[CheyennePress]

>>>Dan Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has articulated that he believes that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries — and that even if the documents are false, that the underlying story is true.<<<

Remember these lines? The truth as I want it to be. Deep down inside, these guys wanted to burn Bush badly. And they let that hate be their own undoing.

Or the emails from journalist Michael Smith to Mary Mapes:

“What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information?” Mapes replied, “that looks good, hypothetically speaking of course.”

So nice to see they’re interested in just the facts, ma’am.

[tanknetter]

>>>Dan Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has articulated that he believes that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries — and that even if the documents are false, that the underlying story is true.<<<

Question: when running a news story isn't the burden on the reporter to make sure that source material is accurate and unimpeachable, rather than not demonstrably false?