If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Dan Rather leaving CBS with little fanfare after 44 years, taking his Big Book of Modern Fonts with him   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 189
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4469 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jun 2006 at 3:36 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-06-20 05:47:05 PM
Not that it matters at this point, but the Killian documents weren't proven to be forged. They were unverifiable.

The reason you can *almost* reproduce them on Word is because Microsoft Word was designed to match standard typewriters.

And the first time I saw this:
littlegreenfootballs.com

I thought it was made by someone trying to show how very different the Killian documents look from a Microsoft Word reproduction.

The fonts are clearly not the same. The serifs aren't the same shape, the line thicknesses don't match, the spacing is radically different. Just the proportions and shape of the letters are different. You'd have to know nothing of typography to claim these typefaces are identical.
 
2006-06-20 05:48:17 PM
Unhip1: "Courage."

First thing I thought of.

Goodbye, Gunga Dan.

/Hell, I want Uncle Walt back reading the news.
//Also want Johnnie back on late night tv.
///His decomposing corpse would be more entertaining than some shows.
////I'm looking at you, Kilborne.
//Threadjack!
 
2006-06-20 05:51:17 PM
Tyee

Bloggers on Powerline within hours exposed it as a fraud because the font was MS Word.

The intial postings about "blah blah Times New Roman" were on Freep and then picked up by Powerline. Time Magazine cockpunched FR by crediting Powerline.

What gets complicated is that there were in fact electric typewriters in production at the time when the memo was supposedly created that a) printed in Truetype-style fonts including Times New Roman, and b) could produce 1.25" x 1" margins. So, the Freep/Powerline theory that "oh noes it's written a Windoes font it's fake no typewriter could do that!" were false. This is a case where "bloggers" (Brent Bozell and a few GOP operatives) ended up being half right, but more right than Dan Rather.
 
2006-06-20 05:53:42 PM
LocalCynic: ended up being half right, but more right than Dan Rather.

To be more accurate, they were more right about the authenticity of the document.

Rather was more right about the authenticity of Bush's military career.
 
2006-06-20 05:59:54 PM
LocalCynic,

I'll concede your point because you seem to have a better recollection.

scotttothety

Rather was more right about the authenticity of Bush's military career.

You don't know that but you can choose to believe it if you want.
 
2006-06-20 06:05:13 PM
Tyee: You don't know that but you can choose to believe it if you want.

He didn't complete his flight training. We know this, because he at the very least didn't get his physical.

He left service early because he went to work on a political campaign for one of his daddy's buddies. We know this because he was in a different state when he should have been flying in the guard.

And of course, we also know that he joined the guard to get out of Vietnam. He has never said this, but if you thik otherwise, you're deluded.

If he had half the stones his dad did, or had done half the things his father did while flying in WWII, I'd have a bit of respect for him.

In case you're thinking I'm just some libtard, I'm a veteran who voted for him in every election in which he ever ran until this last presidential election. I love babies and guns, and have a great deal of respect for the country for which I fought. But this clown is a poser.
 
2006-06-20 06:23:02 PM
Scotttothety

Just because you are a veteran doesn't mean you aren't a libtard....

Where did you serve and what unit?
 
2006-06-20 06:34:33 PM
Stryyder: Just because you are a veteran doesn't mean you aren't a libtard....

What, exactly would make me a libtard?

Where did you serve and what unit?

Eight years with 1st Armored. Germany, Iraq, Germany, and Bosnia.
 
2006-06-20 06:51:36 PM
2006-06-20 05:45:18 PM Tyee

LocalCynic,

Bloggers on Powerline within hours exposed it as a fraud because the font was MS Word.


jeebus, that is what you call PROOF?
 
2006-06-20 06:52:14 PM
Garble: The fonts are clearly not the same. The serifs aren't the same shape, the line thicknesses don't match, the spacing is radically different. Just the proportions and shape of the letters are different. You'd have to know nothing of typography to claim these typefaces are identical.

That's what I noticed at first glance. The fonts are COMPLETELY different.

(Not that I couldn't find a closely-matching font with much difficulty, of course.)
 
2006-06-20 06:54:49 PM
Garble: You'd have to know nothing of typography to claim these typefaces are identical.

Well, you've proven that you know nothing of typography.

The fonts are identical, just one has been run through a fax.

Pull out your typewriter from '73, and show me the superscript button. Next, show me the kerning button.

Fool.
 
2006-06-20 06:56:03 PM
and yes Mr Bush somehow went to the front of the line to be a pilot for the Texas national guard even though he was too young and did not meet other requirements. Also he left early to campaign for a family friend, then was transfered to Alabama where he skipped on a physical and has no record of any actual duty with them.

And yet the swift boat vets bashed Kerrys war record and was funded by the American Taliban (aka the radical right wing)
 
2006-06-20 06:56:34 PM
Garble: Microsoft Word was designed to match standard typewriters.

And, no. Word was designed to match typesetting done by composition shops.
 
2006-06-20 06:57:28 PM

Fool.


yes, yes you are
 
2006-06-20 07:02:20 PM
jeffster: Pull out your typewriter from '73, and show me the superscript button. Next, show me the kerning button.

This argument has been debunked. There were typewriters in 1973 that offered kerning and superscript functionality, serif fonts, and so on.

The argument you should be making is that the Air Force Reserve did not have one of those typewriters. However, you're just being a lazy Freeper and reading off the talking points. Shame on you.
 
2006-06-20 07:05:14 PM
Big Al: yes you are

I'm guessing that you've been stumped by that kerning word. Feel free to research it.

Unless this CO had access to hot type, that's a completely bogus document.

Not trying to say that Bush had a .mil career, just saying that the documents are obvious forgeries.
 
2006-06-20 07:12:38 PM
"His legacy cannot be replicated."

Good thing, too.

//Fark, but accurate
 
2006-06-20 07:18:15 PM
LocalCynic: and reading off the talking points.

No, actually I spent years in a composition shop. There were no typewriters in '73 that offered kerning. Since I came on the scene when hot type was on the way out, I was fortunate enough to work with true kerning, but it was film based; no shuffling through piles of lead looking for shaved letters. Then, sometime in '85-86, we got a laser printer for draft work. We were on the cutting edge. The Air Force was not. (seems to be your desire to see me say that)

And, after reading the following, I now know that M$ Word doesn't do kerning, either. It does proportional spacing and some fake kerning.

http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm

Face it. Dan Rather took an obvious forgery, tried to claim that he had it validated, and blew his career and credibility to pieces.

At least Bush has plausible deniability on most of his statements. Rather is just a fool for trying to use his position as a newscaster to further his own cause. That's not non-biased reporting.
 
2006-06-20 07:25:46 PM

At least Bush has plausible deniability on most of his statements.


I get it, so lying is OK unless you get caught red handed. Good to know where your morals are

Rather is just a fool for trying to use his position as a newscaster to further his own cause.

what is his cause?

That's not non-biased reporting.

so talking about the obvious draft dodging Bush did is being biased?
 
2006-06-20 07:30:29 PM
Big Al: I get it, so lying is OK unless you get caught red handed.

Couldn't get any more red-handed than Rather.

what is his cause?

Liberial media bias, of course.

obvious draft dodging

Please see yesterday's Cindy Sheehan thread where every left-winger came out of the woodwork to say that even desertion is acceptable.
 
2006-06-20 07:34:27 PM
jeffster: No, actually I spent years in a composition shop. There were no typewriters in '73 that offered kerning. Since I came on the scene when hot type was on the way out, I was fortunate enough to work with true kerning, but it was film based; no shuffling through piles of lead looking for shaved letters. Then, sometime in '85-86, we got a laser printer for draft work. We were on the cutting edge. The Air Force was not. (seems to be your desire to see me say that)

I noticed you backtracked on the superscript claim.

I didn't work with typesetting in the 70's but I've been around the block. There were devices back in the 70's that could do kerning or if not kerning, proportional spacing. I guess more accurately you could say that most of these devices would be typesetters rather than typewriters, but this goes back to the point I made earlier: the Freepers and Powerliners were only half right in this regard. That a limited set of devices could do something doesn't mean that none could.

This isn't hard. All I'm asking is that you be intellectually honest, rather than giving into spin.

Face it. Dan Rather took an obvious forgery

You mean a LIKELY forgery. Very likely, but you weren't there when it was typed. You're spouting off the talking points again. This is why there was no "Rathergate," and it's ultimately a non-story. A bunch of partisans try to act like bloggers were "telling truth to power" when in reality it was a few influential Washington talking heads, posing as bloggers, who told half-truths and somehow got lucky to be somewhat correct.
 
2006-06-20 07:51:40 PM
LocalCynic: Very likely, but you weren't there when it was typed.

You are correct. So, let's put it somewhere around 99.97% pure forgery.

I don't dispute that the CO may have written a very very very similar document back in '73, but for him to attempt to pass it as 'the' document is crap. If the guy wanted to make it look authentic, he could have easily pushed it out in OCR font like everybody else did in '73.

Simply put, I haven't put any faith in the newscasters for about a decade. They all have an agenda, and it isn't "honesty and integrity."
 
2006-06-20 07:54:53 PM
LocalCynic: I noticed you backtracked on the superscript claim.

Nah. After reading the link that I pasted above, I concur that there were a few devices available that had a crappy 'th' key. Nothing so pretty as what's in that faxed doc above, but a 'th' key nonetheless.

/seen the AE key before
//still don't know why an American typewriter would have one of those.
 
2006-06-20 08:06:48 PM
So nobody's going to mention that the Boston Herald ran the same story with verifiable documents, reaching the same conclusion? Too easy to just keep harping on how awful Rather was for not properly sourcing his work? I mean, if we are going to challenge the story, not just the sourcing, is anyone going to give that a whirl?
 
2006-06-20 08:23:11 PM
jeffster: Liberial media bias

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

yeah, right. owned and operated by corporations. refused to bash Reagan for Iran-Contra and other crimes against the Constitution, failed to ask questions about October Surprise, about Bush Srs ties to shady banks, about Bush Jrs war record and hypocrisy, about his rush to war. Yet they bashed Al Gore and Clinton for everything they could find.

Please see yesterday's Cindy Sheehan thread where every left-winger came out of the woodwork to say that even desertion is acceptable.

civilizations of the past would laugh at the idea of fighting for their country. ironic how things have changed
 
2006-06-20 08:55:27 PM
jeffster: Simply put, I haven't put any faith in the newscasters for about a decade. They all have an agenda, and it isn't "honesty and integrity."

That's nothing new. Let's not kid ourselves, traditionally news media wasn't really about objectively presenting facts. It's quite easy to be cynical about today's electronic mass media, but think about it. Early printed newspapers - arguably up to the mid-1800s - were purchased precisely because they presented information in an argumentative fashion. No joke. Read a newspaper from the 1820's. You'll notice that a) the copy is reaaaaallly dense and tightly packed; and b) the stories frequently weren't the paragon of journalistic excellence - they come off more like gossip or political criticism. It wasn't really until the turn of the 20th century when the progressives ("muckrackers" if you will) tied morality to journalism.

But let's turn the tables as well. The most vocal critics of "media bias" are not interested in an an unbiased, objective media either. Rather's downfall was to Bozell and FAIR and the MRC more about belly bumping than about an alternative vision of what the electronic media should be.

So, to that end I think this is a non-story. This is not about bloggers "taking down" a powerful news anchor. We're not going to see a tremendous change in the electronic media. We will, however, continue to watch large companies consolidate the market as advertising revenues shrink. And what bleeds will still lead. I think there are a number of perfectly valid critiques of the electronic media, but this isn't one of them. It has little to do with Dan Rather's ego, and has more to do with the hatred on the political right that has boiled since Rather's interview with Nixon.
 
2006-06-20 09:49:53 PM
Garble they match exactly look above at the Gif file I posted above and open your mind.
 
2006-06-20 10:51:51 PM
Once a decade this asshole got caught with his pants down making stories up out of his cleft asshole to support his warped partisan views.

I just think it's a shame that it too three scandals to bring this pompous, lying asshole off his rocker.

Go host Entertainment tonight you hack. That show is as accurate as your reporting.
 
2006-06-20 10:53:38 PM
Nemo's Brother: to support his warped partisan views.

and this is supported by... what exactly?

I just think it's a shame that it too three scandals to bring this pompous, lying asshole off his rocker.

I agree, oh wait, this wasnt a bash on Bush?

Go host Entertainment tonight you hack. That show is as accurate as your reporting.

Rather is nothing close to the liberal "hack" you knee jerk American Taliban appologists want to make him out to be. Quite ironic considering back in the day he was thought to be conservative
 
2006-06-20 10:55:02 PM
The same people calling Bush a draft dodger had no problem with Clinton dodging the draft and burning American flags in Europe. While Clinton was doing this, Bush was in the National Guard. Fascinating.
 
2006-06-20 11:29:46 PM
Yes, Nemo's Brother, but you are forgetting a key element here ..... John Kerry was in vietnam. And he was awarded the order of the purple heart. Thricely.

/did you know that John Kerry was in Vieyete-NammmMMMMMM?!??!??
 
2006-06-21 12:44:00 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but liberals respect Clinton not because he was a war hero or draft dodger, but because of his various accomplishments as president.

Similarly, liberals dislike Bush, not specifically because he is a draft dodger, but because of the failures of his presidency...

The reason this comes up at all is because of the Bush campaign's questioning of Kerry's service.
 
2006-06-21 02:45:44 AM
Good night, funny man?
 
2006-06-21 08:01:04 AM
bloggers took down an 800 year old man. My 16 year old retriever doesn't hunt too well anymore either. Must have taken some real skill to pull this off. Rather's biggest crime was not knowing when he was past his prime. All of us have trouble admitting that one.
 
2006-06-21 08:27:07 AM
pawn: The reason this comes up at all is because of the Bush campaign's questioning of Kerry's service.


And when did that happen? Do you have a link to a Bush political ad that "Questioned Kerry's service?"
 
2006-06-21 11:14:00 AM
"Do you have a link to a Bush political ad that "Questioned Kerry's service?"

Actually, Bush didn't have the guts to do it himself; his butt-buddies at Regnery Press did it for him.

Typical, just like he snuck into Iraq recently. The guy can't face real combat.

But you knew that.
 
2006-06-21 02:14:44 PM
jeffster
The fonts are identical, just one has been run through a fax.

A fax machine won't make the thicker right side of every capital A become the same thickness as the left side. It also won't make the apostrophe change from a circle with a tail to a diagonal dash. And there's very little chance it would make all of the lower case letters taller in relation to the capital letters than they were before going through the fax.


Stryyder
Garble they match exactly look above at the Gif file I posted above and open your mind.

Not only did I look at it, I reposted and critiqued it.
 
2006-06-21 06:08:30 PM
I'll just say one thing about this:

I love how Rather makes a mistake (admittedly stupid) and is immediately demonized to the extreme. Meanwhile, Bush et. al. have made how many mistakes? And they are still venerated.
 
2006-06-21 09:11:19 PM
blah, blah, blah, later blathering idiot

p.s. - as a reporter/anchor, this was not a mere mistake . . . he let his personal politics get in the way and lead him to greenlighting b.s. without authenticity/approval. this should've led to the equivalent of a lawyer being disbarred . . . especially since the media, as a whole, is the biggest problem next to political correctness
 
Displayed 39 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report