Not to burst everyone's bubble, but we need to figure out if the "graphic" from 60 Minutes are the actual documents. In lieu of photographing the real documents, they may have had the real documents examined, and just retyped the text in Word in order to quickly create the type of graphic they wanted for their production values.
This kind of document "switching" happens all the time and is considered acceptable in the journalism industry to show the actual text in whatever format you want.
We need to make sure this is not the case here before our credibility takes a hit.
-- l8s
-- jrawk
Would that not be considered as a forgery of sorts anyway? II think most Americans would.
The PDFs I have seen include the signature. If CBS copies the docs, they wouldn't have ink signatures.
What about the signatures?
This kind of document "switching" happens all the time and is considered acceptable in the journalism industry to show the actual text in whatever format you want.Makes me wonder why they got so bent out of shape about Bush showing off a decorative turkey ...
Even with all the Xerox “noise” dots?
Why would they need to do that? If they have done what you said and did a document switch for production values then that raises even more questions, and wil feed into the credibility of there report.
I am not sure you understood my comment.
Does the “journalism industry” believe it is acceptable to “sex-up”
a recreation to make it look like a 15th generation Xerox?
CB^o