Beware the Ides of September!

Well, CBS News has released their latest "defense" of the Ra^thergate documents, and it isn't good.

Here's what they had to say (excerpts):

Additionally, Mary Mapes, the producer of the report and a well-respected, veteran journalist whose credibility has never been questioned, [1] has been following this story for more than five years. She has a vast and detailed knowledge of the issues surrounding President Bush’s service in the Guard and of the individuals involved in the story. Before the report was broadcast, it was vetted and screened in accordance with CBS News standards by several veteran 60 MINUTES Wednesday senior producers and CBS News executives.

...

Two of the examiners, Mssrs. Matley and Pierce, attested and continue to attest to their belief in the documents’ authenticity. (see attachments 1 and 2) Two others, Ms. Will and Ms. James, appeared on a competing network yesterday, where they misrepresented their conversations and communication with CBS News. In fact, they assessed only one of the four documents used in the report, and while one of them raised a question about one aspect of that one document, they did not raise substantial objections or render definitive judgment on the document. Ultimately, they played a peripheral role in the authentication process and deferred to Mr. Matley, who examined all four of the documents used.

...

Conclusions

    The editorial content of the report was not based solely on the physical documents, but also on numerous credible sources who supported what the documents said.

    Through all of the frenzied debate of the past week, the basic content of the 60 MINUTES Wednesday report – that President Bush received preferential treatment to gain entrance to the Texas Air National Guard and that he may not have fulfilled all of the requirements -- has not been substantially challenged.

    CBS News will make every effort to resolve the contradictions and answer the unanswered questions about the documents and will continue to report on all aspects of the story.

Go read the whole thing. It's really insulting. How stupid does CBS think we are? (Even if we are just sitting around in our pajamas).

Roll Out the "Experts!"

CBS claims that the report, which included the documents, was "vetted and screened" by senior producers and executives. These same senior producers and executives were either 1) completely duped by obvious forgeries or, 2) chose to air the report despite knowing that the documents were fakes. So, they are either 1) really dumb, or 2) conniving liars, or 3) both.

It gets worse.

CBS claims that the documents were reviewed by four "experts." One of their so-called experts, Mr. Matley, apparently knows something about handwriting analysis, but doesn't have any other expertise in regard to document analysis. So, he is hardly qualified to testify to the authenticity of the documents, only of the signatures on the documents. He knows this, because despite what CBS says, he does not "continue to attest to [his] belief in the documents' authenticity." (Washington Post article. Free registration required).

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

The other "expert" that supposedly continues to attest to the documents' authenticity just might be another handwriting analyst. I found a reference to a court case in which he apparently testified:

EXPERT TESTIMONY
According to defendant: Plaintiff's expert Charles, an anesthesiologist, testified that the care received by plaintiff was reasonable and necessary. Plaintiff's expert Pierce, a handwriting analyst, [emphasis mine to highlight Pierce] testified that plaintiff signed all of her physical therapy treatment logs on different occasions. He did not believe that the physical therapy signatures were fraudulent. The defense expert, John Cerlanek, a document examiner, testified that the physical therapy logs signed by plaintiff pm 29 occasions revealed strong evidence of fabrication and fraud. There were 29 physical therapy sessions with 29 signatures from plaintiff. Cerlanek was able to determine from habitual analysis and more importantly through scientific analysis that plaintiff signed in blocks, i.e., four or five signatures at one time, possibly all at once. The jury commented after the trial that the handwriting presentation by defendant was credible and showed strong evidence of fraud on the part of the plaintiff.

COMMENTS
According to defendant: The jury was strongly persuaded by defendant's handwriting expert, John Cerlanek, and did not believe that plaintiff's handwriting expert refuted any of his testimony.

Wow. This is interesting. If I am correct that the James Pierce that testified in this court case is the other expert that CBS consulted, then the only experts that CBS has that "continue to attest to their belief in the documents' authenticity" are handwriting analysts. Both, apparently, are willing to offer paid testimony. It looks like neither has any expertise in document examination, typography or publishing. In the court case reference I found, the testimony of James Pierce was refuted by a document examiner using scientific methods. The jury didn't find Pierce's testimony convincing.

So, in summary, it appears that CBS claims to have two handwriting analysts with dubious credentials that say the documents are authentic (except one, Mr. Matley, doesn't). The other two experts that CBS consulted wouldn't authenticate the documents, so CBS calls them liars, says that they only looked at one document anyway, and says that they were bit players that deferred to Matley. The other "evidence" CBS has are the statements of a typewriter repairman ("technology consultant" - snork!) and a software developer whose credentials haven't been released and whose knowledge of Microsoft Word seems to be, um, rather limited.

That's It?

That's the "preponderance of evidence" CBS used to justify smearing President Bush.

Of course, we mustn't forget that Mary Mapes, the CBS producer whose "credibility has never been questioned," has been trying to dig up dirt on President Bush by "following this story for more than five years." "She has a vast and detailed knowledge of the issues surrounding President Bush’s service in the Guard and of the individuals involved in the story."

What does that say about CBS, their methods, and their biases? For more than five years, Mary Mapes has been trying to prove, without success, that President Bush was AWOL or in some other way didn't fulfill his responsibilities while he was in the National Guard. After over five years of effort this is the best that they could come up with. That isn't reporting, it's stalking. After five years, they have nothing to show, other than the statements of known Democratic party partisans and operatives and some forged documents. Utterly pathetic.

CBS just gets worse and worse. If I owned or operated a CBS-affiliated television or radio station, I'd be re-thinking my relationship with that network. If I had advertising money to spend, I'd be spending it on media channels not associated with CBS. Their fraudulent reporting and violation of the public's trust cannot be allowed to stand.

Ernest Miller, over at Corante, has more on this. And of course, Instapundit links to lots of great stuff on CBS' latest lame statement.

¹ I wonder if being threatened with jail time for refusing to cooperate in the prosecution of white supremacists charged with a heinous murder counts as having her credibility questioned? If not her credibility, then certainly we ought to question her judgement.

Permanent link