Something I don't understand about the Dan Rather/CBS story ??

[kentuck]

Everyone in hte media has been critical of Rather and CBS for not checking out the documents close enough for verification. However, I thought I had heard somewhere that CBS sent the documents to the White House and they "verified" them as accurate? What other source did they need? If Dan Bartlett, the spokesman for George Bush, says they are legit, why should CBS have to look further for more evidence? Just curious...

[liberalnurse]

1. That thought keeps echoing in my head too!

No one wants to go there and end the hype I guess.

[grasswire]

2. good point!

Excellent!

Instead of attacking CBS for relying on the WH for assurance of authenticity, why not attack the WH for giving that assurance?????????

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. because you have only heard that story ONCE

Look I think the discrediting started the moment Bartlett realized what CBS had...

And it is not in the media interest to have bush co voted out, as you correctly pointed out this morning... Trillions in business

[Shrek]

4. Washington Post finally explained it this morning

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31727-2004Sep18.html

As CBS pushed to finish its report, it was Bartlett who contacted the network -- rather than the other way around -- at 5:30 the evening before to ask whether the White House could respond to the widely rumored story.

Later, Bartlett would explain why he did not challenge the documents with a question: "How am I supposed to verify something that came from a dead man in three hours?"

So supposedly they didn't have enough time to evaluate them.

[kentuck]

7. Why would you verify such damning evidence then??

Why would you simply not ask for more time? Because they thought they were indeed accurate? Which, they were.

[Shrek]

10. Probably didn't think "more time" would help

I'm sure Bartlett realized that disputing the substance of the documents would be a losing game. And at that point, he didn't have any reason to suspect their authenticity, so he wouldn't have gone down that road either.

Of course, if the whole thing was a Rove setup, then not challenging the documents would have been a part of the plan.

[kentuck]

11. But by not challenging, they validate them....

If the White House tells you something is authentic, you go with it... Immediately.

[Shrek]

14. But that made it a no-lose for the White House

The let CBS run with it, but neither disputed nor authenticated the documents. Had they disputed the contents, they knew they could be made to look foolish by Killian's secretary and others who knew what was going on back then.

But by not explicitly authenticating them, they get to avoid being a possible line of defense for CBS in the ensuing controversy.

[kentuck]

16. But they did explicitly authenticate them....

according to CBS....But now, afer the freepers gave them an excuse for the doucments, they changed their minds.

[Shrek]

19. Okay, I didn't know that

The articles I read said that the White House "didn't dispute" the documents. If they affirmatively verified them then CBS should start pounding that angle hard.

[kentuck]

20. Maybe a matter of interpretation?

CBS took it as verification when the WH did not deny their authenticity?? But, if that were the case, I cannot imagine a situation where any WH would be silent on such documents. They would at a minimum say they could not verify. They would not be silent.??

[Shrek]

21. That sounds right

Here's another snip from the same article:

Half an hour later, Roberts called "60 Minutes" producer Mary Mapes with word that Bartlett was not challenging the authenticity of the documents. Mapes told her bosses, who were so relieved that they cut from Rather's story an interview with a handwriting expert who had examined the memos.

At that point, said "60 Minutes" executive Josh Howard, "we completely abandoned the process of authenticating the documents. Obviously, looking back on it, that was a mistake. We stopped questioning ourselves. I suppose you could say we let our guard down."

Sounds like maybe the White House just got lucky. They didn't challenge the documents because they knew the contents to be true, but they got the benefit of some sloppiness on the part of CBS.

[LiberalFighter]

23. Nothing stopped the WH from disputing the facts...

which they do all the time so why different now?

They had plenty of time to come up with a statement one way or another.

[kentuck]

24. Exactly !

I do not buy the WH explanation. And neither should the media. But they are too busy trying to crucify Dan Rather to see the real story.

[Shrek]

25. But what could they say?

Neither option is very palatable.

"We confirm that the information in these documents is true. President Bush shirked his duty, received preferential treatment, and disobeyed orders."

Clearly that won't fly. So what's the alternative?

"We've examined these documents and they're frauds."

That won't work either, because they have to know that there are people (e.g. the secretary) who can confirm that the information in the documents is correct.

So they try to make the best of a bad situation by remaining passive, and CBS helps out by getting sloppy after that.

[mbali]

15. Hmmm- doesn't stop them from discrediting every other critical story about

Bush in record time...aren't these the folks who called Kitty Kelley's book "garbage" BEFORE it even came out?

[Jackpine Radical]

18. If Bartlett couldn't verify the docs in 3 hours,

how coulde McDougald, without the resources of the WH, do so in 1.5 hours without even having copies of the docs?

[bluedog]

5. from my paper (stpete times) FL

I can not find this online but:

The papers were delivered at 7:45......John Roberts CBS(filling in for Rather.because of storms kept him in NY) met with Bartlett at 11:15.................They then said Bartlett was not challenging the documents authenticity.................something happened between that time .........

The lead on the Story says::::::::Bush Asks for truth as CBS Scrambles..

NYT has the story but the time and the names Barlett and John Roberts are not in it.......

[Longhorn]

6. I think CBS was had by Barlett.

From the LA Times story: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-cbs18sep18,1,6872257.story

John Roberts, the network's White House correspondent, called to report he'd just completed an on-camera interview with Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director. Bartlett, it appeared, had no quarrel with the authenticity of the documents.

That was the turning point.

"If we had gotten back from the White House any kind of red flag, raised eyebrow, anything that said, 'Are you sure about this stuff?' we would have gone back to square one," Josh Howard, the program's executive producer, told the Los Angeles Times in an interview Friday. "The White House said they were authentic, and that carried a lot of weight with us."

(snip)

And Friday evening, the White House denied that it ever confirmed the documents as authentic. "For them to suggest that an endorsement or ratification of the documents is a terrible stretch of reality," Bartlett said in an interview.

Why in the world CBS would trust ANYONE at the White House is beyond me! "Not challenging" is not the same thing as "authenticating!"

[Protected]

12. I agree

According to today's Washington Post article it seems like one of the big reasons why CBS put the story on the air was because Bartlett didn't question the memos. That was a very bad move.

[Jade Fox]

8. The thing that drives me nuts....

is that the freeptard who started the whole bruhaha set out to CREATE doubt
about their authenticity, not report it. And the media jumps on it like a starving
dog on a bone.

How long is the press going to bite at the bait the Rumormonger/story creators
offer rather than doing their god-damned job of researching and reporting the
news?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. As long as it is good for bussiness

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Bartlett bs'd Rather

these guys don't play by the rules. They don't care about your word being your honor.

I think Bartlett was caught off guard with these documents and the fact the Rather was actually going public with the story. How many times has a reporter had the balls to go up against the WH in the last 4 years?

Bartlett freaked, went back to the WH and got the Rove Machine working to figure out how to get out of this one. Karl, Dan and Karen probably put on their best thinking caps and got word to one of their more reliable supporters to start the typewriter story.

[cheshire]

17. It's a subtle threat from the Rethugs. CBS needs to do nothing. If they do

it only keeps this in our sights.

[spanone]

22. It called a Set-Up......CBS (the liberal media) had it in for bush*

And Rove used 'the enemy' to boost his man. This is one slick fucker.