« Looks Like CBS is Itching For a Fight | Main | Marcell Matley's Article on Holding Off Until the Cavalry arrives »
September 10, 2004
Rather Covering Butt : Superscript still strange
Just saw the Rather piece on the forgeries. A couple of interesting points.
1) He interviews Robert Strong about his feeling that the memo represented Killian's views. However, no interview with anyone from Killian's family who would have known him best and feel that this could not be Killian's views given what they know about him. My guess is that Killian's wife, son and daughter, all of whom have criticized CBS, would know him better than Robert Strong.
2) Nothing from Rather about how strange it was that the document fits exactly with a document typed in MS Word using the default MS Word settings as proven by the blog LittleGreenFootballs. That would seem to be some rather compelling evidence that this was a forgery. But Rather would rather not deal with that issue.
3) Nothing on the issue of kerning that has been talked about - just on the issue of the superscript. However, there was a rather glaring inconsistency in the comparison they made. In the "official" document, it should be noted that although superscript is used, it does not appear to go beyond the top of any of the other letters in the line. That makes sense given how typewriters behave. On the other hand, the superscript in the "forged" documents do appear above the top of other letters on the same line which is something a word processor can do since it knows the spacing in between lines. However, for a typist to do it, they would have had to adjust the position of the page. This would raise two new questions: 1) even if the typists would go through the effort to do this, how would it match so precisely with a 2004 Word document and 2) when they lowered the page back down, how would the text before and after the superscript have their baselines align properly as they appear to do in the forged document.
Of course, I could be wrong since I am not typesetting expert but that does seem to be a difference which Rather would rather ignore.
Still smells RATHER fishy to me.
UPDATE: The Powerliners correctly predicted how Rather would respond by picking on several small issues without addressing the larger ones (like how in hell a document written 30+ years ago can match so precisely a document worked up in word in 2004). I'd like to see if CBS tries to explain that. I also am still not convinced about the superscript issue. The superscripts Rather displayed were completely different and hilighted the disparity between what could be done with a typewriter and what could be done with a word processor.
06:55 PM in Media Bias | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1112647
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rather Covering Butt : Superscript still strange:
Comments
I was wondering about the superscript myself. The superscript, although it was there, was all scrunched up on the same line instead of being raised as on the questionable documents.
Still seems RATHER strange ;).
Posted by: Jim | September 10, 2004 07:10 PM
Im a dem and I still think I'll be voting Kerry this time around, but the all the media bias I see against Bush really is making me think I just won't vote this year. I just saw CBS and I was ashamed that I once liked Rather. He really looked nervous and he should be.
Posted by: Donna T. | September 10, 2004 07:13 PM
Please call your local CBS station and complain. I did already. Then go to this site and fill out the form. Don't just complain to each other. Do something!
http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.shtml
Posted by: Jerry | September 10, 2004 07:29 PM
Doona, I hear your pain. I am a "former" dem and I think the forgery bs is the last straw. I AM voting Republican down the line if nothing else than to do my little part to wake my party up. I suggest you consider same. It seems to have gotten rotten to the core.
Posted by: Hillary | September 10, 2004 07:32 PM
I was in the 465th Typewriter Repair Regiment
and Kerry couldn't kern worth a damn!
PUSSY PUSSY PUSSY
Posted by: Kevin | September 10, 2004 10:09 PM
Can the Bush supporters out there please give me a reason why I should vote Bush?
Tom
Posted by: Tom | September 11, 2004 12:30 PM
Hillary,
Please forgive me, can you please tell me what's wrong with the Dems? I could understand you feeling there's something wrong with both repubs/Dems 'cuz they are mostly the same; neither party has a back bone!
Thom
Posted by: Thom | September 11, 2004 12:35 PM
Tom, I am only speaking for myself but I'll lay out the reasons I am going to vote for Bush. They are ONLY my reasons and, of course, everyone has different ways for categorizing what is most important to them thus leading them to vote in the way that makes the most sense to them. For example, a person I know who is gay has 3 important issues to him as a homosexual man - 1) gay rights 2) gay rights and 3) gay rights. Everything else comes after those three points and thus he will 100% vote for Kerry.
Having said that, I am a former left-leaning moderate and as such I will explain my thinking not only about why I will be voting for Bush this election, but why I find myself more and more intrigued by the Republican party. I still am left leaning on many social issues, but unlike my gay friend, the social issues are low down on the list of importance for me. Right now, in order of importance and using standard polling categories, I am most interested in 1) the war on terrorism (yes, I unhesitatingly believe it is a war - I know at least some of my liberal friends disagree with that point of view) 2) the economy and how to deal with the new world we live in, not in the world of post Cold-War coital 90s, 3) how to deal with the looming social welfare monster that is as threatening to the peace and prosperity of this country as any other threat we face. 4) environmental degradation which must be dealt with, but which I find less important than the previous three issues and thus it muust be dealt with while keeping our eyes on points 1, 2 and 3.
Ok, so now that you understand the issues I find most important, why do I find the Republican message so much more appealing these days than that of the Democrats? It really comes down to the fact that the Republicans are addressing these issues in a way that Democrats are not. The Republicans seem to have acknowledged that the world of 2004 is far different from the world we lived in during the Clinton years. The Democrats seem to continue to live in a post Vietnam era and are desperately trying to cling to that era. It is almost as though the Republicans are trying to have a conversation about these issues but they only have a hysterical partner on the other side that refuses to deal responsibly with these issues. In essence, by refusing to have a discussion beyond the usual Bush is Hitler rants, Democrats are only ceding the argument to the Republicans. Are the Repubs a "great" choice? Of course not, but the dems, at least in my mind seem to have missed the boat. The fact that Kerry has been so successfully painted as a flip-flopper is only because there does not appear to be any compeling theme for why he should be president other than he is not Bush. This is reflective of the entire left of the political spectrum which does not seem to have a coherent vision for dealing with the world we currently live in. If the dems had any type of compelling vision and a candidate to deliver that message, my guess is that Bush would not even be close at this point.
So what are some specific examples? Well, the war on terrorism is one and is probably the best example. I won't go into it in detail because frankly I have had more arguments over this subject than I care for and everyone knows the points both sides make. However, I believe this is the source of a lot of Dems-turned Republicans angst this year - see Ron Silver and Ed Koch as two prominent examples. It is difficult for me to shake the impression that Kerry is promising to get our troops out of Iraq in his first term while Bush is simply promising to win. We can debate the whys and wherefores of Iraq ad nauseumm but the truth is we are there and we must win. It is now a magnet of terorism and one gets the impression that creating a magnet was the only way to draw in the disparate hatreds of Isalmofacism in one fell swoop. Was it the wrong war at the wrong time? Possibly, but that is an answer that only historians will be able to answer and my feeling is that only Bush can insure the answer be: "Iraq was the right war." Voting for Kerry will automatically relegate Iraq as the "wrong war" as that is the desire of Kerry and the core of the Democratic party. I will not put forth a vote for that result.
2) the economy - I can't say that Bush has handled the economy masterfully. However, let's face it - no President in the history of our country has had to face a) the bursting of the largest financial bubble in the world's history, 2) the largest attack on American civilian soil by foreign elements that specifically targeted our financial institutions, and 3) the total shakeup of our competitiveness through gobalization. The very fact we did not sink into a depression is amazing and even the most anti-Bush critics would be hard pressed to present alternative theories. Should his tax cuts have been so heavily weighted towards the top? That's debateable, although I heard a quote from a musician who said "My daddy said he never got a job from a poor man." Sounds harsh, but the elements of truth in that statement do seem to get to the heart of the issue. Should the tax cuts be made permanent? I definitely disagree with that part. On the whole, though, I do think Bush's stewardship has been decent.
On the other hand, when I see the dems, all I hear are reactionary protests without any constructive proposals that deal with the world we live in instead of the world we used to live in. Labor unions want to push the dems and the government into an overly protective stance which has some elements of isolationism. The core of the party wants to stick it to the rich without acknowledging for every new dollar the rich are taxed, the ability to create new jobs is affected. Tax the rich is NOT an economic philosophy - it is simply demagoguery.
3) then we come to the issue of burgeoning costs of Social Security and Medicare. We just can't pay for them as they are and I do not want to saddle my children with ridiculous taxes in order to prop up a social safety net whose costs are spiraling out of countrol. Is Bush's ownership society the way to go? I am not entirely sure about that, however, the dems are not proposing anything realistic. Kerry's proposals would sink additional tons of money into the system without doing anything to control costs and would simply perpetuate a system that is spiraling to catastrophe. I believe Bush's ownership proposals are the only way to begin to control costs short of the government mandating costs which is a relic from the Cold War period that dems need to just drop from their rhetoric to be taken seriously. Right now Bush seems to be the only politician in a generation who a) is in a position to break up the way we are doing things now and b) is brave enough to take on the third rail. Will he do it right or go overboard? My guess is he will go overboard but this is a democracy and if he does reach too far and the electorate are dissatisfied, Democrats will have the ability to "right" things again and "improve" on what the Republicans acconplish. However, the ball has to be gotten rolling and I don't see the Dems even looking at the ball at the momment because they have to keep the AARP, the labor unions and their social welfare supporters happy.
Anyway, there it is. An outline of why this former liberal finds Bush far more appealing than Kerry or any of the other Dems that were in the running in the primaries. I believe the Dems need to lose and lose in a big way before they are willing to start re-examining their view of the world. It does not mean they have to become ardent tax-cutting, war-hawking, welfare-cutting politicians. Damn, if they could only apply their traditional humanist approach to the same world view of moderate Republicans, my guess is they would have an electoral lock for the next generation. Unfortunately, they display no inclination to do so. At least the Republicans are willing to look at things as they stand now, say we can't go on the way we are going, and are willing to make the difficult choices in order to change the world. Only time will tell if their vision is right, but at least they have a vision that is not rooted in the policies from 40 years ago. Its a new world and I can't provide my vote to anyone who does not recognize that.
Posted by: Alex | September 11, 2004 02:31 PM
Two words - media bias. I can't tolerate the way the media have decided they will do what they can to help Kerry win. The foundation of a stable democracy is a press that people can trust. I no longer trust the press and I know many of my friends don't either. Writers and editors can whine all they want that this concept is driven by conservative think tanks but I made the deduction all by my little female lonesome. And with help from Dan "I'd rather be Wrong" Rather. The press need to be slapped upside the head and realize that their partisanship only hurts them and hurts the country.
Posted by: Hillary | September 11, 2004 02:45 PM
Cause Democrats are Girlie-Men!
Posted by: George | September 11, 2004 05:54 PM
As I said above, Im still thinking Kerry but after sleeping on it, I'm getting closer to voting Bush. Rather just creeps me out and if they continue to protest the way they are, that may seal my vote.
Thom, here's a question for you - why vote for Kerry? He just seems to me to be one of the lamest politicians to run for President in a while. At least Dukakis stuck by his convictions. Do we really want a President who has absolutely no convictions other than what he needs to get people to like him and get elected?
Posted by: Donna | September 11, 2004 05:59 PM
I think dude alex said it best upstairs. I voted for Clinton and Gore and the Demmies are not giving us anything these days other than reasons we should be frightened of Bush. That won't cut it in my book - especially with nutty terrorists running around.
Oh, I am independent and I am black - the dems worst nightmare. Viva la Bush.
Posted by: Staunch Independent | September 11, 2004 06:10 PM
Why? Guiliani. Ed Koch. Arnold. Ron Silver. John McCain.
Oh, yeah, and Bush.
Who do the dems got? The John John show? Nancy Pelosi? T. Kennedy? Gimme a break.
PS - I do like Obama but he's got to prove he can win against a real candidate.
Posted by: TimL | September 11, 2004 06:14 PM
