INDCJournal: Sigh. Source Tug-of-War <b><i>(UPDATED EXTENSIVELY)</i></b>

« Idiots | Main | IMPORTANT BREAKING STORY »

September 14, 2004

Sigh. Source Tug-of-War (UPDATED EXTENSIVELY)

Posted by Bill

Someone has tipped me to the possibility that Dr. Bouffard may have told the Boston Globe that he now regrets his statements to me because he was merely reacting to the headline. Apparently, he may now have since read the whole story and come to the conclusion that the body copy wasn't that bad.

So to be completely transparent and avoid confusion as the Globe tries to wiggle free:

A. I quoted Dr. Bouffard directly and accurately, with no alteration.

B. It's true that I did have problems with the Globe's analysis in the body of the article (presented in my initial analysis here), but the main and continued focus of my ire (and what should be yours) is the blatant mischaracterization in the headline. Let's revisit the Globe's headline:

Authenticity backed on Bush documents

I give the body copy a pass (at least in making my major case) because it can be selectively interpreted by different eyes; the headline is the smoking gun. Note that this is still consistent with what I've heard is the crux of Dr. Bouffard's new statement.

C. For the reasons above, in my conversation with the ombudsmen of the Globe, I largely gave them a pass on the body of the article. Instead, I repeatedly stressed to Christine Chinlund that the headline was a pure deception that has negatively influenced the national debate.

Just FYI. I'm opening the books and am willing to share all e-mails with Bouffard and create pdf's of my handwritten notes to back my claims (good luck reading those). I'll also submit to a lie detector test, chinese water torture and electroshock, if necessary.

I'd also like to note that I am sorry that I have dragged Dr. Bouffard into a tug of war over this issue, but to quote him directly:

"You talk to someone on the phone and it comes out different than you said!"

I hope that I didn't contribute to this impression; I know that I quoted him faithfully.

In our last interview, he also told me that my previous posts about our discussions were accurate, as I had sent him a link to my site for review. Thus far, I have been unable to reach him about this new matter.

Also, let's repeat my writing that verifies that he was not misquoted in the Globe, just selectively represented to buttress a completely inaccurate headline:

* I can verify that Dr. Bouffard made that statement, because he also said something similar (to that effect) to me.

* In short, he was professional and cautious, but refused to certify absolutely that it was impossible that the docs were real based on only his analysis of the font characteristics. He left open the possibility that the docs are real, but very clearly expressed to me that he doubted that this was the case, and he mentioned several other forensics colleagues that believe that the memo is a forgery (including Bill Flynn, who was consulted by ABC News).

* In truth, nearly the opposite sentiment is true. A perfectly honest headline would read "Expert Confirms Possibility That Documents Are Real, But Still Considers it "Likely That it is a Computer-Generated Document."

* Did he say "could have?" Yes, based on today's analysis, he said it was possible, but he also said that the chance was unlikely.

UPDATE: Rathergate has a new quote from Dr. Bouffard. I verified the authenticity of the e-mail address.

Bouffard backing up? Not likely.

UPDATE: Spoons says in the comments:

I have been effusive in my praise of your work on this, Bill, but I think you should have held off on this post. "Someone has tipped me to the possibility..." seems insufficient for running with this. As it is, this post makes Bouffard look slightly flaky. I think it might have been better to hold off until you've got real word from Bouffard as to whether he objects to anything you wrote.

Well, the source is pretty good and I entirely believe that Dr. Bouffard may have said that (or at least be partially quoted as saying that), because it's somewhat accurate. No decision was definitive at the time of the various interviews, and the guy wanted time to verify and come to an appropriately researched conclusion, but was hurried by the news cycle. I don't think that this makes him sound "flaky."

As for holding off on this post, I've given up on contacting Bouffard, so unless he calls me back, I'll never hear it straight from his mouth. I'd be surprised if he hasn't gone underground (to news organizations) almost completely by now. I want to present a preemptive defense and be perfectly open to scrutiny as I pursue a retraction/clarification from the Globe.

This is my style.

UPDATE: Here's the article/post on the matter, starting with Bouffard's direct quote to Dan Kennedy, the author:

"As far as the Boston Globe article, I never saw it until recently, and was only made aware of anything by the hate mail that I received. I also had one sender who later called back to apologize after reading the story, and he e-mailed me the story. My position at the time that I talked to the Boston Globe was that I was checking out some new information sent to me that the [Killian] Memos were (or could have been) created on a Selectric Composer. Further research indicates that it could not be, but it needed to be looked into. It appears that the headline for the Globe story was misleading, otherwise this person would not have called back to apologize after reading the article. INDC called for clarification before any of this occurred, asking if I had changed my mind about the authenticity, which I hadn't because, in my mind, I was not certain from the beginning. INDC evidently wrote their story based upon my reaction to what turned out to be the headline for the story."

Kennedy goes on to quote me correctly and is thorough and factual in his post, but I think that his analysis is somewhat baffling and the tenor of his conclusion is totally wrong:

Now Bouffard's clarifying remarks cast this in an entirely different light.
...
As for the headline, which did in fact wrongly make it appear that Bouffard had changed his views, Morrow told me, "We might address the headline, which was more emphatic than the story was, and may have been the source of the tenor of the comment on the piece" - reference to the blizzard of criticism to which the Globe has been subjected since the weekend.
...
But the notion that the Globe did Dr. Bouffard wrong in order to throw a lifeline to Kerry can now be put to rest.

(Emphasis mine)

Number One: No one ever said the notion was that the Globe did Bouffard wrong to throw a lifeline to Kerry. Mr. Kennedy has a fun-to-read blog, but his partisanship is getting the best of him here. This isn't about Bush-Kerry, it's about the Globe covering its ass with a misleading headline because they were the ones (along with CBS) that initially ran the story about the documents.

Number Two: I may still think that the tenor of the body of the story was somewhat inaccurate (which is open to interpretation), but the headline was the rock-solid lie by the Globe. To boil this down into a cliched political saying:

It's the Headline, Stupid.

The headline was what influenced CBS News to offer another round of defense, saying that the documents were "authenticated." Notice that the hate mail that Bouffard received was from mailers that reacted to the headline.

The Globe needs to retract.

Posted by Bill at September 14, 2004 01:46 PM | TrackBack (4)

Comments

Get thee to Gitmo, you bad man. It's time you had the Lindsey.

Seriously, you're a modern day hero. Of course the good Doctor is upset, he's suddenly been made famous. The cool part is, a blogger did it. Heh. Too cool.

Posted by: rick at September 14, 2004 02:12 PM

So far, no one from Nigeria has contacted me about the accuracy of my Memogate post, so I can't say I kmow what it's like.

But you have my sympathy, nonetheless.

Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at September 14, 2004 02:13 PM

Sounds frustrating as hell. The best you can do is to continue as you have, being honest, and maintaining transparency to demonstrate your honesty to any who wish to verify.

Anyone who decides you have misrepresented Bouffard has just been too lazy to read your posts sequentially and in totality.

Posted by: krakatoa at September 14, 2004 02:14 PM

Reuters Tickertape wire updates...9/14/04

- "No evidence found of superscript nipple availability on breasts in the 1970's time frame..."...NIH

- "New published list of "CBS's 50 brain dead beliefs" fails to match list of John Kerry's positions on Iraq..."...Vodkapundit

- "If I had known now what I knew then I would have declared war on Ann Coulter"...DNC Kerry Klearifications...

- Batman casts key vote in British parliment... All current utility belts to be upgraded with tinfoil hats...London Times...

- "Budweiser launches million dollar contest Ad campaign - Find the Killian signiture bottle cap"... Truckers and Rifle weekly...

- "Billy Wilder to pen musical Stageplay based on Kerry's great war adventure titled "Christmas in Cambodia"...Ted Kennedy to play meaty part of crazy uncle...Broadway Lights...

- "Dan Rather strikes back at critics unveiling new expert to counter charges that he is senile"... NYT

Posted by: Hunter at September 14, 2004 02:16 PM

Bill ... what you're doing now is textbook. In the journalism world, if you're questioned, you turn over your notes and tapes to your editor, who then defends you. In your case, it's just you ... so you offer your notes and transcripts as evidence.

--|PW|--

Posted by: pennywit at September 14, 2004 02:22 PM

The only problem is, my notes are literally beyond illegible (often to me - I only use what I can read, because you have to write very, very fast to transcribe a conversation). But all the same, I'll put them up as this goes further.

Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at September 14, 2004 02:23 PM

conspiracy theorist reporting for duty! hear me out:

is it possible that Bouffard is getting more than media attention? say, some silly death-threats, and perhaps some not-so-silly death-threats?

if it's all a fraud, and CBS is willing to perpetrate and perpetuate that fraud, consider the calibre of baddy behind the wheel here. how hard could it be to bump off some old man? that possibility might be fogging Bouffard's thinking and compelling him to go on record about it.

or maybe it's just me, and the guy is just a little harrassed and being pinned in corner he doesn't want to be in.

Posted by: tee bee at September 14, 2004 02:41 PM

tee bee -

you've read my previous posts. Yes, he is getting threats, and yes, he is in a corner. he wants time to make a proper accounting, and he's getting pressured. We'll see what the accounting is.

Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at September 14, 2004 02:45 PM

It seems as if poor Dr. Bouffard has gotten into the middle of a controversy he doesn't want to be in.
I think we all need to extend to him maximum courtesy and thanks, and give him enough distance from this issue as he desires.

At this point, there are so many other experts, like Dr. Newcomer, who have come forward and are willing to debunk these forged documents, that it is not essential to have Dr. Bouffard on record one way or another.

But many thanks to Dr. Bouffard...and I hope he finds a way to shield himself from the pressure of the liberals/Dems...I know this will be difficult, as he is on record being a Kerry supporter.

Posted by: Another Thought at September 14, 2004 02:50 PM

It's a shame we can't have some sort of show of support and thanks to Dr. Bouffard for having the courage to come forward. It would be nice if he receives more than threats and efforts at coercion from the libs/Dems.

Posted by: Another Thought at September 14, 2004 02:51 PM

Posted by: Spoons at September 14, 2004 02:52 PM

Post updates....

I guess I should have been more clear. I had the impression from your post that you thought Bouffard was going to tell some other source that he regretted his comments to you. If he's just privately grumbling to no one in particular, I don't think it's newsworthy.

The reason I think it would make Bouffard look flaky is that it tends to make it seem like he's flip flopped.

Superficially, to someone not following the story closely, it would look like:

1. Bouffard tells you they're probably fake.
2. Bouffard tells the Globe they could very well be real.
3. Bouffard tells you that the Globe got it wrong, and they're fake again.
4. Bouffard tells someone else that he regrets talking to you, because they might be real.

Granted, I think there are very legitimate explanations each step of the way, and you've presented them. I just think that the latest round here will give ammuniton to those wanting to discredit Bouffard. If he'd gone to some other source, or even directly to you, and complained about your posts, this would be a story. As it is, it isn't. Bouffard believes that the docs are fake. Period.

Posted by: Spoons at September 14, 2004 04:07 PM

But seriously, great job on all of this Bill. Don't take my Tuesday morning quarterback nitpicking to heart.

Posted by: Spoons at September 14, 2004 04:09 PM

Yup.

Idiots that are incapable of grasping my in depth explanation and analysis will always believe what they want.

And I can offer the analysis that looks like flip-flop on his part because at this point, i know that it's moot.

The fakery will be verified. I just want people to understand that I covered this with complete honesty and attention to accuracy.

Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at September 14, 2004 04:11 PM

Yes you have, Bill. I've been keeping up with it as best I can and the attention this has generated is simply astounding. Covering a constantly breaking story has got to be tough, when it's a hobby, not the jobby, so bless your heart.

And Another Thought, you're right on. This poor guy has entered a s***storm of controversy, and it all came outta the blue. Bless him too.

Posted by: rick at September 14, 2004 04:40 PM

Bill - you dood good dude...At this point its so overwhelming that no one factor is all that important..and I echo other bloggers in applauding the good doctors courage in this matter...

...moveing.org right along...

- Reuters tickertape wire update ... 9/14/04

- "The Melbourne Zoo hopes to pump up flagging tourism with its new "Lions petting center" audience participation program. Giddy zoo officials say their upscale attraction will include on the spot medical treatment, and staff photogs so Zoo goers can capture the moment." ... Zoo Nooz

- "According to insiders Scott Peterson's defense attorney Mark Garogos is planning to file a dismissal of all charges based on the fact that his client is a widower." ...Modesto Voice

- "The DNC announced a "vote for Kerry" gift giveaway to be added today on their Kerry campaign website - moveonboneheads.org - Among the items is a "Magic hat" adorned with the Christmas in Cambodia Vietcong regional baseball team logo"... Liberal Lunatics Newsletter

- "The Vatican today announced that the Pope will throw the Papal veil in John Kerry's ring, supporting the Mass. Senator in his bid for the presidency. The aging Pontiff, when questioned concerning Kerry's position of pro-abortion, quiped ..."Oh not to worry...You know how changable John is...Americans can rest easy that as soon as he gets elected he'll immediately change sides"... Rome See Telegraph...

Posted by: Hunter at September 14, 2004 04:51 PM

What's your point, Hunter? I'm focusing on Rathergate.

You want more news, go check your Reuters ticker.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at September 14, 2004 07:19 PM

That's pretty funny Hunter

Posted by: CheezNCrackers at September 15, 2004 02:33 PM