Editing Killian documents controversy

{{short description|Six documents containing unsubstantiated critical allegations about President George W. Bush}}
{{Further|Killian documents authenticity issues|George W. Bush military service controversy}}
{{use mdy dates|date=October 2022}}
[[Image:Killian memos MSWord animated.gif|300px|thumb|right|[[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'''<ref>{{cite news |last1=Jenny Attiyeh |title=Who's got the power? |url=https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2005/02/whos-got-the-power/ |access-date=April 16, 2021 |work=[[The Harvard Gazette]] |date=February 3, 2005 |quote=Assaulted by a string of disasters – with "Rathergate" as the most recent example – the conventional press is on the defensive}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=''Rathergate'' |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/tags/rathergate.html |website=[[Frontline (American TV program)]] |publisher=[[Public Broadcasting Service]] |access-date=April 16, 2021 |date=2007 |quote=Of course your most famous bump-up in recognition came during the 2004 election. Can you just lay out the story for us? [...] I called that post "The 61st Minute,"}}</ref>) 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<ref>Two entitled "Memo to File," one "Memorandum," and one "Memorandum for Record," see here [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/bush_guard_memos.pdf] for [[PDF]] versions at the [[Washington Post]] website.</ref> as authentic in a ''[[60 Minutes II]]'' broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the [[2004 United States presidential election|2004 presidential election]], but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate them.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2004Sep13?language=printer|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514062505/http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2004Sep13?language=printer|url-status=dead|archive-date=May 14, 2011|title=Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers.|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=September 14, 2004|author1=Dobbs, Michael |author2=Howard Kurtz|access-date=2008-03-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/Story?id=131423&page=1|title=Document Analysts: CBS News Ignored Doubts.|publisher=ABC News|access-date=2008-03-14|date=September 14, 2004|author1=Ross, Brian |author2=Howard Rosenberg}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=CBS ousts 4 over Bush Guard story.|agency=Associated Press|date=January 10, 2005|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6807825|access-date=2008-03-14}}</ref> Several typewriter and typography experts soon concluded that they were forgeries.<ref>Including Peter Tytell, Thomas Phinney, and Joseph Newcomer, a man with 35 years of computer font technology experience. See: Last, Jonathan. {{cite web|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/124mrhci.asp?pg=1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050112152154/http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/124mrhci.asp?pg=1 |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 12, 2005 |title=It's Worse Than You Thought |access-date=2008-03-10 }} ''The Weekly Standard'', January 11, 2005, and Cohen, Sandee. [http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21939.html?cprose=5-39 Making Headlines, Not Setting Them] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230255/http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21939.html?cprose=5-39 |date=2007-09-27 }}, creativepro.com, September 23, 2004.</ref><ref>Also, Bill Flynn, "one of country's top authorities on document authentication."{{cite web|work=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/Story?id=123461&page=2|title=Officer's Widow Questions Bush Guard Memos.|access-date=2008-03-18|date=September 10, 2004}} and document expert Sandra Ramsey Lines: "'I'm virtually certain these were computer generated,'" {{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-guard-memos-questioned/|title=Bush Guard Memos Questioned|access-date=2008-03-12 | work=CBS News | date=September 10, 2004}} ''CBS News'', September 10, 2004.</ref> Lieutenant Colonel [[Bill Burkett]] provided the documents to CBS, but he claims to have burned the originals after faxing them copies.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cover-guard_x.htm |title=CBS backs off Guard story|author1=Dave Moniz |author2=Kevin Johnson |author3=Jim Drinkard |work=USA Today|date=September 21, 2004|access-date=2008-03-18}}</ref>

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",<ref>Thornburgh–Boccardi report, p. 127.</ref> and he falsely asserted that they had been authenticated by experts retained by CBS.<ref>Thornburgh–Boccardi report, p. 127: "This statement was without factual support"; "It is without question, however, that Matley did not authenticate any of the documents in question."</ref>

The [[Killian documents authenticity issues|authenticity of the documents]] was challenged within minutes<ref>{{cite web | url=https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210516/posts?page=107#107 | title=Live Thread: Ben Barnes and CBS Attempt Another Bush Smear (60 Minutes) }}</ref> 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.<ref name="memmot">{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-guard-scoops-skepticism_x.htm|title=Scoops and skepticism: How the story unfolded.|work=USA Today|date=September 21, 2004|access-date=2008-03-21|author=Memmot, Mark}}</ref> 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",<ref name="rather statement">{{cite news|title= Dan Rather Statement On Memos |work=CBS News|date=September 20, 2005|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dan-rather-statement-on-memos/ |access-date=2017-01-17}}</ref> 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."<ref name="rather statement" /><ref name="CBS statement on panel">{{cite news | title=CBS Names Memo Probe Panel|date=September 22, 2004 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-names-memo-probe-panel/ | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news | title= Thornburgh-Boccardi report | url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf | access-date=2005-12-21 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref> 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 story of the controversy was dramatized in the 2015 film ''[[Truth (2015 film)|Truth]]'' starring [[Robert Redford]] as Dan Rather and [[Cate Blanchett]] as Mary Mapes, directed by [[James Vanderbilt]]. It is based on Mapes' memoir ''[[Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power]]''. 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".<ref name=HR>{{cite news|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cbs-bans-ads-dan-rather-832635|title=CBS Bans Ads for Dan Rather Movie 'Truth'|magazine=The Hollywood Reporter|date=October 16, 2015|access-date=September 26, 2016}}</ref>

==Background and timeline==
[[Image:GW-Bush-in-uniform.jpg|thumb|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.<ref>Burkett, Bill. {{cite web|url=http://onlinejournal.com/bush/031903Burkett/031903burkett.html |title=What do you say? |access-date=2012-05-11 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080609203137/http://onlinejournal.com/bush/031903Burkett/031903burkett.html |archive-date=June 9, 2008 }} archived copy from ''archive.org'' of story originally from ''onlinejournal.com'', March 19, 2003.</ref> Mapes and Dan Rather, among many other journalists, had been investigating for several years the story of Bush's [[George W. Bush military service controversy|alleged failure to fulfill his obligations to the National Guard]].<ref>See {{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040920-695873,00.html|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130104234427/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040920-695873,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 4, 2013|title=The X Files Of Lt. Bush: A flurry of contested memos and memories sheds more heat than light on his record|work=Time Magazine|date=September 13, 2004|access-date=2008-03-25|author=Ripley, Amanda}} and {{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14627-2004Sep11.html|title=Gaps in Service Continue to Dog Bush|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=September 12, 2004|access-date=2008-03-25|author=Dobbs, Michael}}</ref>

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",<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 53.</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-burkett-side_x.htm|title=Texan has made allegations for years|author1=Moniz, Dave |author2=Drinkard, Jim |author3=Kevin Johnson |date=September 21, 2004|work=USA Today|access-date=2008-03-13}}</ref> and in February 2004, when he claimed to have knowledge of "scrubbing" of Bush's [[Texas Air National Guard]] records.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://onlinejournal.com/bush/031903Burkett/031903burkett.html |title=What do you say? |author=Bill Burkett |date=March 19, 2003 |work=Online Journal |access-date=2006-03-20 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060210152055/http://onlinejournal.com/bush/031903Burkett/031903burkett.html |archive-date=February 10, 2006 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/13/doubts_raised_on_bush_accuser?mode=PF|author=Michael Rezendes|title=Doubts raised on Bush accuser|work=Boston Globe online|date=February 13, 2004|access-date=2005-12-20}}</ref> Mapes was "by her own account [aware that] many in the press considered Burkett an 'anti-Bush zealot', his credibility in question".<ref>{{cite news|work=The Boston Globe|date=December 11, 2005|title=Truth and Duty: a distorted lens|author=Robinson, Walter V.|access-date=2008-03-13|url=http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/12/11/truth_and_duty_a_distorted_lens/?page=2}}</ref>

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 [[John Kerry|Kerry]] campaign",<ref>{{cite news|work=USA Today|date=September 20, 2004|author1=Johnson, Kevin |author2=Moniz, Dave |author3=Jim Drinkard |title=CBS arranged for meeting with Lockhart|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-20-cbs-documents_x.htm|access-date=2008-03-14}}</ref> 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.<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 60–62.</ref> 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.<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 64–65.</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cover-guard_x.htm|work=USA Today|date=September 21, 2004|access-date=2008-03-14|author1=Dave Moniz |author2=Kevin Johnson |author3=Jim Drinkard |title=CBS backs off Guard story}}</ref>

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 (Texas politician)|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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-questions-on-bush-guard-duty-08-09-2004/|title=New Questions on Bush Guard Duty|work=CBS News|date=September 8, 2004|access-date=2008-03-14}}</ref> 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".<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 90–91.</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news|title=Kerry Aide Talked to Bush Guard Docs Figure|work=FoxNews.com|access-date=2008-03-14|date=September 22, 2004|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132996,00.html|author=Carl Cameron|display-authors=etal}}</ref>

===Content of the memos===
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:

#An order directing Bush to submit to a physical examination.<ref>{{cite news|title=Memorandum, May 4, 1972|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf|access-date=2006-03-17| work=CBS News}}</ref>
#A note that Killian had grounded Bush from flying due to "failure to perform to [[USAF]]&nbsp;/ 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.<ref>{{cite news|title=Memorandum for Record, August 1, 1972|url= http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf|access-date=2006-03-17| work=CBS News}}</ref>
#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).<ref>{{cite news|title=Memo to File, May 19, 1972|url= http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf|access-date=2006-03-17| work=CBS News}}</ref>
#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."<ref>{{cite news|title=Memo to File, August 18, 1973|url= http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf|access-date=2006-03-17| work=CBS News}}</ref>

''[[USA Today]]'' also received copies of the four documents used by CBS,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-09-bush-guard-memos_x.htm|title=Guard commander's memos criticize Bush.|access-date=2008-03-17|author1=Moniz, Dave |author2=Drinkard, Jim|work=USA Today|date=2004-09-09}}</ref> reporting this and publishing them the morning after the CBS segment, along with two additional memos.<ref>{{cite news|title= Bush documents obtained by USA TODAY|url= https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf |access-date=2006-03-17| work=USA Today}}</ref> Burkett was assured by ''USA Today'' that they would keep the source confidential.<ref name="usatoday_cbsbacksoff">{{cite news| url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cover-guard_x.htm|author1=Dave Moniz |author2=Kevin Johnson |author3=Jim Drinkard |title=CBS backs off Guard story|work=USA TODAY|date= September 21, 2004|access-date=2005-12-20}}</ref>

===CBS investigations prior to airing the segment===
Mapes and her colleagues began interviewing people who might be able to corroborate the information in the documents, while also retaining four [[Questioned document examination|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."<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-guard-memos-questioned/ |title=Bush Guard Memos Questioned.|work=CBS News, Associated Press|date=September 10, 2004|access-date=2005-12-20}}</ref> Strong had first seen the documents twenty minutes earlier and also said he had no personal knowledge of their content;<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 88.</ref> he later claimed he had been told to assume the content of the documents was accurate.<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 129.</ref>

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.<ref name="Thornburgh-Boccardi Report, p. 103">Thornburgh-Boccardi Report, p. 103.</ref> 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".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html |title=Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush|author1=Michael Dobbs |author2=Mike Allen |newspaper=Washington Post|date=September 9, 2004 |access-date=2004-12-20}}</ref> 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.<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 103.</ref> Hodges also claims that when CBS interviewed him, he thought the memos were handwritten, not typed,<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/politics/campaign/12guard.html?ex=1135227600&en=70edb1f42aa3edfe&ei=5070 |title=An Ex-Officer Now Believes Guard Memo Isn't Genuine|author1=Ralph Blumenthal |author2=Jim Rutenberg |work=New York Times|date=September 12, 2004 |access-date=2005-12-20}} Registration required.</ref><ref name="Thornburgh-Boccardi Report, p. 103"/> 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.<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 12.</ref>

===Response of the document examiners===
Prior to airing, all four of the examiners responded to Mapes' request for document analysis, though only two to Mapes directly:<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 84–86.</ref>

*Emily Will noted discrepancies in the signatures on the memos, and had questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the [[superscript]]ed "th" and the improper formatting of the date. Will requested other documents to use for comparison.<ref name=rushtoair>{{cite news|title=In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries.|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31727-2004Sep18_2.html|access-date=2008-03-17|author1=Howard Kurtz |author2=Michael Dobbs |author3=James V. Grimaldi |date=September 19, 2004}}</ref>
*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.'"<ref name=rushtoair/>
*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".<ref name="cbsnews.com">{{cite news|title=GOP Slams CBS on Bush Memos|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-slams-cbs-on-bush-memos/|access-date=2008-03-17|date=September 15, 2004|work=CBS News|author=CBS/AP}}</ref> However, Pierce also told Mapes he could not be sure if the documents had been altered because he was reviewing copies, not original documents.<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 86.</ref>
*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 prior to the segment). Matley told Rather "he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies".<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 98–99.</ref> 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.<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 101.</ref>
*Both Emily Will and Linda James suggested to Mapes that CBS contact typewriter expert Peter Tytell (son of [[Martin Tytell]]) 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".<ref>Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 108–110.</ref>

==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>

==CBS's defense, apology==
<!-- Image with inadequate rationale removed: [[Image:60 Minutes.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Iconic image from [[60 Minutes]] opening sequence.]] -->
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".<ref name="Report 1E">{{cite news | title=CBS Evening News Transcript |date=September 11, 2004| url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1E.pdf | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=Further scrutiny lessens doubts on Bush memos / Some skeptics now say IBM typewriter could have been used | url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68NEKR1.DTL | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=San Francisco Chronicle | first1=Francie | last1=Latour | first2=Michael | last2=Rezendes | date=September 11, 2004}}</ref> The [[IBM Selectric Composer|Selectric Composer]] was introduced in 1966 for use by [[typesetting]] professionals to generate [[camera-ready]] copy;<ref>{{Cite web|title=Your WordPress! Site hosted with CloudAccess.net – Just another WordPress site|url=http://ibmcomposer.info/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210521164508/http://ibmcomposer.info/|url-status=usurped|archive-date=May 21, 2021|access-date=2023-01-05|language=en-US}}</ref> according to [[International Business Machines|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."<ref>{{Cite web|date=2003-01-23|title=IBM Archives: IBM Office Products Division highlights - page 2|url=https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/modelb/modelb_office2.html|access-date=2023-01-05|website=www.ibm.com|language=en-US}}</ref> Bouffard's comments were also cited by the ''Boston Globe'' in an article entitled "Authenticity backed on Bush documents".<ref>{{cite news | title=Authenticity backed on Bush documents |url=http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents/|access-date=2007-03-25 | work=The Boston Globe | date=September 11, 2004 | first1=Francie | last1=Latour | first2=Michael | last2=Rezendes}}</ref> However, the ''Globe'' soon printed a retraction regarding the title.<ref>{{cite news|title=For the Record |url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/15/for_the_record/ |access-date=2007-03-25 |publisher=The Boston Globe, September 15, 2004 |date=September 15, 2004 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060619025429/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/15/for_the_record/ |archive-date=June 19, 2006 }}</ref> 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".<ref name="Report 1E" />

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".<ref name="Report 1F">{{cite news | title=CBS Evening News Transcript|date=September 13, 2004| url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1F.pdf | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref> 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]]''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Killian Memo Update|url=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004669.php#261559|author=Kevin Drum|date=September 10, 2004|work=Washington Monthly|access-date=2017-01-17|archive-date=March 15, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060315153129/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004669.php#261559|url-status=dead}}</ref> 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]].<ref>{{cite web|work=The Weekly Standard|title=Dear Mr. Rather|author=Emery, Noemie|date=September 21, 2004|access-date=2008-03-24|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/660naguj.asp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040923015750/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/660naguj.asp|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 23, 2004}}</ref>

===''60 Minutes Wednesday'', one week later===
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 prior to the segment. Linda James stated that the memos were of "very poor quality" and that she did not authenticate them,<ref name="CNN1">{{cite news | title=CBS' experts say they didn't authenticate Bush memos|date=September 15, 2004 | url=http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/bush.guard.memos/index.html | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CNN }}</ref> telling ABC News, "I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it understood that I did."<ref name="cbsnews.com"/>

In response, ''60 Minutes Wednesday'' 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.<ref name="60min statement">{{cite news |title=CBS News affirms its intention to continue to report all aspects of the story | date=September 15, 2004 | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref> CBS News concurrently amended its previous claim that Matley had authenticated the documents, saying instead that he had authenticated only the signatures.<ref>{{cite news | title=CBS Defends Bush Memos|date=September 15, 2004 | url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-defends-bush-memos/ | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref> 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."<ref name="CNN1" />

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.<ref name="60min statement" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=For The Record: Bush Documents|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-the-record-bush-documents-15-09-2004/|access-date=2023-01-05|website=www.cbsnews.com|date=September 15, 2004 |language=en-US}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{citation|title=Ex-staffer: Bush records are fake; Secretary to military officer says she never typed the memos|author1=Crowe, Robert |author2=Mason, Julie|work=Houston Chronicle|date=September 15, 2004|page=A7|url=http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Secretary-to-military-officer-says-Bush-records-1665422.php|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040915234617/http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2796630|archive-date=September 15, 2004|url-status=live}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/us/the-2004-campaign-national-guard-memos-on-bush-are-fake-but-accurate-typist-says.html|title=Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says|work=The New York Times|date=September 15, 2004|access-date=2008-03-24|author1=Balleza, Maureen|author2=Zernike, Kate|archive-date=2015-10-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151005164349/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/us/the-2004-campaign-national-guard-memos-on-bush-are-fake-but-accurate-typist-says.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Slover |first=Pete |title=Ex-aide disavows Bush Guard memos |url=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091504dnpolnatguard.1185eb4ae.html |work=Dallas Morning News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040918013740/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091504dnpolnatguard.1185eb4ae.html |archive-date=September 18, 2004 }} The archived link works only with JavaScript disabled in the browser; a version with all scripts disabled is [https://archive.today/20131219200453/http://www.pagewash.com/nph-index.cgi/011110A/uggc:/=2fjro.nepuvir.bet/jro/20040918013740/uggc:/=2fjjj.qnyynfarjf.pbz/funerqpbagrag/qjf/qa/yngrfgarjf/fgbevrf/091504qacbyangthneq.1185ro4nr.ugzy here].</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/634lbcgo.asp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040922040337/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/634lbcgo.asp|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 22, 2004|title=The fake but accurate media.|date=September 27, 2004|work=The Weekly Standard|access-date=2008-03-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Taranto, James|title=All the News that's Fake but Accurate.|date=September 15, 2004|work=The Wall Street Journal Online|access-date=2008-03-15|url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005624}}</ref>

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."<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=September 16, 2004|access-date=2008-03-25|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html|author=Kurtz, Howard|title=Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect; CBS Anchor Urges Media to Focus On Bush Service}}</ref>

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 prior to the report and that, "We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040915-3.html |title=Scott McClellan briefing, September 15, 2004, at |publisher=Georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov |date=2004-09-15 |access-date=2010-05-24}}</ref>

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,<ref>{{cite news | title=CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's |date=September 15, 2004|page=A06| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html | access-date=2006-03-20 | newspaper=The Washington Post | first=Michael | last=Dobbs}}</ref> leading some to trace the documents back to Burkett.

===CBS states that use of the documents was a mistake===
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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-statement-on-bush-memos/|date=February 11, 2009<!-- 7:51 PM-->|author=Jarrett Murphy|title=CBS Statement On Bush Memos|access-date=2011-07-27|work=CBS News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20CND-GUAR.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin|date=September 20, 2004|author1=Rutenberg, Jim |author2=Prendergast, Mark J.|title=CBS Asserts It Was Misled by Ex-Officer on Bush Documents|access-date=2008-03-25|work=The New York Times}}</ref> While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries, CBS News president [[Andrew Heyward]] said,

<blockquote>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.<ref name="rather statement" /><ref name="CBS statement on panel" /></blockquote>

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."<ref name="rather statement" />

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 [[FedEx Kinko's|Kinko's]] and burned the original documents.<ref name="usatoday_cbsbacksoff" /><ref>{{cite news | title=CBS Statement On Bush Memos|date=September 20, 2004| url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-statement-on-bush-memos/ | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref> Investigations by CBS, CNN and the ''Washington Post'' failed to turn up evidence of "Lucy Ramirez" being an actual person.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Whacking of CBS (washingtonpost.com)|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A458-2005Jan11.html|access-date=2023-01-05|website=www.washingtonpost.com}}</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20050111221825/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/122hkbzu.asp Jonathan V. Last, "Whitewash"], ''The Weekly Standard'', January 10, 2005.</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/POLITICS/09/21/cbs.documents/|title=CNN Sept 21, 2004|website=[[CNN]] }}</ref>

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."<ref name="look back" />

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

==Review panel established==
[[Image:Dick Thornburgh.jpg|thumb|[[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".<ref>{{cite news |title=CBS News Statement On Panel |date=September 22, 2004 |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-statement-on-panel/ | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref> [[Dick Thornburgh]], a [[Republican Party (United States)|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.<ref>{{cite web|title=Dan Rather's Long Goodbye: Who Done It? |work=The New York Observer |date=March 13, 2005 |access-date=2008-03-24 |author=Hagen, Joe |url=http://www.observer.com/node/50507 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071029202857/http://www.observer.com/node/50507 |url-status=dead |archive-date=October 29, 2007}}</ref>

===Findings===
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.<ref>Dick Thornburgh and Louis D. Boccardi, [http://www.image.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf Report of the Independent Review Panel]. CBS News: January 5, 2005.</ref> 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:
:# The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;
:# 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;
:# 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;
:# 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]];
:# The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the segment that the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian's personal files";
:# 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;
:# The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;
:# 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;
:# The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the segment; and
:# The telephone call prior to the segment's airing by the producer of the segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry – a clear conflict of interest – that created the appearance of a political bias.

: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:
:# The strident defense of the September 8 segment by CBS News without adequately probing whether any of the questions raised had merit;
:# 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;
:# 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;
:# The misleading stories defending the segment that aired on the CBS Evening News after September 8 despite strong and multiple indications of serious flaws;
:# 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
:# 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===
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 prior to 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 reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects."<ref name="Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg. 175">Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 175.</ref>

==Aftermath==
The controversy had long-reaching personal, political and legal consequences. In a 2010 issue of ''[[TV Guide]]'', Rather's report was ranked {{Numero|3}} on a list of TV's ten biggest "blunders".<ref>Battaglio, Stephen. "The Blunder Years", ''[[TV Guide]]'', November 1, 2010, pp. 20–21.</ref>

===CBS personnel and programming changes===
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,<ref>{{cite news|title=2 Involved in Flawed Report at CBS Resign|author=Jacques Steinberg|work=The New York Times|date=February 26, 2005|page=B18}}</ref> and after settling a legal dispute regarding his level of responsibility for the segment, Josh Howard resigned on March 25, 2005.<ref>{{cite news | title= Final Figure in '60 Minutes' Scandal Resigns|date=March 25, 2005|agency=Associated Press | url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/final-figure-in-60-minutes-scandal-resigns | access-date=2006-03-20 | work=Fox News}}</ref>

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."<ref>{{cite news|author=Carter, Bill|title=Analysis: Post-Mortem of CBS's Flawed Broadcast|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/business/media/11network.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=36f0636021244f73&hp&ex=1105506000&partner=homepage|date=January 11, 2005|work=The New York Times|access-date=2008-03-24}}</ref>

CBS was originally planning to show a ''60 Minutes'' report critical of the Bush administration 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.<ref>{{cite news | last = Zernike | first = Kate | title = '60 Minutes' Delays Report Questioning Reasons for Iraq War | work = The New York Times | date = 2004-09-25 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/politics/campaign/25cbs.html?ex=1253851200&en=5c69abd689bb79d5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt | access-date = 2007-09-20 }}</ref>

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===
On November 9, 2005, Mary Mapes gave an interview to ABC News correspondent Brian Ross. Mapes stated that the documents have never been proved 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."<ref>{{cite news|date=November 11, 2005|newspaper=The Washington Post|title="Final Days at "60 Minutes"|access-date=2008-03-25|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/10/DI2005111001414.html?nav=nsc | first=Mary | last=Mapes}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news | title = Courage for Dan Rather | last = Mapes | first = Mary | work =The Huffington Post | date = 2007-09-20 | url = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-mapes/courage-for-dan-rather_b_65257.html | access-date = 2008-01-22 }}</ref>

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."<ref name="apnov2006">{{cite news | last = Baker| first = Mike| title = Rather defends discredited 60 Minutes segment in radio interview| agency = Associated Press| date = 2006-11-07| url = http://www.wistv.com/story/5648070/rather-defends-discredited-60-minutes-segment-in-radio-interview| access-date = 2006-11-10 }}</ref>

Dan Rather continued to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews stated that he believed that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries – and that even if the documents are false, the underlying story is true.<ref>{{cite news | title=Transcript of WPTF interview with Dan Rather | work=The News & Observer|url=http://www.newsobserver.com/308/story/507427.html|access-date=2006-11-09}}</ref>

=== Rather's lawsuit against CBS/Viacom ===
On September 19, 2007, Rather filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and its former corporate parent, [[Viacom (2005–present)|Viacom]], claiming they had made him a "[[scapegoat]]" over the controversy caused by the 2004 ''60 Minutes Wednesday'' report that featured the Killian documents.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna20874051|access-date=2008-03-24|date=September 20, 2007|agency=Associated Press|title=Rather files $70 million lawsuit against CBS Newsman alleges network made him 'scapegoat' for discredited story}}</ref> 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.<ref>A PDF copy of the suit can be found on at [http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0919_don_rather_wm_01.pdf].</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.observer.com/2008/cbs-agrees-hand-over-rigler-report-rathers-legal-team|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080128234938/http://www.observer.com/2008/cbs-agrees-hand-over-rigler-report-rathers-legal-team|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 28, 2008|work=The New York Observer|access-date=2008-03-24|date=January 23, 2008|author=Gilette, Felix|title=CBS Agrees to Hand Over 'Rigler Report' to Rather's Legal Team}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090929/tv_nm/us_rather_cbs_1|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002082508/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090929/tv_nm/us_rather_cbs_1|url-status=dead|title=Appeals court dismisses Dan Rather's suit vs. CBS|archivedate=October 2, 2009}}</ref>

==Authentication issues==
{{Main|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 to errors in their content and style.<ref name=wapoexpert>{{Cite web|title=Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags' (washingtonpost.com)|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21675-2004Sep14.html?nav=hcmodule|access-date=2023-01-05|website=www.washingtonpost.com}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news | title=Thornburg-Boccardi Report, Appendix 4 | url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf | access-date=2005-12-21 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref>

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

==Accusations of bias==
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 United States presidential election|2004 presidential election]]. Freelance journalist Michael Smith had emailed Mapes, asking, "What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly 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".<ref>Thornburgh–Boccardi report, p. 62.</ref> 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";<ref name="Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg. 175"/> however, the Panel did not "find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the Segment of having a political bias".<ref>Thornburgh–Boccardi Report, p. 211.</ref> 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".<ref>{{Cite web|title=Critics Question No-Bias Finding By CBS Panel (washingtonpost.com)|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2148-2005Jan11.html|access-date=2023-01-05|website=www.washingtonpost.com}}</ref> The panel concluded that the problems occurred "primarily because of a rush to air that overwhelmed the proper application of the CBS News Standards".<ref>Thornburgh–Boccardi Report, p. 221.</ref>

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."<ref>{{cite news|title= CBS; Guard memos are authentic; Dems rip Bush's service |author=Noelle Straub |work=The Boston Herald|date=September 11, 2004|page=10}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title= Who Is Buckhead? Kerry Assaulter Seemed Prepped|author=Robert Sam Anson|date=September 20, 2004|work=New York Observer|page=1}} via Lexis/Nexis.</ref> 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]].<ref>{{cite news|title=The Case of the Phony Memos|author=Matthew Continetti|work=The Weekly Standard|date=October 4, 2004}} via Lexis/Nexis.</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Kerry camp rejects CBS link|author1=Stephen Dinan |author2=Bill Sammon |work=The Washington Times|date=September 22, 2004|page=A01|url=http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040922-122835-2135r.htm|access-date=2006-03-20}}</ref> At a community forum in [[Utica, New York]] in 2005, [[United States House of Representatives|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."<ref name="Brooks">{{Cite news| last = Brooks| first = Paul| title = Hinchey sees hand of Rove| newspaper = [[Times Herald-Record]]| date = February 22, 2005| url = http://archive.recordonline.com/archive/2005/02/22/hinchey2.htm}}</ref> 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."<ref name="Brooks"/>

Rove and Stone have denied any involvement.<ref>{{cite news | title=Rove rejects charges he was CBS source|work=The Washington Times |date=September 22, 2004 | url=http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040922-101433-4296r.htm | access-date=2005-12-21 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=Parties lob accusations over suspect papers |work=USA Today|date=September 21, 2004| url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cbs-parties_x.htm | access-date=2005-12-21 | first1=Martin | last1=Kasindorf | first2=Richard | last2=Benedetto}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite magazine|magazine=The New Yorker|author=Toobin, Jeffrey|title=The Dirty Trickster|date=June 2, 2008|access-date=2008-06-14|url=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|United States|Politics|Journalism}}
* [[George W. Bush military service controversy]]
* [[Questioned document examination]]

{{Clear}}

==Footnotes==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==

=== Killian documents PDF files ===
These are the Killian documents supplied to CBS Reports by Bill Burkett: 
*[http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf Memorandum, May 4, 1972] (CBS News)
*[http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf Memo to File, May 19, 1972] (CBS News)
*[http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf Memorandum For Record, August 1, 1972] (CBS News)
*[http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf Memo to File, August 18, 1973] (CBS News)
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20041022091315/https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf USA Today Killian documents] (USA Today, six memos in one.pdf file)

=== Bush documents from the TexANG archives ===
Page 31 is a November 3, 1970, memo from the office of Lt Col Killian on promotion of Lt Bush:
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20041025103121/https://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/11-1_2004_Personnel_File.pdf Bush enlistment documents] (''USA Today'')

=== 60 Minutes II, September 8 transcript ===
*[http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1B.pdf Transcript of CBS segment]

=== Dan Rather interviews Marion Carr Knox - September 15, 2004 ===
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqVaNSzEgEw] YouTube

=== Statements of the CBS document examiners ===
* [http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf Marcel B. Matley, September 14, 2004]
* [http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf James J. Pierce, September 14, 2004]
* [http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/glennon.pdf Bill Glennon, September 13, 2004]
* [http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/katz.pdf Richard Katz, September 13, 2004]

=== Thornburgh–Boccardi report ===
*{{cite news|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf|title=The Complete Independent Panel Report on CBS News|access-date=2006-03-18}}
*{{cite news|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665818.shtml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050112064947/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665818.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 12, 2005 |title=Exhibits and Appendices for report|access-date=2006-03-18 | work=CBS News | date=January 10, 2005}} [Link to site supposedly containing the exhibits and appendices, but links from that site don't work]

===Document analysis===
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/daily/graphics/guard_091404.html A Pentagon memo next to one of CBS's Killian memos] — ''The Washington Post'', September 14, 2004
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html The Paper Trail: A Comparison of Documents] ''The Washington Post'', September 18, 2004
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html Graphic comparison of all the CBS memos with officially released Killian memos] ''The Washington Post'', September 19, 2004
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20050104071826/http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/1/pein-blog.asp "Blog-gate"] [[Columbia Journalism Review]]
*[http://www.flounder.com/bush4.htm "CJR Fallacies"], response by Joseph Newcomer
*[https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/bush.html "Are the Bush Documents Fakes?"], analysis by Richard Polt

===Overview timeline at ''USA Today''===
*[https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-guard-scoops-skepticism_x.htm "Scoops and skepticism: How the story unfolded"] — timeline from ''USA Today'' — September 21, 2004

===Further reading===
*''Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power'' ({{ISBN|0-312-35195-X}}), by Mary Mapes, November 2005, St. Martin's Press, {{ISBN|0-312-35195-X}}

===In other media===
* ''[[Truth (2015 film)|Truth]]'', 2015 film starring [[Cate Blanchett]] and [[Robert Redford]], whose story is based on the Mapes book above about this controversy.
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqVaNSzEgEw "Dan Rather interviews Marion Carr Knox - September 15, 2004"] YouTube

{{George W. Bush}}
{{60 Minutes}}

[[Category:Killian documents controversy| ]]
[[Category:60 Minutes]]
[[Category:Memoranda]]
[[Category:2004 controversies in the United States]]
[[Category:2004 in American politics]]
[[Category:Political forgery]]
[[Category:Journalistic scandals]]
[[Category:Mass media-related controversies in the United States]]
[[Category:2004 United States presidential election]]
[[Category:Political controversies in the United States]]