Changes

==Rathergate==

==Rathergate==

In September 2004, the middle of the presidential election, Rather claimed on "60 Minutes" that he had authentic typed documents from the 1970's which called into question [[George W. Bush|Bush's]] [[National Guard]] service.  These documents were almost immediately questioned in blogs to be forgeries based on font and script print that was not available to typewriters of that time period.  Indeed, it appeared to be written in Microsoft Word, a program that did not exist at the time the documents claimed to have been written.  Instead of admitting the documents may have to be looked at further, the initial response of Rather and CBS was to stick to their guns that they were genuine. <blockquote>"As a standard practice at CBS, each of the documents broadcast on "60 Minutes" was thoroughly investigated by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity"</blockquote>  Indeed, CBS had actually been warned by some of the people they interviewed for the story that the document they were talking about was probably a forgery, but they were dismissed as 'pro-Bush'. Only when it was overwhelmingly apparent that they were shoddy forgeries, did CBS and Rather relent.  CBS and Rather later apologized for running the story, but their obstinance in light of the building evidence had already done its damage.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml ''Dan Rather Statement On Memos''], CBS News, 20 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/9/192002.shtml '' '60 Minutes' Bush Guard Documents Questioned''], NewsMax.com, 9 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/11/100726.shtml '' '60 Minutes': Witness Who Contradicted Forged Docs Was Too 'Pro-Bush' ''], NewsMax.com, 11 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref>.

In September 2004, the middle of the presidential election, Rather claimed on "60 Minutes" that he had authentic typed documents from the 1970's which called into question [[George W. Bush|Bush's]] [[National Guard]] service.  These documents were almost immediately exposed in blogs to be forgeries based on font and script print that was not available to typewriters of that time period.  Indeed, it appeared to be written in Microsoft Word, a program that did not exist at the time the documents claimed to have been written.  Instead of admitting the documents may have to be looked at further, the initial response of Rather and CBS was to stick to their guns that they were genuine. <blockquote>"As a standard practice at CBS, each of the documents broadcast on "60 Minutes" was thoroughly investigated by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity"</blockquote>  Indeed, CBS had actually been warned by some of the people they interviewed for the story that the document they were talking about was probably a forgery, but they were dismissed as 'pro-Bush'. Only when it was overwhelmingly apparent that they were shoddy forgeries, did CBS and Rather relent.  CBS and Rather later apologized for running the story, but their obstinance in light of the building evidence had already done its damage.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml ''Dan Rather Statement On Memos''], CBS News, 20 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/9/192002.shtml '' '60 Minutes' Bush Guard Documents Questioned''], NewsMax.com, 9 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/11/100726.shtml '' '60 Minutes': Witness Who Contradicted Forged Docs Was Too 'Pro-Bush' ''], NewsMax.com, 11 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref>.

The documents were reviewed by experts who decided that the documents were false, and that CBS was negligent in airing them.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21675-2004Sep14.html?nav=hcmodule ''Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags' ''], The Washington Post, 15 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html ''Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush''], The Washington Post, 10 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf ''Appendix 4: Panel Observations Peter Tytell's Analysis of Typestyle Issues''] (PDF), CBS News. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref> Four CBS employees were later fired over the controversy, including the Senior Vice President, and many suspect that Rather retired in order to avoid the same fate.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml ''CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story''], CBS News, 10 Jan 2005. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref>   

The documents were reviewed by experts who decided that the documents were false, and that CBS was negligent in airing them.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21675-2004Sep14.html?nav=hcmodule ''Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags' ''], The Washington Post, 15 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html ''Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush''], The Washington Post, 10 Sept 2004. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref><ref>[http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf ''Appendix 4: Panel Observations Peter Tytell's Analysis of Typestyle Issues''] (PDF), CBS News. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref> Four CBS employees were later fired over the controversy, including the Senior Vice President, and many suspect that Rather retired in order to avoid the same fate.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml ''CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story''], CBS News, 10 Jan 2005. Accessed 20 Nov 2007.</ref>