Talking Point” program, and feel like the only way anyone can really ‘have your say’ is to set up a chatroom, called, say, “Mystery Science Talk Show 3000” while the program is running. Sooner of later, someone at the source will start to watch the dialog.
Something might sink in. Might…
You mean Pravda-on-the-Thames STILL hasn’t reported the CBS memo forgery scandal? It’s frontpage news in the US.
Hmmm — I thought the Beeb prided itself on its “in-depth” knowledge of US political affairs. This shows that they know nothin’ about nothin’ when it comes to the US. For the network of Edward R. Murrow to sink so low is truly a blow to the US media establishment and those who trust it. The Beeb probably doesn’t even know who Edward R. Murrow was.
Over the past few days i have read expert opinions by a host of specialists, all saying the Killian documents are fraudulent. There is overwhelming evidence on this. Clearly the BBC is not even trying to do basic research on this. It would take them about half an hour to find stacks of info.
They are happy to let the fraudulent attacks on Bush remain mostly unchallenged on BBC airwaves. I bet they’d be challenging the documents if they were impugning Kerry.
Here is the definitive and the funniest demolition by a real expert of the CBS documents – “like a da Vinci painted in acrylics”.
http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm
And if any BBC researcher ever gets round to looking into this huge dirty-tricks story about CBS ((and possibly Kerry’s campaign) they could start with hughhewitt.com, or littlegreenfootballs which showed the documents to be executed in Word, or instapundit, or powerlineblog.com…..etc etc etc. It is all laid out, all the research has already been done.
But no – the BBC prefers to stick with the CBS lies.
Good link, John. Very informative. More proof, but is it enough for the Beeb?
Probably not.
Stealth edits have arrived as of Monday morning. Save your old copies before viewing again.
Half way down we have
“Some experts have questioned the authenticity of the latest documents, released after they were obtained by CBS television. ”
and nearer the end
“Some forensic experts were quoted by news organizations, including The Associated Press, saying the memos appeared to have been computer-generated with characteristics that weren’t available three decades ago.
But CBS News said in a statement: “The documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but sources familiar with their content.” ”
Last updated ?
“Thursday, 9 September, 2004, 16:20 GMT 17:20 UK”
CBS hasn’t producwed a single typography expert to defent the forgeries. Why can’t the BBC see this – much of the US press has seen it. Even old contacts of Dan Rather like William Safire at the New York Times – a Dem newspaper:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/opinion/13safire.html
Investors Business Daily is forecasting possible senior resignations at CBS and a swee[ping review of ethics. Shades of the BBC ?
The wagons are circling …. but the Beeb ignores the story.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=9/13
(Incidentally – a senior Dem praises the open nature of Fox News as compared to the endless bias of CNN :
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/231413p-198727c.html
They’re slowing down in my old age. I still have the original page in pdf format though. If anyone needs a copy I’ll be glad to provide. 🙂
The Beeb is disgusting. They don’t even pretend to hide their bias and selective news reporting anymore. World’s most prestigious broadcaster – my ass!
I got an email with “Thank you for your email. We do report doubts cast on the authenticity of the memo’s in this story – see paragraph below…
“Some forensic experts were quoted by news organizations, including The
Associated Press, saying the memos appeared to have been
computer-generated with characteristics that weren’t available three
decades ago.”
And as reported above the date/time stayed at Thu 1620hrs! Sneaky very sneaky….
A few throwaway sentences “mentioning” the forgery issue is hardly “reporting” on something that is a front-page news scandal in the US. Whom does the BBC think they are kidding?
And you have to go to Americas – Vote 2004- Bush memos to get at the freshly minted ‘amended’ version. So anyone who has not read the Beeb for a few days will not be any the wiser….damm them damm them all (cried that bloke in Planet of the Apes…)
I just came home, logged on – and within a minute saw a further expert demolition of the fake memos about Bush. Why can’t the BBC see there is a HUGE dirty-tricks story here ?
http://www.presenceofmind.net/2004_09_12_archive.html#109509891069546650
Plus an update of an earlier PROOF – not speculation – that the memos are crude forgeries.
http://freecache.org/http:/www.flounder.com/bush2.htm
Some people are already suggesting that when the truth is laid bare about this scam, it will be the absolute end of the Kerry campaign. We\could be within days of the effective end of the 2004 election.
Is that not highly newsworthy ? Or does it get squeezed out by the urgent matter of more yada-yada about Abu Ghraib ?
The secretary of Lt Col Killian says she would have typed these memos for him, she typed all his work. But she declares the memos to be fake.