[jhouston]

Read story. Exposes producer's past. Lot's of subtle hits on Rather's credibility.

[shezza]

Dan Ra^ther: "I think the public is smart enough to see from whom some of this criticism is coming and draw judgments about what the motivations are."

Oh, yes, we certainly are, Danny Boy.

[MJY1288]

Hey Dan Rather! I hear Al Jazeera is hiring :-)

[XEHRpa]

Rather won't back down on his defense of the memos, since he can protect the source's identity as long as he asserts the validity of the information. Once he admits forgery, CBS "principled stance" of not revealing a journalistic source gets compromised, as they have no longer a reason to protect the source.

[igoramus987]

from link

DOCUMENT AND HANDWRITING EXAMINER MARCEL MATLEY ANALYZED THE DOCUMENTS FOR CBS NEWS.

HE SAYS HE BELIEVES THEY ARE REAL...BUT IS CONCERNED ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING EXAMINED BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE QUESTIONING THE DOCUMENTS....BECAUSE DETIORATION OCCURS EACH TIME A DOCUMENT IS REPRODUCED.....AND THE DOCUMENTS BEING ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF CBS HAVEBEEN PHOTOCOPIED, FAXED, SCANNED AND DOWNLOADED.... AND ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENTS CBS STARTED WITH WHICH WERE ALSO PHOTOCOPIES.

Note that the documents that everyone is analysing are the pdf documents that CBS put on their website.

Their own document expert tells CBS that he has concerns about authenticating a document that has deteriorated, yet instead of first getting a copy of the original memos and authenticating them, CBS and Dan Rather unprofessionally and unethically decide to air the story based on copies of the memos that CBS say are [deteriorated] photocopies.

[USNBandit]

Did anyone see the original story on 60 minutes?

My question is once these documents are totally discredited what is left of the story? From the clips I've seen it would just be Kerry's co-chair (Barnes), the author of a couple Anti-Bush books, and one guy saying the documents are authentic.

It sounds like without the documents there is no story left.

[macsmind76]

Rather's defense, "the real issue are the questions they raise", is baffling.

First, there are no questions if the documents are fakes. News based on innuendo and fraud is not news - it's gossip.

His tone during this entire ordeal reveals in my opinion a seemingly overt bias towards the veracity of the story - but for what purpose?

If it isn't true there is no story and CBS as a major news organization should pull the story and fully investigate the charges.

I'm afraid that Rather is going to have several problems getting out of this one. Although it isn't entirely clear whether or not he is a party to the alleged fraud, unless he issues a better stance he will become guilty by omission.

One last thing; in this highly competitive news business the criticism will eventually come mainly from competitors such as NBC, ABC, CNN, and those "enemies" in the mainstream press Rather has made over the years.

This is going to get really interesting in the coming weeks.

"Rather-Gate", perhaps.

[jocon307]

"were and remain authentic,"

Now that is a strange and Clintonian turn of phrase. Why doesn't he say "ARE authentic"? "were and remain"????!!!! Let's just say I've got more doubts about the meaning of "is" that I have certainty about the meaning of "were and remain", at least as it pertains to inanimate objects, like memos, written by a deceased man, 30 years ago.

[etcb]

The article stated: "But Rather cautioned that the memos become less clear as they are downloaded and photocopied."

Just as a matter of curiosity, how can downloading a digital image make it any less clear.

[WestTexasWend]

" I think the public is smart enough to see from whom some of this criticism is coming and draw judgments about what the motivations are."

HAHAHAHA...Dan's talking about himself, right?

[PMCarey]

Dan gave a big F-U to the world tonight. I was really surprised by the anger and the arrogance. They have an expert who' s paid by them and they refuse to allow anyone else to interview him. Their "expert" validates the handwriting but says NOTHING about the typing. Their "expert" isn't even working with the original documents, but rather a photocopy. For all we know the originals may not even exist anymore. CBS will not release their copies for independent confirmation.

Well F-U right back Dan. If I were the Whitehouse I would take the line that we're not going to comment on documents of such questionable validity and we won't comment on them unless and until CBS releases the memos to a team of document validation experts for an independent and unbiased analysis.

Chew on that CBS. If you're really interested in the truth you shouldn't have any problems with releasing the memos for independent analysis.

[Reactionary]

Dan Rather is an idiot.

[jordan8]

I think the public is smart enough to see from whom some of this criticism is coming and draw judgments about what the motivations are . . . It's hard to separate legitimate concern from political blowback and propaganda

We don't have to answer embarrassing questions regardless of what the facts may be if the source is deemed by us to be hostile. Real touch of Stalinism there. I wonder what Danny boy would have said if Nixon had adopted this attitude.

[Howlin]

In the interview, Rather said the controversy should not detract from these questions raised by the program: "Did a wealthy oilman who was a friend of the Bush family come to the speaker of the Texas House and ask for preferential treatment for George Bush, and did he get it? Did or did not then-Lieutenant Bush refuse to obey a direct order from a military superior?"

In 1999, "60 Minutes" apologized, as part of a legal settlement with a Customs Service official, for reporting on a memo that was later found to be fake.

Matley, who told Rather last night that he knew the Bush documents would be professional "dynamite," has been involved in high-profile cases, including a 1997 controversy over purported John F. Kennedy documents. After "60 Minutes" cast doubt on those documents, the man who unearthed them, Lawrence Cusack III, retained Matley in a suit against CBS that was rejected in court. Matley could not vouch for the documents' authenticity.