Tim Blair fisks TIME's article on Rathergate.
UNBELIEVABLE
"With critics of Democratic challenger John Kerry raising unsubstantiated claims that he exaggerated his heroism as a swift-boat commander in Vietnam," writes Time magazine’s Amanda Ripley, "the matter of Bush's own service is back in the spotlight."
Ripley’s piece is possibly the most grotesque example of evasive, disingenuous, smoke-and-mirrors journalism committed this year. A warning comes early, as Ripley characterises reaction to CBS’s Bush memo claims as simply a whole lot of unfocussed bedlam:
"Various search dogs, partisan and not, barked madly up and down the hills of people's memories last week, sometimes scenting truth and other times falling off the cliff entirely. CBS released several damning new memos, which may or may not be authentic (more on that later), that sent forensic experts researching the history of the type font Times New Roman and bloggers dusting off their old IBM typewriters. Welcome to the final stage of a tight race. Now let's pause for a few reality checks."
Several paragraphs later, having awarded a few free kicks to the anti-Bush team, Ripley gets to work on those CBS memos. Unsubstantiated or not, she’s quite happy to recite their contents:
"New egregious claims about Bush's service are made in four memos released by CBS last Wednesday dating from 1972 and 1973. The network has not revealed how it obtained the documents but says they are from the personal files of Lieut. Colonel Jerry Killian, Bush's squadron commander in Texas, now deceased. If authentic, they demonstrate more favoritism toward Bush than previously indicated. In one document, Killian states that he and his superior, Major General Bobby Hodges, were pressured by Walter Staudt, the Texas National Guard commander, to "sugar coat" an evaluation of Bush. Hodges, who initially thought the memos were handwritten and authentic, now says he thinks they are fake. He told TIME last week, "There was no political pressure that I can remember." And Staudt's military records show that he had left the Guard by the time the memo was written, according to the Dallas Morning News. A TIME reporter called and visited Staudt's home but got no response. Killian's son Gary, who served in the Guard alongside his father from 1971 to 1979, says he believes the documents are fake, in part because he remembers that his father admired Bush."
A pretence of balance is still evident. But now things get seriously weird:
"So far, forensic and typewriter experts consulted by TIME and other major media organizations have not reached a consensus on the authenticity of the memos."
A consensus? Does everyone have to agree that the documents are fake for them to be so proved? (Incidentally, according to Slate: "The typography experts quoted by major media organizations are nearly unanimous in their doubts that the Killian memos are genuine.") Next, Ripley produces compelling evidence that crushes the document-doubters:
"Some insist it would have been nearly impossible for a 1970s-era typewriter to produce the memos because of the letter spacing in the documents and the use of a raised and compact th symbol. But Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York City who worked for IBM repairing typewriters from 1973 to 1985, says those experts "are full of crap. They just don't know." Glennon says there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he says were not unusual — could have created the superscript th."
And that’s all you need to know. Forget the detailed, near-microscopic examination of the CBS documents carried out here and here, among many other sites (and reviewed here); these people are "full of crap", says the one guy to whom Time gives any space. Hey, Glennon -- go here to collect your $37,900!
"Another memo released by CBS, if real, indicates that when Bush missed his physical, he was disobeying a direct order from Killian to get one. But Hodges, who is now retired, says missing the physical was "no big deal." CBS broadcast a special segment wholeheartedly defending its report two days after it aired."
Which proves the documents were genuine, I guess. Well, Ripley seems convinced.
"Will any of this matter come Election Day? The truth is, while Kerry may have taken a hit in the polls as a result of the largely bogus criticism of his war record, Bush, as the incumbent, is not as vulnerable — even if the accusations are more credible. Americans have spent four years watching Bush as President. Kerry is the unknown, and as with any stranger at the gate, people are wary. What's more, the breathless debate over typewriter fonts last week shifted the debate away from Bush's questionable record."
That’s all this debate was about -- silly typewriter fonts! All of you people should grow up. In a sidebar, Time offers an in-depth analysis (0.03mm is still a "depth") of the claims made by CBS’s critics and the network’s piss-poor responses:
1 TYPEFACE
The shape is similar to Times New Roman, which is popular on today's computer. CBS counters that the font was first available in the 1930s
2 SPACING
The words have proportional spacing; some letters take up more space than others across the line. Some typewriters had this feature in the early 1970s
3 SUPER-SCRIPT
Experts say only customized typewriters had a key for the small th. Other typewritten Bush records show a similar — but not identical — feature
4 SIGNATURE
CBS insists that Lieut. Colonel Jerry Killian's signature matches those on other documents, proving authenticity
What term doesn’t appear anywhere in Ripley’s report? Microsoft Word. Believe it or not.
timblair.spleenville.com |
