Hubbry Logo
Killian documents controversyKillian documents controversyMain
Open search
Killian documents controversy
Community hub
Killian documents controversy
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Killian documents controversy
Killian documents controversy
Killian documents controversy
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Charles Foster Johnson's animated GIF image comparing a memo purportedly typewritten in 1973 with a proportional-spaced document made in Microsoft Word with default settings in 2004

The Killian documents controversy (also referred to as Memogate or Rathergate[1][2]) involved six documents containing false allegations about President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972–73, allegedly typed in 1973. Dan Rather presented four of these documents[3] as authentic in a 60 Minutes II broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 presidential election, but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate them.[4][5][6] Several typewriter and typography experts soon concluded that they were forgeries.[7][8] Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett provided the documents to CBS, but he claims to have burned the originals after faxing them copies.[9]

The documents describe preferential treatment during Bush's service, including pressure on Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, commander of the 111th Fighter Squadron, to "sugar coat" an annual officer rating report for the then 1st Lt. Bush.[10]

CBS News producer Mary Mapes obtained the copied documents from Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard, while pursuing a story about the George W. Bush military service controversy. Burkett claimed that Bush's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, wrote them, which included criticisms of Bush's service in the Guard during the 1970s. In the 60 Minutes segment, Rather stated that the documents "were taken from Lieutenant Colonel Killian's personal files",[11] and he falsely asserted that they had been authenticated by experts retained by CBS.[12]

The authenticity of the documents was challenged within minutes[13] on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on anachronisms in the format and typography, and the scandal quickly spread to the mass media.[14] CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the documents for two weeks, but other news organizations continued to scrutinize the evidence, and USA Today obtained an independent analysis from outside experts. CBS finally repudiated the use of the documents on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now – I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question",[15] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[15][16]

Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel led by Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi criticized both the initial CBS news segment and CBS's "strident defense" during the aftermath.[17] CBS fired producer Mapes, requested resignations from several senior news executives, and apologized to viewers by saying that there were "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents".

The controversy was dramatized in the film Truth starring Robert Redford as Dan Rather and Cate Blanchett as Mary Mapes, based on Mapes' memoir Truth and Duty. Former CBS President and CEO Les Moonves refused to approve the film, and CBS refused to air advertisements for it. A CBS spokesman stated that it contained "too many distortions, evasions, and baseless conspiracy theories".[18]

Background and timeline

[edit]
1st Lieutenant George W. Bush in uniform. Investigations into his military service led to the Killian documents controversy.

The memos, allegedly written in 1972 and 1973, were obtained by CBS News producer Mary Mapes and freelance journalist Michael Smith from Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett, a former US Army National Guard officer.[19] Mapes and Dan Rather, among many other journalists, had been investigating for several years the story of Bush's alleged failure to fulfill his obligations to the National Guard.[20]

Burkett had received publicity in 2000, after making and then retracting a claim that he had been transferred to Panama for refusing "to falsify personnel records of [then-]Governor Bush",[21][22] and in February 2004, when he claimed to know about "scrubbing" of Bush's Texas Air National Guard records.[23][24] Mapes was "by her own account [aware that] many in the press considered Burkett an 'anti-Bush zealot', his credibility in question".[25]

Mapes and Smith made contact with Burkett in late August, and on August 24 Burkett offered to meet with them to share the documents he possessed, and later told reporters from USA Today "that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign",[26] a claim substantiated by emails between Smith and Mapes detailing Burkett's additional requests for help with negotiating a book deal, security, and financial compensation.[27] During the last week of August, Mapes asked Josh Howard, her immediate superior at CBS, for permission to facilitate contact between Burkett and the Kerry campaign; Howard and Mapes subsequently disputed whether such permission had been given.[28]

Two documents were provided by Burkett to Mapes on September 2, and four others on September 5, 2004. At that time, Burkett told Mapes that they were copies of originals that had been obtained from Killian's personal files via Chief Warrant Officer George Conn, another former member of the TexANG.[29]

Mapes informed Rather of the progress of the story, which was being targeted to air on September 8 along with footage of an interview with Ben Barnes, a former Lieutenant Governor of Texas, who would publicly state for the first time his opinion that Bush had received preferential treatment to get into the National Guard.[30] Mapes had also been in contact with the Kerry campaign several times between late August and September 6, when she spoke with senior Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart regarding the progressing story. Lockhart subsequently stated he was "wary" of contact with Mapes at this stage, because if the story were true, his involvement might undermine its credibility, and if it were false, "he did not want to be associated with it".[31] Lockhart called Burkett on September 6 at the number provided by Mapes, and both men stated they discussed Burkett's view of Kerry's presidential campaign strategy, not the existence of the documents or the related story.[32]

Content of the memos

[edit]

The documents claimed that Bush had disobeyed orders while in the Guard and that undue influence had been exerted on Bush's behalf to improve his record. The documents included the following:

  1. An order directing Bush to submit to a physical examination.[33]
  2. A note that Killian had grounded Bush from flying due to "failure to perform to USAF / TexANG standards", and for failure to submit to the physical examination as ordered. Killian also requested that a flight inquiry board be convened, as required by regulations, to examine the reasons for Bush's loss of flight status.[34]
  3. A note of a telephone conversation with Bush in which Bush sought to be excused from "drill". The note records that Bush said he did not have the time to attend to his National Guard duties because he had a campaign to do (the Senate campaign of Winton M. Blount in Alabama).[35]
  4. A note (labeled "CYA" for "cover your ass") claiming that Killian was being pressured from above to give Bush better marks in his yearly evaluation than he had earned. The note attributed to Killian says that he was being asked to "sugarcoat" Bush's performance. "I'm having trouble running interference [for Bush] and doing my job."[36]

USA Today also received copies of the four documents used by CBS,[37] reporting this and publishing them the morning after the CBS segment, along with two additional memos.[38] Burkett was assured by USA Today that they would keep the source confidential.[39]

CBS investigations before airing the segment

[edit]

Mapes and her colleagues began interviewing people who might be able to corroborate the information in the documents, while also retaining four forensic document experts, Marcel J. Matley, James J. Pierce, Emily Will, and Linda James, to determine the validity of the memos.

On September 5, CBS interviewed Killian's friend Robert Strong, who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office. Among other issues covered in his interview with Rather and Mapes, Strong was asked if he thought the documents were genuine. Strong stated, "they are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being."[40] Strong had first seen the documents twenty minutes earlier and also said he had no personal knowledge of their content;[41] he later claimed he had been told to assume the content of the documents was accurate.[42]

On September 6, CBS interviewed General Robert "Bobby" Hodges, a former officer at the Texas Air National Guard and Killian's immediate superior at the time. Hodges declined CBS' request for an on-camera interview, and Mapes read the documents to him over the telephone—or perhaps only portions of the documents; his recollection and Mapes's differed.[43] According to Mapes, Hodges agreed with CBS's assessment that the documents were real, and CBS reported that Hodges stated that these were "the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time".[44] However, according to Hodges, when Mapes read portions of the memos to him he simply stated, "well if he wrote them, that's what he felt", and he stated he never confirmed the validity of the content of the documents. General Hodges later asserted to the investigatory panel that he told Mapes that Killian had never, to his knowledge, ordered anyone to take a physical and that he had never been pressured regarding Lieutenant Bush, as the documents alleged.[45] Hodges also claims that when CBS interviewed him, he thought the memos were handwritten, not typed,[46][43] and following the September 8 broadcast, when Hodges had seen the documents and heard of claims of forgery by Killian's wife and son, he was "convinced they were not authentic" and told Rather and Mapes on September 10.[47]

Response of the document examiners

[edit]

Before airing, all four of the examiners responded to Mapes' request for document analysis, though only two to Mapes directly:[48]

  • Emily Will noted discrepancies in the signatures on the memos, and had questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the superscripted "th", and the improper formatting of the date. Will requested other documents to use for comparison.[49]
  • Linda James was "unable to reach a conclusion about the signature" and noted that the superscripted "th" was not in common use at the time the memos were allegedly written; she later recalled telling CBS, "the two memos she looked at 'had problems.'"[49]
  • James Pierce concluded that both of the documents were written by the same person and that the signature matched Killian's from the official Bush records. Only one of the two documents provided to Pierce had a signature. James Pierce wrote, "the balance of the Jerry B. Killian signatures appearing on the photocopied questioned documents are consistent and in basic agreement", and stated that based on what he knew, "the documents in question are authentic".[50] However, Pierce also told Mapes he could not be sure if the documents had been altered because he was reviewing copies, not original documents.[51]
  • Marcel Matley's review was initially limited to Killian's signature on one of the Burkett documents, which he compared to signatures from the official Bush records. Matley "seemed fairly confident" that the signature was Killian's. On September 6, Matley was interviewed by Rather and Mapes and was provided with the other four documents obtained from CBS (he would prove to be the only reviewer to see these documents before the segment). Matley told Rather, "he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies".[52] In the interview, Matley told Rather that with respect to the signatures, they were relying on "poor material" and that there were inconsistencies in the signatures, but also replied "Yes", when asked if it would be safe to say the documents were written by the person who signed them.[53]
  • Both Emily Will and Linda James suggested to Mapes that CBS contact typewriter expert Peter Tytell (son of Martin Tytell) to review the documents. Associate producer Yvonne Miller left him a voicemail on September 7; he returned the call at 11 am on September 8 but was told they "did not need him anymore".[54]

September 8 segment and initial reactions

[edit]

The segment entitled "For the Record" aired on 60 Minutes II on September 8.[55] After introducing the documents, Rather said, in reference to Matley, "We consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."[56]

The segment introduced Lieutenant Robert Strong's interview, describing him as a "friend of Killian" (without noting he had not worked in the same location and without mentioning he had left the TexANG before the dates on the memos). The segment used the sound bite of Strong saying the documents were compatible with how business was done, but did not include a disclaimer that Strong was told to assume the documents were authentic.[57]

In Rather's narration about one of the memos, he referred to pressure being applied on Bush's behalf by General Buck Staudt, and described Staudt as "the man in charge of the Texas National Guard". Staudt had retired from the guard a year and a half before the dates of the memos.

Interview clips with Ben Barnes, former Speaker of the Texas House, created the impression "that there was no question but that President Bush had received Barnes' help to get into the TexANG", because Barnes had made a telephone call on Bush's behalf, when Barnes himself had acknowledged that there was no proof his call was the reason, and that "sometimes a call to General Rose did not work". Barnes' disclaimer was not included in the segment.[58]

Internet skepticism spreads

[edit]

Discussion quickly spread to various weblogs in the blogosphere, principally Little Green Footballs and Power Line.[59] The initial analysis appeared in posts by "Buckhead", a username of Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta attorney who had worked for conservative groups such as the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and who had helped draft the petition to the Arkansas Supreme Court for the disbarment of President Bill Clinton.[60][61] MacDougald questioned the validity of the documents on the basis of their typography, writing that the memos were "in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman", and alleging that this was an anachronism: "I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively."[62]

By the following day, questions about the authenticity of the documents were being publicized by the Drudge Report, which linked to the analysis at the Powerline blog in the mid-afternoon,[63] and the story was covered on the website of the magazine The Weekly Standard[64][65] and broke into mass media outlets, including the Associated Press and the major television news networks. It also was receiving serious attention from conservative writers such as National Review Online's Jim Geraghty.[66] By the afternoon of September 9, Charles Foster Johnson of Little Green Footballs had posted his attempt to recreate one of the documents using Microsoft Word with the default settings.[67] The September 9 edition of ABC's Nightline made mention of the controversy, along with an article on the ABC News website.[68]

Thirteen days after this controversy had emerged, the national newspaper USA Today published a timeline of events surrounding the CBS story.[14] Accordingly, on the September 9 morning after the 60 Minutes II report, the broadcast was front-page news in the New York Times and Washington Post. Additionally, the story was given two-thirds of a full page within USA Today's news section, which mentioned that it had also obtained copies of the documents. However, the authenticity of the memos was not part of the story carried by major news outlets on that day.[14] Also on that day, CBS published the reaction of Killian's son, Gary, to the documents, reporting that Gary Killian questioned one of the memos but stated that others "appeared legitimate" and characterized the collection as "a mixture of truth and fiction".[69] In an interview with Fox News, Gary Killian expressed doubts about the documents' authenticity based on his father's positive view of Bush.[70]

In 2006, the two Free Republic (Rathergate) bloggers, Harry W. MacDougald, username "Buckhead", an Atlanta-based lawyer[60][61] and Paul Boley, username "TankerKC", were awarded the Reed Irvine Award for New Media by the Accuracy in Media watchdog at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).[71][72]

CBS's response and widening media coverage

[edit]

At 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 9, CBS News released a statement saying the memos were "thoroughly investigated by independent experts, and we are convinced of their authenticity",[73] and stating, "this report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources".[74] The statement was replaced later that day with one that omitted this claim.[75]

The first newspaper articles questioning the documents appeared on September 10 in The Washington Post,[73] The New York Times[76] and in USA Today via the Associated Press.[77] The Associated Press reported, "Document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines ... said she was 'virtually certain' [the documents] were generated by computer. Lines said that meant she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer."[77]

Also on September 10, The Dallas Morning News reported, "the officer named in one memo as exerting pressure to 'sugarcoat' Bush's military record was discharged a year and a half before the memo was written.[78] The paper cited a military record showing that Col. Walter 'Buck' Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972, while the memo cited by CBS as showing that Staudt was interfering with evaluations of Bush was dated August 18, 1973."[79]

In response to the media attention, a CBS memo said that the documents were "backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content" and insisted that no internal investigation would take place.[80] On the CBS Evening News of September 10, Rather defended the story and noted that its critics included "partisan political operatives".[81]

  • In the broadcast, Rather stated that Marcel Matley "analyzed the documents for CBS News. He believes they are real", and broadcast additional excerpts from Matley's September 6 interview showing Matley's agreement that the signatures appeared to be from the same source. Rather did not report that Matley had referred to them as "poor material", that he had only opined about the signatures, or that he had specifically not authenticated the documents.
  • Rather presented footage of the Strong interview, introducing it by stating Robert Strong "is standing by his judgment that the documents are real", despite Strong's lack of standing to authenticate them and his brief exposure to the documents.[81]
  • Rather concluded by stating, "If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none."[81][82]

In an appearance on CNN that day, Rather asserted, "I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to the air if they had not been."

However, CBS's Josh Howard spoke at length by telephone with typewriter expert Peter Tytell and later told the panel that the discussion was "an 'unsettling event' that shook his belief in the authenticity of the documents". Producer Mapes dismissed Tytell's concerns.[83]

A former vice president of CBS News, Jonathan Klein, dismissed the allegations of bloggers, suggesting that the "checks and balances" of a professional news organization were superior to those of individuals sitting at their home computers "in their pajamas".[84]

CBS's defense, apology

[edit]

As media coverage widened and intensified, CBS at first attempted to produce additional evidence to support its claims. On September 11, a CBS News segment stated that document expert Phillip Bouffard thought the documents "could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter, available at the time".[85][86] The Selectric Composer was introduced in 1966 for use by typesetting professionals to generate camera-ready copy;[87] according to IBM archives describing this specialized equipment, "To produce copy which can be reproduced with 'justified', or straight left-and right-hand margins, the operator types the copy once and the composer computes the number of spaces needed to justify the line. As the operator types the copy a second time, the spaces are added automatically."[88] Bouffard's comments were also cited by the Boston Globe in an article entitled "Authenticity backed on Bush documents".[89] However, the Globe soon printed a retraction regarding the title.[90] CBS noted that although General Hodges was now stating he thought the documents were inauthentic, "we believed General Hodges the first time we spoke with him." CBS reiterated: "we believe the documents to be genuine".[85]

By September 13, CBS's position had shifted slightly, as Rather acknowledged "some of these questions come from people who are not active political partisans", and stated that CBS "talked to handwriting and document analysts and other experts who strongly insist the documents could have been created in the '70s".[91] The analysts and experts cited by Rather did not include the original four consulted by CBS. Rather, instead presented the views of Bill Glennon and Richard Katz. Glennon, a former typewriter repairman with no specific credentials in typesetting beyond that job, was found by CBS after posting several defenses of the memos on blogs including Daily Kos and Kevin Drum's blog hosted at Washington Monthly.[92] However, in the actual broadcast, neither interviewee asserted that the memos were genuine.

As a result, some CBS critics began to accuse CBS of expert shopping.[93]

60 Minutes II, one week later

[edit]

The original document examiners, however, continued to be part of the story. By September 15, Emily Will was publicly stating that she had told CBS that she had doubts about both the production of the memos and the handwriting before the segment. Linda James stated that the memos were of "very poor quality" and that she did not authenticate them,[94] telling ABC News, "I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it understood that I did."[50]

In response, 60 Minutes II released a statement suggesting that Will and James had "misrepresented" their role in the authentication of the documents and had played only a small part in the process.[95] CBS News concurrently amended its previous claim that Matley had authenticated the documents, saying instead that he had authenticated only the signatures.[96] On CNN, Matley stated he had only verified that the signatures were "from the same source", not that they were authentically Killian's: "When I saw the documents, I could not verify the documents were authentic or inauthentic. I could only verify that the signatures came from the same source", Matley said. "I could not authenticate the documents themselves. But at the same time, there was nothing to tell me that they were not authentic."[94]

On the evening of September 15, CBS aired a segment that featured an interview with Marian Carr Knox, a secretary at Ellington Air Force Base from 1956 to 1979, and who was Killian's assistant on the dates shown in the documents. Dan Rather prefaced the segment on the recorded interview by stating, "She told us she believes what the documents actually say is, exactly, as we reported." In the aired interview, Knox expressed her belief that the documents reflected Killian's "sentiments" about Bush's service, and that this belief motivated her decision to reach out to CBS to provide the interview.[95][97] In response to a direct question from Rather about the authenticity of the memo on Bush's alleged insubordination, she stated that no such memo was ever written; she further emphasized that she would have known if such a memo existed, as she had sole responsibility to type Killian's memos in that time period. At this point, she also admitted she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time in the Guard.[98] However, controversially, Knox said later in the interview, "The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones." She went on to say, "I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another."[99][100] The New York Times' headline report on this interview, including the phrase "Fake but Accurate", created an immediate backlash from critics of CBS's broadcast. The conservative-leaning Weekly Standard proceeded to predict the end of CBS's news division.[101][102]

At this time, Dan Rather first acknowledged there were problems in establishing the validity of the documents used in the report, stating: "If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story."[103]

Copies of the documents were first released to the public by the White House. Press Secretary Scott McClellan stated that the memos had been provided to them by CBS in the days before the report and that, "We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time."[104]

The Washington Post reported that at least one of the documents obtained by CBS had a fax header indicating it had been faxed from a Kinko's copy center in Abilene, Texas,[105] leading some to trace the documents back to Burkett.

CBS states that use of the documents was a mistake

[edit]

As a growing number of independent document examiners and competing news outlets reported their findings about the documents, CBS News stopped defending the documents and began to report on the problems with their story. On September 20, they reported that their source, Bill Burkett, "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."[106][107] While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries, CBS News president Andrew Heyward said,

Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.[15][16]

Dan Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now – I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."[15]

In an interview with Rather, Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from someone he claimed was named "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS was unable to contact or identify as an actual person. Burkett said he then made copies at the local Kinko's and burned the original documents.[39][108] Investigations by CBS, CNN, and the Washington Post failed to turn up evidence of "Lucy Ramirez" being an actual person.[109][110][111]

On September 21, CBS News addressed the contact with the Kerry campaign in its statement, saying, "it is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda."[82]

The next day, the network announced it was forming an independent review panel to perform an internal investigation.

Review panel established

[edit]
Dick Thornburgh, named by CBS to investigate with Louis Boccardi the events that led to the CBS report

Soon after, CBS established a review panel "to help determine what errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken".[112] Dick Thornburgh, a Republican former governor of Pennsylvania and United States Attorney General under George H.W. Bush, and Louis Boccardi, retired president and chief executive officer and former executive editor of the Associated Press, made up the two-person review board. CBS also hired a private investigator, former FBI agent Erik T. Rigler, to gather further information about the story.[113]

Findings

[edit]

On January 5, 2005, the Report of the Independent Review Panel on the September 8, 2004, 60 Minutes Wednesday segment "For the Record Concerning President Bush's Air National Guard Service" was released.[114] The purpose of the panel was to examine the process by which the September 8 segment was prepared and broadcast, to examine the circumstances surrounding the subsequent public statements and news reports by CBS News defending the segment, and to make any recommendations it deemed appropriate. Among the Panel's conclusions were the following:

The most serious defects in the reporting and production of the September 8 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 before 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.
Once questions were raised about the September 8 segment, the reporting thereafter was mishandled and compounded the damage done. Among the more egregious shortcomings during the Aftermath were:
  1. The strident defense of the September 8 segment by CBS News without adequately probing whether any of the questions raised had merit;
  2. Allowing many of the same individuals who produced and vetted the by-then controversial September 8 segment to also produce the follow-up news reports defending the segment;
  3. The inaccurate press statements issued by CBS News after the broadcast of the segment that the source of the documents was "unimpeachable" and that experts had vouched for their authenticity;
  4. The misleading stories defending the segment that aired on the CBS Evening News after September 8, despite strong and multiple indications of serious flaws;
  5. The efforts by 60 Minutes Wednesday to find additional document examiners who would vouch for the authenticity of the documents, instead of identifying the best examiners available, regardless of whether they would support this position; and
  6. Preparing news stories that sought to support the segment, instead of providing accurate and balanced coverage of a raging controversy.

Panel's view of the documents

[edit]

The Panel did not undertake a thorough examination of the authenticity of the Killian documents, but consulted Peter Tytell, a New York City-based forensic document examiner and typewriter and typography expert. Tytell had been contacted by 60 Minutes producers before the broadcast, and had informed associate producer Yvonne Miller and executive producer Josh Howard on September 10 that he believed the documents were forgeries. The Panel report stated, "The Panel met with Peter Tytell, and found his analysis sound in terms of why he thought the documents were not authentic ... The Panel does not conclude as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects."[115]

Aftermath

[edit]

The controversy had long-reaching personal, political, and legal consequences. In a 2010 issue of TV Guide, Rather's report was ranked No. 3 on a list of TV's ten biggest "blunders".[116]

CBS personnel and programming changes

[edit]

CBS terminated Mary Mapes and demanded the resignations of 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard and Howard's top deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy, as well as Senior Vice President Betsy West, who had been in charge of all prime time newscasts. Murphy and West resigned on February 25, 2005,[117] and after settling a legal dispute regarding his level of responsibility for the segment, Josh Howard resigned on March 25, 2005.[118]

Dan Rather announced on November 23, 2004, that he would step down in early 2005, and on March 9, his 24th anniversary as anchor, he left the network. It is unclear whether or not Rather's retirement was directly caused by this incident. Les Moonves, CEO of CBS, stated, "Dan Rather has already apologized for the segment and taken responsibility for his part in the broadcast. He voluntarily moved to set a date to step down from the CBS Evening News in March of 2005." He added, "We believe any further action would not be appropriate."[119]

CBS was originally planning to show a 60 Minutes report critical of the Bush administration's justification for going to war in Iraq. This segment was replaced with the Killian documents segment. CBS further postponed airing the Iraq segment until after the election due to the controversy over the Killian documents. "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election", CBS spokesman Kelli Edwards said in a statement.[120]

After the Killian documents controversy, the show was renamed 60 Minutes Wednesday to differentiate it from the original 60 Minutes Sunday edition, and reverted to its original title on July 8, 2005, when it was moved to the 8 p.m. Friday timeslot. It was cancelled in 2005 due to low ratings.

Mapes's and Rather's view of the documents

[edit]

On November 9, 2005, Mary Mapes gave an interview to ABC News correspondent Brian Ross. Mapes stated that the documents have never been proven to be forgeries. Ross expressed the view that the responsibility is on the reporter to verify their authenticity. Mapes responded with, "I don't think that's the standard." This stands in contrast to the statement of the president of CBS News that proof of authenticity is "the only acceptable journalistic standard". Also in November 2005, Mapes told readers of the Washington Post, "I personally believe the documents are not false" and "I was fired for airing a story that could not definitively be proved false but made CBS's public relations department cringe."[121] As of September 2007, Mapes continued to defend the authenticity of the documents: "the far right blogosphere bully boys ... screamed objections that ultimately proved to have no basis in fact."[122]

On November 7, 2006, Rather defended the report in a radio interview and rejected the CBS investigation's findings. In response, CBS spokesman Kevin Tedesco told the Associated Press, "CBS News stands by the report the independent panel issued on this matter, and to this day, no one has been able to authenticate the documents in question."[123]

Dan Rather continued to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews stated that he believed that the documents had never conclusively been proven to be forgeries – and that even if the documents are false, the underlying story is true.[124]

Rather's lawsuit against CBS/Viacom

[edit]

On September 19, 2007, Rather filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and its former corporate parent, Viacom, claiming they had made him a "scapegoat" over the controversy caused by the 2004 60 Minutes Wednesday report that featured the Killian documents.[125] The suit named as defendants: CBS and its CEO, Leslie Moonves: Viacom, Sumner Redstone, chairman of both Viacom and CBS Corporation; and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News.[126]

In January 2008, the legal teams for Rather and CBS reached an agreement to produce for Rather's attorneys "virtually all of the materials" related to the case, including the findings of Erik T. Rigler's report to CBS about the documents and the story.[127]

On September 29, 2009, New York State Court of Appeals dismissed Rather's lawsuit and stated that the lower court should have honored CBS's request to throw out the entire lawsuit instead of just throwing out parts.[128]

Authentication issues

[edit]
Main article: Killian documents authenticity issues

No generally recognized document experts have positively authenticated the memos. Since CBS used only faxed and photocopied duplicates, authentication to professional standards is impossible, regardless of the provenance of the originals.

Document experts have challenged the authenticity of the documents as photocopies of valid originals on a variety of grounds, ranging from anachronisms of their typography, their quick reproducibility using modern technology, and errors in their content and style.[129]

The CBS independent panel report did not specifically take up the question of whether the documents were forgeries, but retained a document expert, Peter Tytell, who concluded the documents used by CBS were produced using current word processing technology.[130]

Tytell concluded ... that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle [and that] the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic.

Accusations of bias

[edit]

Some critics of CBS and Dan Rather argued that by proceeding with the story when the documents had not been authenticated, CBS was exhibiting media bias and attempting to influence the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. Freelance journalist Michael Smith had emailed Mapes, asking, "What if there was a person who might have some information that could change the momentum of an election, but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information?" Mapes replied, "that looks good, hypothetically speaking, of course".[131] The Thornburgh–Boccardi report found that Mapes' contact with Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart was "highly inappropriate", and that it "crossed the line as, at a minimum, it gave the appearance of a political bias and could have been perceived as a news organizations' assisting a campaign as opposed to reporting on a story";[115] however, the Panel did not "find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the Segment of having a political bias".[132] In a later interview with The Washington Post, when asked about the issue of political bias, review panel member Louis Boccardi said "bias is a hard thing to prove".[133] The panel concluded that the problems occurred "primarily because of a rush to air that overwhelmed the proper application of the CBS News Standards".[134]

Some Democratic critics of Bush suggested that the memos were produced by the Bush campaign to discredit the media's reporting on Bush's National Guard service. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe, suggested that the memos might have originated with long-time Bush strategist Karl Rove. McAuliffe told reporters on September 10, "I can tell you that nobody at the Democratic National Committee or groups associated with us were involved in any way with these documents", he said. "I'm just saying that I would ask Karl Rove the same question."[135][136] McAuliffe later pointed out that Rove and another Republican operative, Ralph Reed, had "a known history of dirty tricks", and he asked whether Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie would rule out any involvement by GOP consultant Roger Stone.[137][138] At a community forum in Utica, New York in 2005, U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) pointed out that the controversy served Rove's objectives: "Once they did that, then it undermined everything else about Bush's draft dodging. ... That had the effect of taking the whole issue away."[139] After being criticized, Hinchey responded, "I didn't allege I had any facts. I said this is what I believe and take it for what it's worth."[139]

Rove and Stone have denied any involvement.[140][141] In a 2008 interview in The New Yorker, Stone said "It was nuts to think I had anything to do with those documents ... [t]hose papers were potentially devastating to George Bush. You couldn't put them out there assuming that they would be discredited. You couldn't have assumed that this would rebound to Bush's benefit. I believe in bank shots, but that one was too big a risk."[142]

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Killian documents controversy

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The documents controversy arose in September 2004 when ' 60 Minutes II broadcast a segment featuring four memos purportedly written by Jerry B. , Bush's in the , alleging that President had disobeyed orders, failed to meet flight certification requirements, and benefited from political favoritism to avoid scrutiny over his service record. The memos originated from Bill Burkett, a retired officer with a documented history of anti-Bush activism and prior discredited claims about Guard record "scrubbing," who claimed to have received them from an unidentified source but provided no verifiable provenance or originals. producer , under competitive pressure to air the story before the , relied on superficial examinations by a limited set of experts who only partially reviewed copies, ignoring warnings about typographic inconsistencies and failing to pursue contradictory . Within days of the broadcast, independent analysts, including typewriter and typography specialists such as Peter Tytell, identified features in the memos—like proportional spacing, precise kerning, and the use of Times New Roman font with superscript ordinals—that were infeasible on 1970s-era typewriters or military office equipment, matching instead the defaults of modern word-processing software like Microsoft Word. Killian's former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, explicitly denied typing the documents and highlighted formatting errors inconsistent with unit practices, while official Guard records showed deviations in style and terminology. These revelations, amplified by online bloggers and forensic recreations, established the memos as fabrications, prompting CBS to retract the story on September 20, 2004, admitting it could not authenticate the documents and apologizing for lapses in sourcing and verification. The ensuing independent investigation by former Attorney General and former Associated Press CEO Louis Boccardi, commissioned by , cataloged systemic failures including rushed production, overreliance on a biased source, suppression of expert doubts, and inadequate management oversight, though it stopped short of definitively labeling the memos forgeries due to the absence of originals. Consequences included the dismissal of Mapes and three executives, Rather's departure from the anchor desk, and heightened scrutiny of journalistic standards, particularly amid perceptions of partisan motivation in targeting Bush's reelection campaign. The episode underscored vulnerabilities in broadcast verification processes and the rapid corrective power of decentralized digital analysis, while raising enduring concerns about institutional media's resistance to self-correction in politically charged reporting.

Background

George W. Bush's National Guard Service

George W. Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant. He underwent flight training from 1968 to 1970, qualifying as an F-102 Delta Dagger pilot, and served full-time in Texas from 1970 to 1972, logging over 200 hours of flight time. Bush requested a transfer in May 1972 to the Alabama Air National Guard unit to accommodate his work on a U.S. Senate campaign, where he was unable to continue piloting duties due to no available aircraft compatible with his training. In Alabama from mid-1972 to 1973, Bush's attendance records are incomplete, with payroll documents indicating no pay for December 1972 or February 1973, and a six-month gap in documented service during this period. He was suspended from flying on August 1, 1972, for failing to take an annual physical examination required for pilots. However, witnesses including retired Lt. Col. William Calhoun and Maj. Gen. John "Buck" Rogers later attested that Bush performed satisfactory non-flying duties during his Alabama assignment. Returning to in 1973, Bush resumed Guard duties, with payroll records showing credits for service in October and November 1972, as well as January and April 1973. Overall, released payroll and retirement point records confirm Bush accumulated 253 points over approximately six years, exceeding the 50 points needed annually for a "good year" of service and meeting minimum obligations for honorable discharge. He transferred to inactive reserve status in September 1973 to attend and received an honorable discharge on October 1, 1974. Allegations of unfulfilled service, particularly regarding duties, arose during Bush's 2000 and presidential campaigns, prompting the release of additional records by the and , which supported fulfillment despite gaps in contemporaneous documentation. Independent reviews, including verifications, found no evidence of or formal disciplinary action, though critics noted the reliance on later affidavits for Alabama-specific attendance. These questions formed the backdrop for heightened scrutiny of Bush's Guard tenure, including forged documents purporting to detail supervisory concerns.

Origin and Acquisition of the Killian Memos

The Killian memos, six documents purportedly originating from the personal files of Lt. Col. Jerry B. of the , were acquired by producer from retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett in early September 2004. On , 2004, Mapes and freelance journalist Michael Smith met Burkett in , where he provided the first two memos during a discussion prompted by tips from contacts including Paul Lukasiak and Linda Starr. Three days later, on September 5, 2004, Smith received the remaining four memos from Burkett at a restaurant in , completing the set would use four of in its broadcast. Burkett, a longtime critic of who had previously alleged a 1997 "scrubbing" of Bush's Guard records—a claim he retracted in 2004—demanded anonymity, a consulting , measures, and relocation assistance from in exchange for the materials. He also sought and received assistance from Mapes to contact a Kerry campaign operative on August 27, 2004. Burkett's accounts of the memos' shifted repeatedly and contained admitted falsehoods. Initially, on , 2004, he told Mapes the documents arrived anonymously via mail. By September 4–5, he attributed them to former Guardsman George Conn, who purportedly obtained them from Killian's files after the lieutenant colonel's 1984 death; Conn, when contacted once by , denied any involvement. On September 16, 2004, after the broadcast aired, Burkett revised his story again, claiming a woman named Lucy Ramirez delivered them to him at a livestock show in early March 2004, sourced from an unidentified man connected to a 1997 records . Burkett later admitted fabricating the Conn intermediary under pressure from Mapes and confirmed he had burned any originals after faxing copies, leaving no verifiable beyond photocopies and faxes provided to . The Independent Review Panel, composed of former U.S. Attorney General and former CEO Louis Boccardi, concluded in its January 5, 2005, report that failed to adequately assess Burkett's credibility or the documents' origin despite evident red flags, including his history of unsubstantiated allegations against Bush and inconsistent narratives. The panel noted made only cursory efforts, such as a single unsuccessful outreach to Conn, and did not investigate Burkett's background or demand proof of the alleged Ramirez handover, deeming the source "not unimpeachable" due to his political motivations and refusal to fully cooperate with the review absent editorial control over his input. This lapses in source vetting contributed to the inability to establish a reliable , with the panel criticizing the rushed acquisition process over the weekend as prioritizing speed over rigor.

Description of the Documents

Content of the Memos

The Killian memos comprised six documents allegedly authored by Jerry B. Killian, commander of the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in the , spanning February 1972 to August 1973 and addressing aspects of 1st Lieutenant George W. Bush's service record, including flight qualifications, physical examinations, transfer requests, and performance evaluations. Four of these—dated May 4, 1972; May 19, 1972; August 1, 1972; and August 18, 1973—were featured in the CBS broadcast, while the remaining two were referenced in the production process but not aired.
  • February 2, 1972: This unsigned memorandum from to Major R.A. Harris requested an update on the currency of flight certifications for Bush and another officer, James R. Bath, amid concerns over their qualifications.
  • May 4, 1972: A signed directive from to Bush instructed him to report for an annual flight by May 14, 1972, at Ellington Base, citing Manual 35-13 requirements for maintaining flight status with the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron.
  • May 19, 1972: An unsigned "memo to file" documented a discussion with Bush regarding options to transfer to the for a , defer drills until November 1972, and address the pending physical; expressed skepticism about Bush's commitment and suspected intervention from higher authorities to facilitate the transfer despite incomplete qualifications.
  • August 1, 1972: This "memorandum for record" stated that had verbally ordered Bush's suspension from flying status due to failure to complete the required physical and meet U.S. / standards; it recommended approving Bush's transfer request and convening a review board if necessary.
  • June 24, 1973: A signed memo from to an unnamed recipient explained that neither he nor Major Harris could provide an Officer Tour (OETR) rating for Bush, as Bush had ceased training with the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron after April 1972 and lacked subsequent performance data.
  • August 18, 1973: An unsigned "memo to file" described pressure from retired Walter "Bill" Staudt to "sugar coat" Bush's evaluation report; noted he would backdate the document but refused to assign a rating, citing Bush's extended absence and absence of feedback from his unit.
Collectively, the memos portrayed Bush as non-compliant with flight physical requirements, potentially influenced by external pressures, and ultimately relieved from flying duties, though official records indicated Bush's honorable discharge in October 1973 after fulfilling his obligation.

Claimed Provenance and Chain of Custody

The documents were purportedly obtained by Bill Burkett, a retired with a of litigation against the Guard over his own discharge, who contacted producer in 2004 after viewing a prior report on George W. Bush's service record. Burkett asserted that the six memos, four of which were aired, came from the personal files of Jerry B. , Bush's deceased commanding officer in the . He claimed to have received the originals from a contact identifying herself as "Lucy Ramirez," who allegedly retrieved them from a during a 1997 purge of documents at in —a disposal purportedly ordered to expunge references to Bush ahead of his re-election as . Burkett stated that Ramirez, whom he described as using a and whose real identity and existence could not be independently verified, instructed him to destroy the originals after he produced photocopies and faxed reproductions for safekeeping. These copies were then handed over to Mapes on August 20, 2004, via an initial anonymous intermediary before direct confirmation of Burkett as the source. presented the documents as authentic artifacts from Killian's possession without obtaining or examining originals, relying instead on Burkett's narrative for their . The chain of custody thus hinged solely on Burkett's , with no corroborating from Ramirez, Killian's family, or Guard archives; Burkett's prior biases, including unsuccessful lawsuits alleging Guard favoritism toward Bush, were known to Mapes but not deemed disqualifying. An independent panel review commissioned by subsequently determined that Burkett had misled Mapes regarding the documents' origins, undermining the claimed pathway and rendering forensic authentication of originals impossible due to their destruction.

CBS News Broadcast

Production Process and Airing on September 8, 2004

The production of the CBS News segment on the Killian documents was led by senior producer Mary Mapes, who had been investigating questions surrounding President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service for several years. In late summer 2004, Mapes obtained four memos purportedly authored by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, Bush's commander in the 1970s, from retired Texas Army National Guard officer Bill Burkett, who claimed to have received them from Killian's personal files via an intermediary. Burkett, a source Mapes had previously vetted for other Guard-related reporting, provided the documents without revealing their full chain of custody, asserting they had been discarded during a 1997 Guard records purge. To verify the memos, the team consulted multiple forensic document examiners, including Chicago-based handwriting analyst Marcel B. Matley, who analyzed photocopies and faxed copies for signatures, superscripted "th" in dates, and proportional spacing, concluding they appeared consistent with Killian's known handwriting and typewriter-era practices based on the copies provided. Additional corroboration came from interviews with Killian's former , Marion Carr Knox, who confirmed elements of the memos' content aligned with her recollections of Bush's service evaluations, though she later expressed doubts about their format. The process, spanning roughly five weeks from acquisition to air, involved no examination of original documents and limited scrutiny of technological feasibility, with prioritizing content alignment with independent reporting over exhaustive checks. The resulting 15-minute segment, narrated and anchored by , aired on the September 8, 2004, edition of (also broadcast as 60 Minutes Wednesday), reaching an estimated audience of over 13 million viewers. It featured the memos as visual exhibits, alongside interviews with Burkett, Knox, and retired Guard officials like Lt. Col. Bill Calley, framing them as evidence that Bush had received preferential treatment, failed to meet flight certification requirements, and pressured to alter evaluations—claims the report tied to Bush's transfer to in 1972 and overall service obligations during the . The broadcast, airing 55 days before the presidential election, prompted immediate online scrutiny but was initially defended by executives as rigorously vetted.

Initial Public and Expert Skepticism

Skepticism regarding the authenticity of the Killian memos surfaced almost immediately after the CBS 60 Minutes II segment aired on September 8, 2004. On September 9, users on the Free Republic forum, including attorney Harry MacDougald posting as "Buckhead," analyzed publicly released images of the documents and identified typographic anomalies, such as proportional spacing and the use of superscript in abbreviations like "111th," which were incompatible with the capabilities of 1970s electric typewriters commonly used in military offices. These observations spread rapidly through conservative blogs, including Power Line and Little Green Footballs, where contributors like Charles Johnson performed pixel-level examinations revealing modern kerning (variable letter spacing) and font characteristics resembling Microsoft Word's default settings from the early 2000s, rather than fixed-width typewriter output. Independent experts echoed these concerns within days. On September 10, 2004, itself reported doubts from Jerry Killian's son, a fellow Guard officer, and an unnamed independent document examiner who questioned the memos' and formatting. specialists, including those consulted by outlets like , noted that the memos employed features such as curved superscript letters and precise proportional fonts unavailable on period-appropriate equipment like typewriters, which produced monospaced text without such refinements. Even experts initially cited by , such as handwriting analyst Marcel Matley, clarified by September 13 that they had not fully authenticated the documents and could not vouch for their typewriter-era origins. Public reaction amplified through online forums and blogs pressured to scrutinize the memos, contrasting with CBS's initial defense that content accuracy trumped form. Relatives of , including his Marian Carr Knox, later contributed to doubts by September 15, describing the documents as fabrications despite aligning with purported views on Bush's performance. This early wave of from non-traditional sources highlighted technological anachronisms that foreshadowed broader forensic debunking.

Authentication Challenges

Typographic and Technological Anachronisms

The memos exhibited several typographic features inconsistent with 1970s typewriter technology, including proportional spacing where character widths varied, such as narrower "i" compared to wider "w", a characteristic of modern word processing software like 's default settings but absent in the monospaced output of standard used by the at the time. Typewriter expert Richard Polt noted that fewer than 1% of in 1973 produced such variable spacing, and none matched the specific style observed. The documents employed a Times New Roman-like proportional font, unavailable on military typewriters in 1972-1973, which typically used monospaced fonts like ; this font family originated in digital typesetting and became standard in in the . Proportional spacing in the memos aligned precisely with digital —adjustments to space between letters for aesthetic fit—impossible on mechanical typewriters without specialized, rare equipment not documented in Guard usage. Allan Haley of AGFA Monotype described such spacing as "highly out of the ordinary" for memos in that era. Superscripted abbreviations, such as the raised "th" in "111th" and "187th", appeared uniformly sized and positioned, a default feature in word processors but requiring manual intervention or interchangeable typing elements on typewriters like the , which Killian's unit did not employ for such formatting. John Collins of confirmed that automatic superscripting of this type was not feasible on 1970s typewriters. Curly apostrophes in contractions like "he's" further indicated modern software, as typewriters produced straight quotes exclusively. Forensic document examiner Peter Tytell analyzed the memos and concluded they were computer-generated, citing the combination of font, spacing, and alignment as evidence of post-1980s origin. Joseph Newcomer replicated the memos exactly using with and default proportional settings, demonstrating that the artifacts matched digital output but not capabilities. These anachronisms collectively rendered the documents implausible as authentic products.

Forensic Analyses by Independent Experts

Independent and experts examined the Killian memos shortly after their broadcast on September 8, 2004, identifying multiple technological anachronisms inconsistent with 1970s typewriter capabilities. The documents featured proportionally spaced fonts resembling , a digital typeface not available on military typewriters until decades later; such fonts required advanced equipment unavailable in units during the early 1970s. Additionally, the memos exhibited precise —automatic adjustment of space between certain letter pairs like "fr" or "fe"—a feature of word processing software such as , rather than the fixed monospaced output of typewriters. Joseph M. Newcomer, an expert in electronic and of , conducted a detailed pixel-level , noting character overlaps and laser printer artifacts that matched modern digital reproduction but not mechanical typing. Newcomer concluded the memos could not have been produced on period-appropriate equipment, as typewriters lacked the variable spacing and formatting defaults observed, such as automatic superscripting of ordinals like "th" in dates, which aligns with Word's 2004 default settings. Similarly, font designer Thomas Phinney analyzed the , finding the memos' output indistinguishable from a document set to default parameters, including font selection and line spacing, further evidencing . Document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, consulted independently, observed that the memos appeared generated by computer software, citing uniform line thickness and absence of typewriter ribbon inconsistencies typical of authentic 1970s documents. These analyses, corroborated by recreations showing near-perfect matches to Word-processed files, led experts to deem the documents forgeries, as no contemporaneous technology could replicate the observed features without modern tools.

CBS's Internal Document Verification Efforts

CBS News producer Mary Mapes obtained photocopies of four memos purportedly from Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian's personal files via retired Texas Army National Guard officer Bill Burkett in late August 2004, prompting initial internal review for the planned 60 Minutes II segment. The verification process, compressed into roughly six days before the September 8 airing, focused on handwriting analysis and assessments of whether the documents could plausibly have been produced using 1970s-era office technology, but exclusively on low-quality photocopies and faxes rather than originals. No chain of custody was established for the originals, and CBS did not demand them from Burkett, whose prior claims of Guard wrongdoing had been discredited. The network consulted at least five document and handwriting experts prior to broadcast, including forensic document examiner Marcel Matley, who examined photocopies and authenticated Killian's signature on one memo (dated May 4, 1972) as consistent with known exemplars but explicitly stated he could not verify the full documents' authenticity due to the copy quality and lack of originals; Matley spent 5-8 hours on the review and noted he "could not prove them authentic just from my expertise." Other examiners, such as Emily Will and Linda James, raised pre-airing concerns about typographic anomalies like proportional spacing, the superscript "th" in dates, and the memos' non-conformity to military formatting, with Will warning that the documents would face intense scrutiny and advising against airing, while James questioned the superscript's feasibility on 1970s typewriters. , another consultant, found signatures consistent but could not authenticate the memos and cautioned of potential issues if broadcast. Despite these limitations and warnings—emphasized by all experts that photocopies precluded definitive authentication—CBS interpreted the input as supportive, citing Matley's signature work and opinions from some (including post-broadcast consultations with Bill Glennon and Richard Katz) that features like proportional spacing were possible on executive s of the era, though without rigorous testing against period machines. The network downplayed dissenting views, such as Peter Tytell's assessment that the memos exhibited modern word-processing traits like font, and proceeded without forensic ink, paper, or typewriter ribbon analysis, prioritizing source claims from Burkett and retired Guard officers over document forensics. This approach reflected a procedural shortfall, as CBS failed to engage specialists in historical typewriter forensics or insist on originals, later contributing to admissions that the documents could not be verified.

CBS Response and Internal Review

Initial Defense and Follow-Up Broadcast

In the days immediately following the September 8, 2004, broadcast, anchor publicly affirmed the network's confidence in the report. On September 10, 2004, Rather stated during a segment that "we stand by our reporting" and expressed assurance in the documents' provenance, emphasizing interviews with sources close to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian who corroborated the memos' content regarding Bush's service. This defense came amid early online scrutiny from bloggers highlighting proportional spacing and superscript "th" formatting in the memos, which appeared inconsistent with 1970s typewriter technology. CBS executives reinforced this position, asserting that the story's substance relied not solely on the documents but on multiple corroborating accounts, including from associates, and that internal experts had vetted the memos for authenticity without finding evidence of . Rather specifically noted on that the network had consulted experts and document analysts who deemed the memos consistent with Killian's era, though these experts later clarified to external inquiries that they had only identified no obvious signs of modern fabrication rather than affirmatively authenticated the documents. On September 15, 2004, aired a follow-up segment titled "For the Record: Bush Documents" on , hosted by Rather, to address mounting questions. The broadcast featured an with Knox, Killian's secretary from 1972 to 1975, who stated that while she had no memory of typing the specific memos and doubted Killian would have produced them in that form, the sentiments expressed—such as frustration over Bush's performance and external pressures to evaluate him favorably—aligned with Killian's private views on Bush as relayed to her at the time. Knox described Bush as a poor who leveraged family influence, supporting the report's narrative independently of the documents' physical form. reiterated in the segment and accompanying statement that the core story remained valid, with Rather declaring, "the failure to properly vet the documents does not change the main points of the story," while maintaining an "open mind" on the memos' origins amid expert debates. This follow-up aimed to shift focus from technical authenticity to testimonial evidence, with CBS citing Knox's account and prior interviews as bolstering the report's claims about Bush's tenure, including unfulfilled obligations and favoritism. However, Knox's testimony drew criticism for relying on recollection rather than , and she admitted the memos' wording did not match Killian's typical phrasing. The segment aired as forensic challenges intensified, with independent typographic analyses increasingly suggesting the documents incorporated word-processing features unavailable in the early , though at this stage dismissed such critiques as inconclusive without conceding error.

Admission of Errors and Apology

On September 20, 2004, publicly stated that it could not verify the authenticity of the four memos attributed to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, which had been central to the September 8 60 Minutes II report on President George W. Bush's service. The network acknowledged that its reporting process had failed to adequately authenticate the documents before airing, admitting reliance on a source, retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, who had misled producers about the memos' origin by claiming they came from Killian's personal files via an intermediary. emphasized that the story's broader claims about Bush's service record remained accurate based on other evidence, but conceded the memos themselves could not be proven genuine. Dan Rather, the anchor who presented the segment, issued a personal apology during the September 20 broadcast of , describing the use of the unverified documents as a "mistake in judgment" and expressing regret for any contribution to public confusion. Rather maintained that had been "misled" by Burkett but accepted responsibility for the network's failure to exercise sufficient , stating, "We made a mistake in not vetting the documents thoroughly enough." This marked a shift from 's earlier defense, where Rather had repeatedly affirmed the story's reliability in follow-up appearances. The apology extended to viewers and critics, with committing to an independent review of its procedures, though it stopped short of retracting the entire report or declaring the memos forgeries at that stage. Network executives, including President Andrew Heyward, internally acknowledged procedural lapses, such as bypassing standard authentication protocols and insufficient scrutiny of typographic inconsistencies raised by external experts. This admission highlighted flaws in source verification and editorial oversight, contributing to immediate reputational damage for and Rather personally.

Independent Investigation

Formation of the Thornburgh-Boccardi Panel

Following the September 8, 2004, broadcast of the 60 Minutes II segment questioning President George W. Bush's service based on the Killian documents, faced intensifying scrutiny over the story's sourcing and verification. On September 22, 2004, president Andrew Heyward announced the creation of an independent review panel to investigate the circumstances surrounding the report's production and airing. The panel was co-chaired by , former U.S. under Presidents and , and former of , and Louis D. Boccardi, retired president and chief executive officer of the . Thornburgh's prior roles included leading investigations into corporate scandals such as WorldCom, providing expertise in legal and ethical reviews, while Boccardi's extensive career in , spanning over three decades at the AP, offered insight into standards and practices. CBS granted the panel complete access to internal documents, electronic records, and staff interviews to conduct an impartial examination of the processes, decisions, and adherence to journalistic policies. The initiative aimed to identify procedural failures and recommend improvements, amid public demands for accountability as doubts about the documents' authenticity proliferated.

Panel's Findings on Forgery Likelihood and Procedural Failures

The Thornburgh-Boccardi Panel, in its January 10, 2005 report, concluded that CBS News could not prove the authenticity of the Killian documents, stating that "CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report." While stopping short of definitively declaring them forgeries, the panel noted substantial evidence raising serious doubts, including typographic anomalies inconsistent with 1970s typewriter capabilities, such as proportional spacing, Times New Roman font characteristics, and superscript "th" formatting not matching authenticated Texas Air National Guard records from the era. Four document examiners consulted by CBS— including Marcel Matley, who verified only one signature's consistency but not the documents' overall authenticity—failed to authenticate the memos, with subsequent independent analyses by experts like Peter Tytel reinforcing that no period-appropriate IBM typewriter could produce the observed features. Marian Carr Knox, secretary to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, testified that she did not type the documents and identified formatting errors, such as improper headings and terminology like "billets," further undermining their provenance. The absence of original documents, unclear chain of custody from source Bill Burkett, and Killian's death in 1984 precluded definitive forensic resolution, but the panel emphasized that the preponderance of inconsistencies— including stylistic deviations from official records, like abbreviation variations and signature block placements—supported viewing them as likely modern fabrications rather than genuine 1972-1973 artifacts. On procedural failures, the panel identified multiple lapses at that violated basic journalistic standards outlined in its own Standards and Practices manual, including insufficient efforts and of expert input—such as claiming Matley's authenticated the documents when it addressed only a partial . The segment was rushed into production within six days of receiving the documents on , , driven by competitive pressures ahead of the election, bypassing typical investigative timelines and thorough vetting. Senior executives deferred excessively to producer Mary Mapes and anchor Dan Rather without independent scrutiny, ignoring red flags like Burkett's prior debunked claims against Bush and unverified claims of a German intermediary source. Pre-broadcast concerns from experts about typography and signatures were dismissed, exemplified by Mapes' email stating "Enough about the [expletive] 'th,'" and the vetting team failed to demand written opinions or probe the source's identity. Post-broadcast, CBS initially defended the story despite mounting evidence, delaying a full apology until September 20, 2004, and neglecting to promptly re-examine the documents amid public and expert skepticism. The panel warned that "competitive pressures cannot be allowed to prompt the airing of a story before it is ready," attributing the failures to a "myopic zeal to be the first news organization to broadcast the story."

Aftermath and Consequences

Personnel Changes at CBS News

In the wake of the independent Thornburgh-Boccardi panel's report released on January 10, 2005, which criticized for procedural lapses in verifying the Killian documents, the network implemented significant personnel actions targeting those directly involved in the production of the September 8, 2004, Wednesday segment. Mary Mapes, the segment's producer who had obtained the documents from Bill Burkett and overseen their authentication efforts, was terminated from . The panel's findings highlighted her role in multiple failures, including inadequate sourcing and pressure on experts to affirm the documents' validity despite doubts. CBS also accepted the resignations of three senior executives: , executive producer of Wednesday; Mary Murphy, his senior broadcast producer; and Betsy West, senior vice president of primetime. These departures were demanded by CBS management as accountability measures for the report's flawed reporting processes, which the panel described as a "myopic zeal" to broadcast the story amid election-year timing. No other on-air talent or lower-level staff were publicly disciplined, though the changes signaled a broader reckoning within CBS News' editorial hierarchy, aimed at restoring credibility following the forgery consensus. On November 23, 2004, Dan Rather announced his resignation as anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News, stating his final broadcast would occur on March 9, 2005—precisely 24 years after he succeeded Walter Cronkite in the role and a year ahead of his previously stated preference to depart in 2006. This move followed intense scrutiny over the Killian documents broadcast, though Rather insisted the timing aligned with long-term plans unrelated to the controversy. He remained a CBS News correspondent and 60 Minutes contributor thereafter, but on June 20, 2006, CBS announced an agreement severing ties with Rather after 44 years at the network, amid reports of his frustration over reduced prominence and resources. In response to his ouster, Rather filed a $70 million against on September 19, 2007, alleging , , and breach of duty; he claimed the network violated promises to provide journalistic support during the documents fallout, instead him to mitigate political backlash from the story's flaws. A New York trial court dismissed the and claims in September 2008, though a reinstated the allegation in July 2009 pending further review. The New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division ultimately dismissed the entire suit on September 29, 2009, ruling that Rather failed to demonstrate a viable breach of contract or other claims sufficient to proceed. New York's Court of Appeals denied Rather's petition for leave to appeal on January 12, 2010, concluding the litigation without any award or reinstatement. Rather later described the effort as worthwhile for uncovering internal CBS dynamics during discovery, despite the legal defeat.

Impact on 2004 Presidential Election Coverage

The Killian documents segment on , aired on September 8, 2004, aimed to intensify focus on President George W. Bush's record during the final weeks of the presidential campaign against Senator , particularly as Republican-led Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads had begun questioning Kerry's service. The report, anchored by , presented memos purportedly from Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, alleging Bush had received preferential treatment, disobeyed orders, and avoided a required flight physical—claims timed to counterbalance attacks on Kerry and influence voter perceptions of Bush's military commitment amid the . Within hours of the broadcast, independent bloggers and typographic experts raised doubts about the memos' authenticity, citing anachronistic features like Times New Roman font, proportional spacing, and kerning not feasible on 1970s-era typewriters or early word processors available to the Guard unit. By September 10, 2004, The Washington Post and other outlets amplified these analyses, shifting national coverage from Bush's service history to forensic scrutiny of the documents themselves; CBS initially defended the story on September 15, asserting multiple corroborating sources, but conceded on September 20 that it could not verify the memos after its primary source, Bill Burkett, admitted providing false provenance. This pivot effectively neutralized the story's intended electoral damage, as subsequent reporting emphasized CBS's verification lapses rather than revisiting Bush's record, with outlets like ABC News and the Associated Press focusing on the network's procedural failures. The scandal prompted accusations of partisan coordination, with White House spokesman noting on September 20, , that Kerry campaign adviser had contacted producers hours before airing to promote the story—contacts later acknowledged violated its own standards by blurring lines between and advocacy. Coverage of Bush's Guard service, previously explored by outlets like in 2000 and resurfaced sporadically in , became tainted by association with the , reducing mainstream media's appetite for similar unvetted allegations close to the November 2 election; Research surveys from mid-September showed a temporary tightening of the race, with Kerry gaining ground post-broadcast, but Bush maintained a national lead averaging 2-3 points in aggregates like through October, culminating in his 50.7% popular vote victory. The episode bolstered perceptions of asymmetrical scrutiny, where Kerry's record faced sustained challenges while anti-Bush efforts faltered under self-inflicted credibility wounds, influencing broader narratives on media reliability during the campaign.

Evidence of Partisan Bias

Role of Key Sources Including Bill Burkett

Bill Burkett, a retired in the , served as the primary source for the Killian documents provided to producer in late August 2004. Burkett claimed the memos originated from the personal files of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's commander, asserting he had retrieved them after witnessing their destruction by a secretary in 1999, subsequently burning the originals to protect his source while retaining copies. However, Burkett initially misled Mapes and by attributing the documents to a former guardsman named "George Conn," later admitting this was fabricated and revealing a different intermediary, which raised immediate concerns about chain-of-custody verification. Burkett's background included prior public allegations against Bush's service, such as claims in 1997 and 2000 that Bush's records had been "scrubbed" or altered to favor him, assertions featured in books and media but lacking substantiation at the time. These earlier efforts, including letters to media and testimony, positioned Burkett as an outspoken critic of Bush and Texas Guard leadership, prompting scrutiny over potential partisan motivations when he approached Mapes. Prior to contacting , Burkett had offered similar materials to associates linked to the Kerry campaign, which declined involvement, further complicating perceptions of his reliability. The Thornburgh-Boccardi panel's investigation highlighted CBS's inadequate vetting of Burkett, noting that Mapes was aware of his history of unsubstantiated anti-Bush claims yet failed to disclose this to colleagues or rigorously probe his evolving account of the documents' . The panel criticized the network's overreliance on Burkett without independent corroboration, such as demanding originals or cross-verifying with other guardsmen, which contributed to procedural lapses in . While Burkett maintained the memos' content reflected views, the panel's review underscored how his opaque sourcing and track record undermined the story's foundation, amplifying doubts about the documents' legitimacy. No other primary sources for the physical memos emerged, leaving Burkett's role pivotal yet problematic in the controversy's unraveling.

Indicators of Anti-Bush Motivation in Reporting

producer obtained the documents from retired Bill Burkett, who had a documented history of strident anti-Bush and . Burkett had previously compared President Bush to Hitler and in online writings, posted essays on progressive websites theorizing about Bush's Guard service, and made unsubstantiated claims of favoritism and record alterations targeting Bush and the Guard. Despite awareness of Burkett's embittered reputation—stemming from denied medical benefits claims and prior retractions of Guard-related accusations— proceeded without fully disclosing his unreliability to document experts or management. Mapes further contacted Joe Lockhart, a senior advisor to the John Kerry presidential campaign, on September 4, 2004, urging him to speak with Burkett and providing his contact information. This occurred at Burkett's request, ostensibly for advice on countering Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, but four days before the segment aired and amid the heated 2004 election contest. Lockhart spoke with Burkett the following day for several minutes. The independent panel reviewing CBS's processes later deemed these interactions inappropriate, as they created an appearance of coordination with the opposing campaign and potential , though no evidence emerged of direct involvement by Kerry operatives in the documents. The segment's airing on , 2004—less than eight weeks before the —amplified perceptions of partisan timing, especially given internal pressures to broadcast amid competitive reporting from outlets like . CBS accelerated production after receiving the documents on and 5, compressing authentication into days despite lingering expert doubts about typefaces and formatting, prioritizing newsworthiness over rigor in an election-year context. Mapes had pursued Bush's Guard service since 1999, including a 1999 highlighting perceived privilege, which critics cited as of predisposed toward Bush. While the Thornburgh-Boccardi panel found no conclusive proof of deliberate political motivation driving the errors, the combination of a partisan source, campaign contacts, and expedited handling amid electoral stakes fueled arguments that anti-Bush animus influenced the reporting's haste and defensiveness.

Comparisons to Broader Media Patterns in Election-Year Stories

The Killian documents controversy exemplifies a pattern in coverage of U.S. presidential elections, where outlets exhibit reduced verification rigor for stories portraying Republican candidates as deficient in character, service, or fitness, particularly when aired in the final months of campaigns. The 60 Minutes segment on September 8, 2004—less than 60 days before the Bush-Kerry election—relied on memos whose anachronistic formatting (e.g., font and proportional spacing inconsistent with 1970s typewriters) was overlooked amid pressure to question Bush's record. This haste aligns with analyses identifying recurrent verification lapses in politically timed reports fitting anti-conservative narratives, as seen in 's own post-scandal internal review, which faulted procedural shortcuts driven by competitive deadlines and source deference over independent authentication. Similar dynamics appeared in the 2016-2017 dissemination of the , an unverified compilation of alleging compromising ties between and , which media amplified during the presidential transition despite its author's discredited prior claims and lack of corroboration by U.S. . The dossier's allegations, funded initially by Republican opponents and later Democrats, received extensive coverage on networks like and MSNBC starting in January 2017, even as the Justice Department later documented FBI failures to verify key elements before using it for warrants. In contrast, stories potentially damaging Democrats, such as the New York Post's October 2020 reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop—later authenticated by the FBI and referenced in his 2023 federal charges—faced swift dismissal as "Russian " by outlets citing a letter from 51 former officials, without contemporaneous evidence. This asymmetry underscores a directional , where unvetted claims harming Republicans gain traction while those targeting Democrats encounter heightened . Recent parallels, such as CBS's 2024 editing of a to streamline her response on the Gaza conflict—contrasting a rambling raw clip with a polished broadcast version—revive Rathergate's lessons on transparency deficits in election-season stories involving partisan figures. Critics noted the edit occurred amid the Harris-Trump contest, echoing how alignment can eclipse full disclosure, with public polls showing 85% demanding the unedited transcript. Such incidents, per media observers, reflect forgotten post-Rathergate reforms emphasizing source independence, as mainstream outlets—often critiqued for institutional left-leaning skews—prioritize speed and ideological fit over empirical scrutiny in high-stakes electoral contexts.

Long-Term Legacy

Reforms in Journalism Verification Standards

The Killian documents controversy prompted an independent review panel, led by former U.S. Attorney General and former CEO Louis Boccardi, to investigate ' handling of the story, culminating in a January 10, , report that identified multiple procedural failures in verification and recommended structural reforms to enhance journalistic standards. The panel criticized for inadequate of the documents, reliance on unvetted sources, and insufficient scrutiny amid competitive pressures, attributing these lapses to a breakdown in established protocols rather than deliberate misconduct. Central to the panel's recommendations was the creation of a senior Standards and Practices Executive position, reporting directly to the president, empowered to review investigative segments involving confidential sources or document authentication and to delay or airing if standards were not met. This role aimed to institutionalize oversight, ensuring multiple layers of vetting, including consultation with legal counsel and independent experts, to prevent rushed broadcasts. Additional measures included mandating original documents or verified chain-of-custody records for authentication, requiring written opinions from multiple qualified forensic examiners, and maintaining a pre-approved list of such experts to expedite reliable assessments. The report further advocated for enhanced training on document authentication challenges, updates to the Standards Manual to address conflicts of and source vetting, and the formation of an independent Challenge Response Team to re-examine contested stories with fresh perspectives, free from original producers' involvement. It emphasized disclosing conflicting evidence to management and limiting competitive urgency from overriding thorough verification, applying the same rigor to public statements as to broadcasts. In response, dismissed four executives, including the segment producer and news division president, and committed to implementing these reforms to restore credibility and prevent recurrence. While primarily internal to , the controversy influenced broader industry reflections on and source verification, underscoring the risks of forgoing originals in favor of copies and the value of external scrutiny, as demonstrated by bloggers' rapid debunking via typographic analysis. However, systemic adoption of such protocols across outlets remained uneven, with the panel's findings serving as a cautionary benchmark for in high-stakes reporting.

Ongoing Consensus on Document Forgery

The independent review panel appointed by , consisting of former U.S. Attorney General and former CEO Louis Boccardi, issued a report on January 10, 2005, concluding that the network could not authenticate the documents and had failed to adhere to basic verification standards before airing the September 8, 2004, segment. The panel's findings emphasized inconsistencies in the documents' , sourced from Bill Burkett, and noted that relied on unqualified experts who did not conduct forensic examinations. Forensic analyses by typography and document experts identified multiple anachronisms incompatible with 1970s-era typewriters used by the , including proportional character spacing, font , and proportionally sized superscript ordinals like "111th," which required laser printers or word processors unavailable at the time. These features aligned instead with default settings in from the or later, as demonstrated by recreations that matched the memos' appearance when typed in the software. No subsequent evidence has overturned these determinations; the U.S. Air Force historian who reviewed Guard records in confirmed that authentic efficiency reports from the period used fixed-width typewriters without such digital artifacts. While former CBS producer and anchor have argued the memos were "fake but accurate" in reflecting Lt. Col. Killian's views, this position lacks support from document authentication experts and has been rejected in journalistic retrospectives. As of , the scholarly and professional consensus holds the documents as modern forgeries, with analyses citing them as a in digital fabrication techniques mimicking outdated formats. This view is echoed in forensic literature, underscoring the memos' incompatibility with Killian's unit equipment and practices.

Cultural and Political Reflections

The Killian documents controversy exemplified how partisan incentives can compromise journalistic standards, particularly in election-year coverage targeting Republican figures. ' initial broadcast on , , amplified unverified claims about George W. Bush's service just weeks before the , reflecting a pattern of heightened scrutiny on conservative candidates amid broader media narratives questioning Bush's record. Independent analyses and experts quickly identified the memos as forgeries, with proportional spacing and superscript "th" features inconsistent with 1970s typewriters, yet defended the story for over a week, prioritizing over verification. This episode fueled perceptions of in legacy media outlets, where institutional alignment with progressive viewpoints often led to selective sourcing from figures like Bill Burkett, a Bush critic with documented anti-Republican . Politically, the scandal reinforced narratives of media collusion with Democratic interests, as the timing aligned with efforts to portray Bush as evading duty during the era, echoing earlier unproven allegations. The rapid debunking by bloggers and forums, rather than traditional gatekeepers, shifted power dynamics, enabling scrutiny that exposed flaws overlooked by CBS producers. Rather than derailing Bush's reelection—polls showed minimal long-term damage to his lead—the affair backfired by eroding viewer confidence in outlets like , contributing to a partisan media trust divide where conservative audiences increasingly viewed mainstream reporting as adversarial. Culturally, Rathergate popularized the phrase "fake but accurate," coined in reference to claims by Killian's former that the memos, though fabricated, captured a true essence of Bush's service— a justification that underscored willingness to subordinate to ideological priors. The ensuing internal review at , coupled with Dan Rather's resignation in March 2005, highlighted deficits in newsrooms dominated by uniform political outlooks, prompting reflections on echo chambers that stifle and rigor. Long-term, it accelerated the fragmentation of information ecosystems, fostering reliance on diverse, verifiable sources over centralized narratives and underscoring the causal link between perceived bias and declining institutional legitimacy, with in media falling below 30% by the late .

References

  1. https://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/P3333sp13/Hoaxes/CBS_Report.pdf
  2. http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/P3333sp16/Hoaxes/cbsmemos/
  3. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-bush-memo-story-a-mistake-21-09-2004/
  4. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-ousts-4-for-bush-guard-story-10-01-2005/
  5. https://www.factcheck.org/2004/02/new-evidence-supports-bush-military-service-mostly/
  6. https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/bushs-military-record-a-chronology
  7. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/this-day-in-politics-aug-1-1972-095023
  8. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/campaign/pentagon-releases-bushs-longsought-military-records.html
  9. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2004/oct/27/bushs-guard-records-show-service-gaps/
  10. https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/elec04.prez.bush.military/index.html
  11. https://www.npr.org/2004/02/14/1676124/white-house-releases-bush-guard-records
  12. https://www.factcheck.org/2004/09/democratic-groups-ad-revives-awol-allegation-against/
  13. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-bush-short-on-guard-duty/
  14. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/politics/campaign/texan-involved-in-cbs-report-tried-to-help-kerry-campaign.html
  15. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-statement-on-bush-memos/
  16. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna5952072
  17. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-guard-memos-questioned/
  18. https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/cbs.documents/
  19. https://blog.smu.edu/2004-election/killian-documents/
  20. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/cbs-news-concludes-it-was-misled-on-national-guard-memos.html
  21. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2005/11/09/lashing-back-over-the-memo-scandal/416c0a68-f395-4e43-a3bb-a075279df41f/
  22. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-look-back-at-the-controversy/
  23. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-jan-16-na-cbs16-story.html
  24. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-documents-debate-rages-on-13-09-2004/
  25. https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/bush.guard.memos/index.html
  26. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-questions-on-bush-guard-duty-08-09-2004/
  27. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/media-investigates-authenticity-of-memos-released-by-cbs
  28. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/arts-and-entertainment/60-minutes-ii-reports-george-w-bushs-evasion-wartime-duty
  29. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-sep-18-na-buckhead18-story.html
  30. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/09/007699.php
  31. https://www.wired.com/2004/09/blogging-the-story-alive/
  32. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/10/20040910-104821-5968r/
  33. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna5993683
  34. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-defends-bush-memos/
  35. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/us/the-2004-campaign-national-guard-memos-on-bush-are-fake-but-accurate.html
  36. https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/bush.html
  37. https://typographica.org/on-typography/forensic-typography-and-the-2004-campaign/
  38. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6039473
  39. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/09/19/in-rush-to-air-cbs-quashed-memo-worries/635d7833-89b9-4402-8987-1c8d3fa16e3b/
  40. https://www.wired.com/story/meet-the-font-detectives-who-ferret-out-fakery/
  41. https://www.npr.org/2005/01/12/4279605/q-a-the-cbs-memogate-mess
  42. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/business/media/panel-finds-cbs-news-rushed-report-on-bushs-guard-record.html
  43. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/09/14/expert-cited-by-cbs-says-he-didnt-authenticate-papers/012e601d-b47f-4d4c-974d-599f54963468/
  44. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/questions-about-bush-memos-linger/
  45. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6055248
  46. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/11/politics/campaign/cbs-defends-its-report-on-bush-military-record.html
  47. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-the-record-bush-documents-15-09-2004/
  48. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-open-mind-on-memos/
  49. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-sep-21-na-cbs21-story.html
  50. https://www.c-span.org/clip/public-affairs-event/user-clip-rather-apology/4162305
  51. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-names-memo-probe-panel/
  52. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/politics/campaign/cbs-appoints-2man-panel-to-investigate-guard-report.html
  53. https://www.baltimoresun.com/2005/01/11/cbs-fires-4-executives-producers-over-bush-national-guard-report/
  54. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6807825
  55. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cbs-ousts-four-executives-over-60-minutes-controversy
  56. http://danratherjournalist.org/about-dan/controversies.html
  57. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dan-rather-signs-off/
  58. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dan-rather-leaves-cbs-after-44-years
  59. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3625465&page=1
  60. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/business/media/20cbs.html
  61. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-07-22/judge-reinstates-dan-rather-fraud-claim-against-cbs-over-firing
  62. https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/dan-rather-loses-70-million-lawsuit-against-cbs-idUSTRE58S5GK/
  63. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-tosses-dan-rathers-lawsuit-vs-cbs/
  64. https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/04/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-was-worth-it-121602
  65. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2004/09/16/kerry-support-rebounds-race-again-even/
  66. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2004/bush-vs-kerry
  67. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/business/media/what-the-panel-said-about-the-60-minutes-report-on-bushs.html
  68. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/09/21/questions-surround-man-who-provided-documents/17c712b3-3144-404d-8559-570ad3ce2fdc/
  69. https://archive.triblive.com/news/anti-bush-burkett-gets-media-scrutiny/
  70. https://www.salon.com/2005/02/22/burkett_letter/
  71. https://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Memos-possible-source-attacked-Bush-in-past-1662582.php
  72. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2004/09/22/cbs-producer-urged-kerry-aide-to-call-source-of-memos-on-bush/
  73. https://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf
  74. https://www.discoursemagazine.com/p/the-60-minutes-controversy-shows
  75. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4932808-cbs-60-minutes-interview-vice-president-harris/
  76. https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Hoaxes/cbsmemos/
  77. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-07-24/ex-60-minutes-producer-is-no-hollywood-hero
  78. https://www.thomasphinney.com/2018/01/truth-is-hard-to-come-by/
  79. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy-pdfs/TNA11-Reynolds.pdf
  80. https://www.mrc.org/ten-worst-media-distortions-campaign-2004
  81. https://variety.com/2015/film/news/truth-cbs-news-dan-rather-bush-mary-mapes-1201610778/
  82. https://pressthink.org/2012/04/rosens-trust-puzzler-what-explains-falling-confidence-in-the-press/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.