Update on the alleged 1972 memo by Col. Killian regarding Bush's failure to live up to the terms of his military service. According to this AP article on Yahoo, the issue of forgery has hit the mainstream media. This ABC article indicates several additional points regarding the font:



- The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.

- The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.

- The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.

- The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.



Yowza. So I start cruising the left-leaning blogs to see what they've come up with in support of the memo. Found this article from Kevin Drum in Washington Monthly via Matthew Yglesias:



"Yes, IBM (and others) made typewriters with proportional fonts in 1972. In fact, my 8th grade teacher had one and showed me how to use it. They were a bit unusual, but they weren't wildly uncommon and they weren't wildly expensive.



IBM also made typewriters with interchangable fonts. This would have allowed Killian to use the superscript "th" that's gotten so much attention.



However, it does not appear that IBM made a typewriter with both proportional type and the capability to make a superscripted "th."



But: note that "appears" does not mean "didn't." There are legitimate questions about what kind of machine created those memos, but so far nobody has proven anything one way or the other.



However, although the font used in the memos is worth investigating, my own concerns are more related to the provenance and appearance of the memos:

- It seems odd that the memos were simply typed on blank sheets of paper instead of some kind of letterhead.

- It seems odd that no other document we've seen from George Bush's military file looks anything like this or was typed using this machine.

- It seems odd that one of the memos uses a different font from the other three. Did Killian's office have two executive typewriters with different fonts?

- Where did they come from? Killian has been dead for 20 years. Did someone with a lot of foresight decide to keep copies of just those four memos 20 years ago? Why?

- Are there copies of any other Killian memos around that we can compare these to? Or are these the only four memos of his still in existence?

- Has anyone looked through the microfilm records of the 111th F.I.S. to see if there are other examples of documents that look similar to these?"



Bottom line: these memos might be 100% genuine. But there are lots of legitimate questions about their origin and authenticity, and at a minimum CBS ought to make its own copies available for inspection and also ought to disclose the names of the typographic experts it consulted. Better yet would be convincing their source to either go public, allow inspection of the original memos, or at least allow a more thorough discussion of exactly where the documents came from.



Until then, I'm afraid skepticism is warranted. I hope CBS hasn't gotten burned by crude forgeries, but like they say, hope is not a plan.



Matt Drudge indicates CBS has launced an internal investigation into the matter, though I've seen no confirmation of that yet on the mainstream media.



Jeff at Tusk and Talon has this to say:



"Again, this is simply amazing. CBS News, with its million-dollar budget and hundreds of employees was outmaneuvered, outhustled, and outwitted by a handful of guys sitting around their computers, who don't know each other from Adam, who were able to exchange ideas, share their thoughts, and gather information from the vast array or readers who had knowledge or access to documents, methods, or sources, that could illuminate this issue. The tide has turned. This was a momentous day. This was not just discussing and promoting little-known stories until they caught on in the mainstream press. This was original reporting. This story originated in the blogs (Power Line, specifically, and then enhanced by others). And it may shake CBS News to the core.



The tide has indeed turned."



Beautifully put, Jeff. Like I said earlier, I'm getting beyond giving a rat's fuzzy behind what either of these people did when I was three years old. But the fact that the mainstream media fell for a forgery that the net could expose in a matter of hours is big news. We've progressed beyond being a passive audience spoonfed catchphrase headlines and quotable blurbs, to an interactive model of the press in which even "big media" have to respond to the legitimate critiques transmitted over the blogosphere.



Besides having about a gagillion links on the story, Instapundit points out this Chicago Sun-Times story that quotes blogs as sources in exactly the same manner as traditional news sources:



"The morning after the "60 Minutes II" airing, the Internet was buzzing with claims that the documents were forged.



Powerlineblog first aired speculation that there was persuasive evidence from the typefaces and spacing that the documents supposedly prepared in the age of typewriters in the early 1970s showed the unmistakable characteristics of computer printing.



Another blogger, Bill Ardolino at INDC Journal, who had read Powerline, said, 'I decided to find a top typeface expert and ran his analysis on my Web site.'"



Unfortunately, some members of "big media"don't exactly appreciate this new model of reporting. A quote from Edward Wasserman, the Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University in an article fisked by Eugene Volokh:



"The attack doesn't come from ideologically committed journalists and commentators who put together reports clearly selected and spun-dry to sell a political line. As long as such writers retain some minimal respect for fact, the transparency of their motives may even work to enrich the variety of information and interpretations available to all.



The more compelling danger concerns news organizations in the so-called mainstream. These are the country's best-staffed and most influential news organizations, and they're losing their nerve.



I understand why. It's hard now even to write for publication without being aware of just how thoroughly what you say is going to be inspected for any trace of undesirable political tilt and denounced by a free-floating cadre of rightist warriors."



Full text of the original article is available here, if you care to register. Although this critique was written concerning right-leaning blogs, you could apply the analogy equally to Talk Left, Daily Kos and the other members of the free-floating cadre of leftist warriors.



What I find ironic is that that great societal watchdog the 4th estate has it's knickers in a twist about being watched itself. God forbid we actually question the veracity of the great oracle. But I do feel for them. As any lawyer can tell you, it's a lot easier being the one asking the questions than the one answering them. Your capacity to look incredibly stupid is minimized when you don't have to vary from a nicely plotted script. The question is who among the mainstream media will raise the bar on accuracy and bias issues, and in order to rise to the challenge.



James Lileks puts it this way:



"Blogs haven’t toppled old media. The foundations of Old Media were rotten already. The new media came along at the right time. Put it this way: you’ve see films of old buildings detonated by precision demolitionists. First you see the puffs of smoke – then the building just hangs there for a second, even though every column that held it up has been severed. We’ve been living in that second for years, waiting for the next frame. Well, here it is. Roll tape. Down she goes. And when the dust settles we will be right back where we were 100 years ago, with dozens of fiercely competitive media outlets throwing elbows to earn your pennies."



Yup. What he said.



Side note: I also found another parody here: "Authentic Document Proves Kerry in Cambodia". I think the URL is a nice touch.