Editing Killian documents controversy (section)

==September 8 segment and initial reactions==
The segment entitled ''"For the Record"'' aired on ''60 Minutes Wednesday'' on September 8.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1B.pdf |title=Transcript of CBS segment |access-date=2010-05-24 | work=CBS News}}</ref> After introducing the documents, Rather said, in reference to Matley, "We consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bal-to.cbs13sep13,1,3810194.story?coll=bal-features-headlines|work=The Baltimore Sun|author=David Folkenflik|date=September 13, 2004|title=Rather's doubters unmoved|access-date=2008-03-17}}</ref>

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 prior to 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.<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 128–129.</ref>

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 prior to the dates of the memos.

Interview clips with [[Ben Barnes (Texas politician)|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.<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 130.</ref>

===Internet skepticism spreads===
Discussion quickly spread to various [[Blog|weblogs]] in the [[blogosphere]], principally [[Little Green Footballs]] and [[Power Line]].<ref name=HK2004.0919>{{cite news |author=[[Howard Kurtz]] |newspaper=Washington Post |title=After Blogs Got Hits, CBS Got a Black Eye |date=2004-09-20 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34153-2004Sep19.html }}</ref> 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]].<ref name="LATimes_2015">{{cite news |author=Wallsten, Peter| title=GOP Activist Made Allegations on CBS Memos | url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-sep-18-na-buckhead18-story.html | access-date= July 11, 2015|work=Los Angeles Times |date=September 18, 2004}}</ref><ref name="AJC_Baxter_2004">{{cite web|last1=Baxter |first1=Tom |title=Atlantan challenged CBS documents first |url=http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0904/19bushguard.html |website=Atlanta Journal-Constitution |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050903213724/http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0904/19bushguard.html?UrAuth=aNcNUObNTUbTTUWUXUUUZTYU%2FWUbUbUZUbU%5EUcTYWVVZV |archive-date=September 3, 2005 |date=September 19, 2004 |url-status=dead }}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news|work=The Seattle Times |date=September 18, 2004 |title=Buckhead, who said CBS memos were forged, is a GOP-linked attorney |author=Wallsten, Peter |access-date=2008-03-17 |url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002039080_buckhead18.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070809230831/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002039080_buckhead18.html |archive-date=August 9, 2007 }}</ref>

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,<ref>{{cite news|title=Blogs have their day.|author=Grossman, Lev|work=Time Magazine|date=December 19, 2004|access-date=2008-03-18|url=http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/personoftheyear/2004/poyblogger.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070104133324/http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/personoftheyear/2004/poyblogger.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 4, 2007}}</ref> and the story was covered on the website of the magazine ''[[The Weekly Standard]]''<ref>{{cite web|title=Is it a hoax?|author=Hayes, Stephen F.|work=The Weekly Standard|date=September 9, 2004|access-date=2008-03-18|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/596astgo.asp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040910084136/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/596astgo.asp|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 10, 2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Swift Boat flacks attack CBS|author=Boehlert, Eric|work=Salon.com|date=September 10, 2004|access-date=2008-03-18|url=http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/10/forgery/}}</ref> 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]].<ref>{{cite news | title=About that Bush document. |author=Jim Geraghty |date=September 10, 2004| url=http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTFmODM3ZWI1MjY4NjQwNTdhMzg1MTE5NjJkNGMxMWY | access-date=2008-03-18 | publisher=National Review Online}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wallsten|first=Peter|date=2004-09-12|title=No Disputing It: Blogs Are Major Players|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-sep-12-na-blog12-story.html|access-date=2023-01-05|website=Los Angeles Times|language=en-US}}</ref> The September 9 edition of [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]]'s ''[[Nightline (US news program)|Nightline]]'' made mention of the controversy, along with an article on the [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] website.<ref>{{cite web|title=Officer's Widow Questions Bush Guard Documents|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=123461&page=1|access-date=2008-03-19|date=September 10, 2004|work=ABC News}}</ref>

Thirteen days after this controversy had emerged the national newspaper ''USA Today'' published a timeline of events surrounding the CBS story.<ref name="memmot"/> Accordingly, on the September 9 morning after the "60 minutes" 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.<ref name="memmot"/> 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".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-scrutiny-of-bushs-service/|title=New Scrutiny Of Bush's Service | date=September 9, 2004| access-date=2006-03-20|publisher=CBS News}}</ref> In an interview with [[Fox News]], Gary Killian expressed doubts about the documents' authenticity on the basis of his father's positive view of Bush.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132047,00.html|title=FOX Interviews Commander's Son|date=September 10, 2004|access-date=2008-03-25|author=Rosen, James|work=Fox News}}</ref>

In 2006, the two [[Free Republic]] (Rathergate) bloggers, Harry W. MacDougald, username "Buckhead", an Atlanta-based lawyer<ref name="LATimes_2015" /><ref name="AJC_Baxter_2004" /> and Paul Boley, username "TankerKC", were awarded the ''Reed Irvine Award for New Media'' by the [[Accuracy in Media]] [[Watchdog journalism|watchdog]] at the [[Conservative Political Action Conference]] (CPAC).<ref>{{citation |url=http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/aim-to-honor-people-in-pajamas/|title=AIM to Honor People in Pajamas |author=Roger Aronoff |date=November 4, 2005 |access-date=February 14, 2017}}</ref><ref name="AIM_2013">{{cite web |url=http://www.aim.org/annual-reed-irvine-awards/ |title=Annual Reed Irvine Awards |publisher=[[Accuracy in Media]] |quote=Jim Hoft, Proprietor of Gateway Pundit |access-date=February 10, 2017}}</ref>

===CBS's response and widening media coverage===
At 5:00&nbsp;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",<ref name="somequestion"/> 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".<ref name="cbsstandsby">{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-stands-by-bush-guard-memos-11-09-2004/|access-date=2008-03-18|date=September 10, 2004|title=CBS Stands By Bush-Guard Memos|work=CBS News}}</ref> The statement was replaced later that day with one that omitted this claim.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Sept1004.html|title=The Note|work=ABC News|date=September 10, 2004|access-date=2007-03-20}}</ref>

The first newspaper articles questioning the documents appeared on September 10 in ''[[The Washington Post]]'',<ref name="somequestion">{{cite news | title=Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush|date=September 10, 2004 |page=A01| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html | access-date=2008-03-18|newspaper=The Washington Post|author1=Michael Dobbs |author2=Mike Allen }}</ref> ''The New York Times''<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/politics/campaign/10guard.html|author1=Seelye, Katharine Q. |author2=Rutenberg, Jim|date=September 10, 2004|access-date=2008-03-18|title=Commander's Son Questions Memos on Bush's Service | work=The New York Times}}</ref> and in ''USA Today'' via the [[Associated Press]].<ref name="APauthenticity">{{cite news|work=USA Today|agency=Associated Press|date=September 10, 2004|access-date=March 19, 2008|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-10-bush-guard_x.htm|title=Authenticity of new Bush military papers questioned.}}</ref> 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."<ref name="APauthenticity"/>

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.<ref>{{cite news|author=Slover, Pete |url=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/elections2004/stories/091104dnpolguard.117c8.html |work=Dallas Morning News |date=September 11, 2004 |access-date=March 24, 2008 |title=Authenticity of memo to 'sugar coat' Bush record is further questioned |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050912163545/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/elections2004/stories/091104dnpolguard.117c8.html |archive-date=September 12, 2005 }} ''[[The Seattle Times]]'' also published this story as "[http://seattletimes.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002032742_bushguard11.html More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic]". The archived DallasNews.com article requires [[JavaScript]] to be disabled to work; a permalinked version of the link with all scripts disabled is [https://archive.today/20131219200618/http://www.pagewash.com/nph-index.cgi/011110A/uggc:/=2fjro.nepuvir.bet/jro/20050912163545/uggc:/=2fjjj.qnyynfarjf.pbz/funerqpbagrag/qjf/arjf/jnfuvatgba/ryrpgvbaf2004/fgbevrf/091104qacbythneq.117p8.ugzy here].</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The Washington Post|title=Rather Defends CBS Over Memos on Bush|author=Kurtz, Howard|access-date=2008-03-25|date=September 11, 2004|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12809-2004Sep10.html}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-guard-memos-questioned/|title=Bush Guard Memos Questioned|access-date=2008-03-12|date=September 10, 2004|work=CBS News}}</ref> On the CBS Evening News of September 10, Rather defended the story and noted that its critics included "partisan political operatives".<ref name="Report 1D">{{cite news | title=CBS Evening News Transcript|date=September 10, 2004 | url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1D.pdf | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref>

*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.<ref name="Report 1D" />
*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."<ref name="Report 1D" /><ref name="look back">{{cite news | title=A Look Back At The Controversy|date=January 11, 2005 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-look-back-at-the-controversy/ | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref>

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 air if they would not have 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.<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 174.</ref>

{{anchor|Pajamahadeen}}
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".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/640pgolk.asp?pg=2|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040923024922/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/640pgolk.asp?pg=2|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 23, 2004|title=What Blogs Have Wrought|access-date=2008-03-20|author=Last, Jonathan|work=The Weekly Standard|date=September 27, 2004}}</ref>