------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 1994 21:19:49 -0800 From: croberts@crl.com (Char Roberts) Subject: File 5--Altered White House docs summary The following has to do with the accuracy and reliability of what we receive on-line. This is a summary of the controversy over "Altered White House documents" which I first posted to the Internet newsgroup alt.internet.services on Feb. 5. The Associated Press got involved, and the AP story was picked up by ClariNet, Prodigy, CompuServe, Fidonet, and other on-line services, as well as the Rush Limbaugh radio program and newspapers. After that public exposure, we received a "we goofed" letter from the White House. I'm snipping and pasting the gist of this story below. Most of it appeared on the USENET newsgroup alt.internet.services under "Altered White House documents," but it went everywhere and I never did track it all. The on-line community has been quite supportive of the need to protect the reliability of government documents offered electronically. Background: Prof. Elizabeth McCaughey wrote an article criticizing President Clinton's health care plan which was published in the New Republic in January. The White House issued a rebuttal on January 31 which became a news story due to its strong language, which included phrases such as "blatant lie." On Feb 5, 1994 I used anonymous ftp to get a copy of this rebuttal from whitehouse.gov: cd pub/political-science/whitehouse-papers/1994/Feb get 1994-01-31-Analysis-of-the-New-Republic-Article-on-Health- Care-Reform ============================== From: croberts@crl.com (Char Roberts) Newsgroups: alt.internet.services Subject--Altered White House documents Date: 5 Feb 1994 09:38:23 -0800 I assume everyone knows about the ftp site whitehouse.gov. I just discovered that the Clinton rebuttal to Elizabeth McCaughey's critique of his health care plan has been altered on whitehouse.gov - with no mention in the current version that it has been changed. According to Associated Press writer Tom Raum, the original White House rebuttal to McCaughey's New Republic magazine article used the word "lie" four times. The copy of the White House rebuttal I just downloaded (Feb 5, morning, pacific time) does not contain the word lie nor does it contain any indication that it is a "revised" version. ....Clinton admitted to the use of "lie" but it has since been removed from the version available for anonymous ftp at whitehouse.gov. Makes you wonder just how ... accurate the rest of the information there might be... ============================== This elicited a response from Bill Casti who defended the WH and accused me of "knee jerk" reactions etc. Flames deleted, but my response to Casti was significant to development of the story, since it prompted him to forward the whole thing to Jock Gill at the White House: ============================== Clipped from alt.internet.services Char Roberts responds to Bill Casti (quire@vector.casti.com) >I assume that neither of you know the difference between a >speech-as-written and a speech-as-delivered. Oops, Bill, you didn't read the entire thread. It never was a speech, only a written rebuttal by the White House to an article written in the New Republic by Elizabeth McCaughey. Please re examine the thread. I added on Feb 8 that it was neither a position paper nor a public speech; it was a written rebuttal to Ms. McCaughey's article, presented by Dee Dee Myers as "documentation." To quote press secretary Myers' statement of January 31: "The following documentation is in response to Elizabeth McCaughey's article... This documentation clarifies the facts surrounding the President's approach to health care reform." The "documentation" I found at whitehouse.gov on the morning of Feb. 5 does not match the reported "document" described in the AP article which appeared in my newspaper on Feb. 4. .... The document at whitehouse.gov simply doesn't match the original described by AP reporter Tom Raum... It certainly is clear from the AP newspaper article that the word "lie" was used by the White House in its written rebuttal to Elizabeth McCaughey's article. But the word lie was NOT in the version at whitehouse.gov, nor was that version identified as having been revised. It's just hanging out there for the convenience and edification of the on-line community as if it were the real thing... ============================== More from alt.internet.services Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 22:08:36 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Casti I have forwarded (intact) Char Roberts' commentary to my contacts at the Office of Media Affairs at the White House, who are responsible for the documents that are placed in the directories at UNC which are, in turn, mirrored by the whitehouse.gov. I have sent Mr/Ms Roberts private email confirming this and assuring that either they will contact him/her directly or I will pass along their response. I have agreed that files that are changed from the original "text- as-written" should, in the future, be identified as "revised" files, so as to avoid all the other erroneous conclusions that might well be drawn from even such an "appearance of impropriety", whether or not any impropriety has ever, in fact, occurred. Regards. Bill Casti ============================== I then received this note from Jock Gill: ============================== Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 11:08:48 -0500 (EST) From: Jock Gill Subject--Documents at Publications@WhiteHouse.gov To: croberts@crl.com You should know that we do not edit or alter documents posted to Publications@WhiteHouse.gov. It would appear that the reporter in question may have obtained an unpublished, earlier draft with a different vocabulary. Again, we do not alter documents. Regards, Jock Gill ============================== I wrote back: ============================== >From croberts Thu Feb 10 16:02:06 1994 Subject--Documents at Whitehouse.gov Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 16:02:06 -0800 (PST) To: Jock Gill Regarding your letter to me of February 10, 1994, in which you stated: [repeat of above letter] This was an unsatisfactory answer to my concerns about the difference between the Associated Press version of the White House rebuttal to Elizabeth McCaughey's article on health care and the on-line version I found at whitehouse.gov. Therefore, my husband called AP reporter Tom Raum and asked him where he received his version. He stated that he and other reporters received it directly from the White House. Mr. Raum faxed us his copy. It contains the word "lie" several times. The version at WhiteHouse.gov does not contain the word "lie" at all. Mr. Raum has since obtained his own copy of the on-line version and has confirmed to us that it differs from what he was given by the White House. We also called Ms. McCaughey's office at the Manhattan Institute of Public Policy and confirmed that the rebuttal they actually received from the White House used the word "lie." Mr. Raum clearly did not obtain an "unpublished, earlier draft with a different vocabulary." He obtained his version directly from the White House. Therefore, the fact that the on-line version is different from the version sent to Ms. McCaughey and given to reporters indicates that the White House *does* edit or alter documents posted to whitehouse.gov. The issue here is not over the particulars of the Clinton rebuttal to Ms. McCaughey - it is over the integrity of on-line information provided for public consumption by the White House. We have been champions of this administration's apparent eagerness to participate in the electronic "information super highway." It is disappointing and the implications are frightening to discover that there has been a "sanitized" version presented to the on-line public. This is a mis-use of the electronic media, which should not be tolerated by a free society. This response will be posted to all of the newsgroups I know of which have been following this topic and to all of the people who have e-mailed me their deep concerns about this issue. Char Roberts -- and Justin Roberts croberts@crl.com ============================== The REASON Clinton's rebuttal became a story in the first place was due to the strong language, accusing Dr. McCaughey of lies. To have removed all references to the word "lie" from the on-line version struck us as a major disservice to the electronic community. This prompted my husband to track down the AP reporter whose story we had read. The reporter did not like the implication that his sources were not credible, particularly since he had worked off a press release handed to him by the White House! He broke the story to the wire service and it was distributed on Prodigy and CompuServe among others. After that, we received one last communication from the White House, to which I referred in what I thought would be my last post to alt.internet.services. That generated the following request: ============================== Sat, 12 Feb 1994 20:22:15 alt.internet.services Re: Altered White House documents quire@vector.casti.com Bill Casti at The Gnomes of Zurich (shhh!) re: Altered White House Documents Char Roberts (croberts@crl.com) wrote: : I have received a second note from Jock Gill : admitting that they erred in not putting the original version on- : line or noting that it had been revised. Char: Since you posted Jock's first note in its entirety, how 'bout doing the same with the second? I'd like to know EXACTLY what he wrote, as I'm sure others would, too. Seems only fair. ============================== I did post it, but not until I'd had a chance to write back to Mr. Gill and tell him I was posting our final correspondence. ============================== Sun, 13 Feb 1994 07:42:21 alt.internet.services Re: Altered White House documents croberts@crl.com This should be 30-30-30 for this story. We've finally had a chance to respond to the letter we received from Jock Gill after the story about on-line discrepancies broke on the AP wires. Here follows a copy of that correspondence: Dear Mr. Gill, We appreciate your candid response to our concerns about the integrity of White House documents on-line. Health care has yet to be mentioned in the volumes of e-mail and phone calls we have received in response to the AP article about our discovery of altered documents at whitehouse.gov. What seemed to alarm the on-line community was the issue of trustworthiness of documents offered to us by the government. I think this episode has indicated how intent the on-line community is on protecting the validity of its resources. As you well know, there seems to be increasing feeling among the American public that it can't trust government information. To have received a response blaming the reporter for using an "unpublished, earlier draft" didn't fit with facts already widely reported in the media, and seemed to be yet another disappointing example of the typical government response - don't admit anything, cover up everything! An honest "we goofed" is refreshing and we appreciate your second response; we wish it had been your *first* response. However, if this President has, as you say, "relied on this kind of on-line distribution to get his side of the message out" then it is even more important that the on-line message should match the original message! I'll try to post this to the places I know of which have been following the controversy, but frankly it grew so big that I no longer even know where it went. The information super highway is an amazing resource and the Internet seems to have a life of its own! --Char and Justin Roberts >Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 19:43:45 -0500 (EST) >From: Jock Gill >Subject--Thank you for your note >To: croberts@crl.com > Thank you for your note concerning the item we posted on-line in the >response to the New Republic article. Let's start with the >bottom line: After publishing over 1,800 documents, we made a >mistake. We did not publish the original that was sent to >members of the press, nor did we mark as *edited* the altered >version that was sent on-line. We have done better in the >past; we will do better in the future. > There are two points about this controversy that should not >be overlooked. First, the President is deeply committed to >reforming the health care system, guaranteeing private >insurance that can never be taken away, and reducing costs >for the family and the country. His plan has been subjected >to unfair attacks, such as that published by the New >Republic, and so we are fighting back on his behalf. That is >why this document was published in the first place. > Second, as you said in your note to me, this >President is committed to reconnecting our people to the >government -- he is committed to new technologies and new >ways of communicating, and therefore relied on this kind of >on-line distribution to get his side of the message out. > I leave you only with the idea that he is fighting for >the right causes for the right reasons, and that I hope you >will not confuse human error with the strength of his beliefs >or the goodness of his intentions. > Sincerely, > Jock Gill ============================== I leave you with the idea that I hope the on-line community will, in the future, continue to be watchful and protective of its resources... --Char croberts@crl.com ------------------------------ ********************************************************************** ***** End of Computer Underground Digest #6.18 ***** **********************************************************************