On Friday Ed Thomas observed in this post that the BBC had reported Dan Rather’s very much disputed allegations as undisputed fact. In one of the comments to that post Laban Tall says:
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”
On how many occasions has that ‘last updated’ field been shown to be false? Ten? Twenty?
Later “dave t” comments:
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…)
As usual, I observe that even stealth editing is better than no editing. But it’s still not good enough. This is a question of elementary fairness: if evidence is presented against someone and then new evidence arrives suggesting that the first evidence is doubtful then the second exculpatory evidence deserves equal prominence with the initial accusation.
The article is highly misleading too- and remains so even post-stealth edit. You’d think the source of the memos was the Whitehouse, when in fact no-one knows, not even CBS apparently, where they came from.
All I know is that the White House got them from CBS before they aired the program(me) and released them to the press corps via email afterwards. CBS isn’t saying where they got them.
Some have claimed that they came from the Democrat National Committee (DNC) and that they had them for a while.
Oh my, did I really use that “some have claimed” phrase? I guess I did. It was easier than saying that I saw it on a blog with sourcing and I can’t remember which one it was. I may be ready for the big time. Move over, Justin Webb.
I really don’t see the problem here.
Why can’t the BBC be able to stress the charges Dan Rather has made against Bush on a, say, hourly basis,
mention that those charges have been said to be, um, “controversial,” and in about two or three weeks just make some sort of cursory announcement that “certain” self-styled experts have declared the letters to be totally bogus?
Dan Rather has now been reduced to calling in a typewriter repairman as “specialist”. Its become a joke. So clearly he has no real defence. THAT is the big story – why isn’t the BBC chasing it.
Silly question really – the BBC would much prefer to give currency to the forgeries because they could damage Bush.
The BBC is implying that the White House coughed up the memos after CBS showed they allegedly existed. In fact, CBS sent facsimilies to the White House on September 7 (the day before 60 Minutes II aired), and it is these memos the White House provided, without comment, to reporters.
Bah. Ignore my previous comment. I’m just repeating points everyone else has made.
It’s more than a question of fairness, it’s also a question of honesty.
There is something called the “whole truth” because you can lie by telling only part of the truth.
The fact that the White House released the documents is true. Not disclosing that the White House got them from CBS leaves the impression that the WH had them all the time and only released them under pressure. A totally inaccurate representation (a lie).
A stealth edit is worse than a rowback.
By entering after-the-fact corrections to stories that are archived, the BBC does nothing to advise the public that there was a problem with the original story or that there is additional information that they should know. They don’t even indicate that the story has been changed or corrected, allowing an inaccurate and dishonest “Last Updated” headerto remain unchanged.
Having informed the public of the memos, the BBC is under an ethical obligation to set the record straight. Given their charter, the obligation may very well be a legal one, too.
Is Winston Smith working at the BBC thse days?
Did he move over from the Times?
Ohh, those “very much disputed allegations”.
Disputed by Bush partisans and, er, that’s it.
Orwell’s Ghost
You seem to be the exact opposite of Orwell – he recognised news manipulation, you seem to deny it.
The CBS memohave been declared to be fakes not just by the bloggers. There have been a succession of typography experts – some of them declared democrats – who call them bogus. Leading Dem press such as the Washington Post and New York times have carried articles demolishing the CBS and Dan Rather. And now the secretary who would have typed the fake memos says they are false. While two experts who warned CBS BEFORE they aired the story were ignored.
This is not a matter of “he said, we said”. It is a matter of black-and-white forgery. Proven forgery, which CBS is still trying to defend. Did they forge the documents themselves ?
Bernard Goldberg, former longtime CBS newsman, said the presentation on 60 Minutes II was the most one sided piece that he had ever seen.
They didn’t present any view opposing or calling the memos into question even though they had interviewed people who said they were not legitimate memos.
Now it seems that there were more memos in that packet that they selectively had examined and which were found to be spurious. It appears that the solution was not to include them in the piece and go with the other memos.
This is not going away soon. The beeb will have to suck it up and report on it eventually. Just like the SwiftBoat Vets.