Forgeries
It seems likely those Bush memos are forgeries. At the very least, that's where the evidence overwhelmingly points, and the burden of proof now rests with CBS to show they are not.
This has gone from a major CBS event one night, to -- all in the next 24 hours -- the independent journal sites, then to the independent news media (CNS News, WND), then to the major news (MSNBC, AP, CBS), including a front page story on the Washington Post.
Howie Kurtz contributed to the Post article, and he is the host of CNN's Reliable Sources, a program that airs on Sundays that critiques the news media. So I imagine CNN will be picking up the story too, and I am so gonna TiVo that show this week.
They have typographical evidence (looks like word processor), they have documentary evidence (questionable signatures), they have personal evidence (family and friends denying it). There's only one person who somewhat verified them, and he said only that the contents reflected in the memos were accurate, not that the memos themselves were authentic.
To me, this has almost nothing to do with Bush or Kerry. My degree is in journalism, and for years one of my little crusades is attacking improper and irresponsible use of sources: anonymous, unreliable, forged, whatever. I love seeing reporters slammed when they badly break the rules because it helps all of us see how we put way too much faith in what we see and hear, without critically examining it.
So I really want CBS to eat it hard on this one.
And I hope this causes more people to say, "the only reason we found out about these fakes is because they were so poorly done; we just as easily could have been fooled. So why are we believing all of this other junk about what happened 30 years ago that we can't verify?"
This has gone from a major CBS event one night, to -- all in the next 24 hours -- the independent journal sites, then to the independent news media (CNS News, WND), then to the major news (MSNBC, AP, CBS), including a front page story on the Washington Post.
Howie Kurtz contributed to the Post article, and he is the host of CNN's Reliable Sources, a program that airs on Sundays that critiques the news media. So I imagine CNN will be picking up the story too, and I am so gonna TiVo that show this week.
They have typographical evidence (looks like word processor), they have documentary evidence (questionable signatures), they have personal evidence (family and friends denying it). There's only one person who somewhat verified them, and he said only that the contents reflected in the memos were accurate, not that the memos themselves were authentic.
To me, this has almost nothing to do with Bush or Kerry. My degree is in journalism, and for years one of my little crusades is attacking improper and irresponsible use of sources: anonymous, unreliable, forged, whatever. I love seeing reporters slammed when they badly break the rules because it helps all of us see how we put way too much faith in what we see and hear, without critically examining it.
So I really want CBS to eat it hard on this one.
And I hope this causes more people to say, "the only reason we found out about these fakes is because they were so poorly done; we just as easily could have been fooled. So why are we believing all of this other junk about what happened 30 years ago that we can't verify?"
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment