:: eyedot ::: images information ideation ::

:: EYE (anatomy), light-sensitive organ of vision in animals.
:: EYE (verb), to look at to look at something or somebody inquisitively.
:: EYE (noun), an ability to recognize and appreciate something; a point of view or way of thinking.

[::..archive..::]
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
September 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
[::..political..::]
:: media matters ::
:: watchblog ::
:: cost of war clock ::
:: doctors w/o borders ::
:: hungersite ::
:: second harvest ::
:: working assets ::
:: democracy now! ::
:: common cause ::
:: ACTIVISM LINKS ::
:: daily mojo ::
:: gary hart ::
:: this modern world ::
:: people tree ::

[::..comix..::]
:: get your war on ::
:: scary go round ::
:: get fuzzy ::
:: explodingdog ::
:: penny arcade ::
:: homestarrunner ::
:: dieselsweeties ::
:: orneryboy ::
:: perry bible fellowship ::
:: butternutsquash ::
:: this modern world ::

[::..music..::]
:: WFMU streaming radio ::
:: accuradio ::
:: 20minuteloop ::
:: bjork ::
:: onelovehiphop ::
:: erp ::

[::..random + cool..::]
:: boingboing ::
:: fark ::
:: mit ocw ::
:: abebooks ::
:: ursula k leguin ::
:: jon cornforth photos ::
:: sylvia ::
:: lucas krech blog ::
:: noodlebox ::
:: lot47films ::
:: nakd ::
:: lynn fox ::
:: nooflat ::
:: jeff bridges blog ::
:: novica ::
:: ugly dolls ::
:: gama-go ::
:: presstube ::


:: 1.07.2005 ::  



More on so-called "Memogate"

Just found this great piece on the whole CBS memo debacle thru a link on Fark. It's on the Columbia Journalism Review site, and I highly recommend you slog your way thru the whole thing.
Haste explains the rapid spread of thinly supported theories and flawed critiques, which moved from partisan blogs to the nation’s television sets. For example, the morning after CBS’s September 8 report, the conservative blog Little Green Footballs posted a do-it-yourself experiment that supposedly proved that the documents were produced on a computer. On September 11, a self-proclaimed typography expert, Joseph Newcomer, copied the experiment, and posted the results on his personal Web site. Little Green Footballs delighted in the “authoritative and definitive” validation, and posted a link to Newcomer’s report on September 12. Two days later, Newcomer — who was “100 percent” certain that the memos were forged — figured high in a Washington Post report. The Post’s mention of Newcomer came up that night on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, and on September 15, he was a guest on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes.

Newcomer gave the press what it wanted: a definite answer. The problem is, his proof turns out to be far less than that. Newcomer’s résumé — boasting a Ph.D. in computer science and a role in creating electronic typesetting — seemed impressive. His conclusions came out quickly, and were bold bordering on hyperbolic. The accompanying analysis was long and technical, discouraging close examination. Still, his method was simple to replicate, and the results were easy to understand:
Based on the fact that I was able, in less than five minutes . . . to type in the text of the 01-August-1972 memo into Microsoft Word and get a document so close that you can hold my document in front of the ‘authentic’ document and see virtually no errors, I can assert without any doubt (as have many others) that this document is a modern forgery. Any other position is indefensible.
Red flags wave here, or should have. Newcomer begins with the presumption that the documents are forgeries, and as evidence submits that he can create a very similar document on his computer. This proves nothing — you could make a replica of almost any document using Word. Yet Newcomer’s aggressive conclusion is based on this logical error.
The upshot of it all? While Dan Rather et al may have been hasty and overly credulous in publishing their findings, the same (and much more), can be said for their most vociferous critics.


Followup:

An independent investigation of the above found the following:
"These problems were caused primarily by a myopic zeal to be the first news organization to broadcast what was believed to be a new story about President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service, and the rigid and blind defense of the segment after it aired despite numerous indications of its shortcomings," the panelists concluded.

Boccardi and Thornburgh said they could find no evidence to conclude the report — aired two months before Bush won re-election — was politically motivated.
Four senior staffers were fired after the report was released. Full story on YahooNews, linked by Fark.

:: Deb 11:00 AM :: permalink :: [0] comments :: links to this post ::


Comments:



Post a Comment


Links to this post:

Create a Link

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?