The independant investigation is complete of the forged documents aired on "60 Minutes." I have only skimmed the full report, there are several interesting parts.
One of the major critizism of the reported segment is the use of anti-Bush sources:
Many of the sources of information that were used for the September 8 Segment had an anti-Bush political agenda. First, Lieutenant Colonel Burkett was a visible and outspoken critic of President Bush. Second, Mapes and Smith also relied on Linda Starr to assist in obtaining the documents from him. Her website was and still is filled with anti-Bush statements. Third, it appears that Mapes first came to learn about Linda Starr and her possible link to TexANG records from Paul Lukasiak, another anti-Bush blogger. Fourth, Ben Barnes appeared on the September 8 Segment to claim that he provided assistance to President Bush to gain entry to the TexANG. Barnes was a well-known supporter of, and fundraiser for, Senator Kerry’s presidential campaign.
The Panel recognizes the appearance problems involved in receiving information from partisan individuals. It is not at all unusual or inappropriate, however, for news organizations to obtain information from a political, business or other opponent of the subject of an investigation, given that supporters are manifestly less likely to provide critical or damaging information. It only becomes problematic if the political bias of the source is allowed by the reporter to affect the fairness of the story.[Emphasis added]
The Panel does not believe that evidence exists to demonstrate that the political leanings of any source influenced the production of the September 8 Segment. Doubtless, however, these sources to some degree sought to use 60 Minutes Wednesday to further their own political agendas, as they likely viewed a TexANG story on President Bush’s service as potentially helpful to efforts to defeat President Bush in his reelection campaign. [Emphasis added}
I agree that the political leanings of the sources influenced the reporting of the forged documents. The political leaning were not apparent at all to the reporter Mary Mapes because she agreed with the sources. She had no problem believing them because she
knew it was true. It is hard to influence a postition that is already clearly biased.
Another section looks at the connection between the reporter Mary Mapes, and the Kerry campaign. This is what they found:
The Panel reports elsewhere about Mapes’ contacts with the Kerry campaign.
Mapes informed the Panel that she did not think that her request to have someone from the Kerry campaign call Lieutenant Colonel Burkett would result in anything that would assist the Kerry campaign. Mapes also told the Panel that she was seeking to use the Kerry campaign, and specifically her opening the door to Lockhart, as a means of persuading Lieutenant Colonel Burkett to provide additional documents in support of the September 8 Segment. As stated elsewhere in this Report, the Panel finds that such use of the campaign was entirely improper. The Panel also concludes, however, that these contacts were motivated by Mapes’ pursuit of the story and not by any political agenda.
Mapes thought that having the Kerry campaign contact the Burkett (the source of the forged documents) would not assist the campaign. What did she think, he would not tell them what he had created. Of course he would. He hated Bush. He wanted Kerry to win at all costs, just like Mapes. This seems quite obvious. It would be like telling my wife her best friend knows what she is getting for Christmas. She will find out.
The report seems to present adequate evidence and a timeline of what took place leading up to the release of the documents, but fails to find a major fault by any of the reports. From reading just a few of the major sections of the report, it is quite obvious there was significant biased and no serious vetting of material that could influence the election. Remember Kerry had lost most of his momentum at this point largely due to what the Dems thought were false accusations by the Swiftboat Vets for Truth. Liberals (including the media) were looking for a way to get Kerry back in the running. This story was to irresistable to Mapes, Rather, and CBS.
What was most disturbing was the extent to which Rather defended the documents even after several real experts had disproven them. Here are few statements from Rather:
Sept. 10th 2004 Rather said:
''CBS News stands by, and I stand by, the thoroughness and accuracy of this report, period. Our story is true.''
''Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970's, but some models did.'' [At this point he has obviously seen the critisism]
Rather depicted questions about the veracity of the report as a counterattack coming in part from ''partisan political operatives."
This last comment illustrates what I mentioned above. If a comment comes from a liberal, the media generally thinks of it as factual regardless of the bias of the source. If discrepancies are found by conservatives, even if they do seem to lose the most from the negative report, it is from "partisan politcal operatives."
Here is a summary of the major findings:
The most serious defects in the reporting and production of the September
8th Segment were:
1. The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;
2. The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;
3. The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;
4.The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody
5. The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents “were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files”;
6. The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;
7. The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;
8. The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;
9. The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and
10. The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry - a clear conflict of interest that created the appearance of a political bias.
