It’s gotten pretty obvious that the 60 Minutes “Killian” documents are fakes, and that CBS either knew this or, at the very least, didn’t care enough to do even the most basic validation on them before putting them on the air.
But now it’s been almost a week, and CBS is simply - inexplicably - ignoring the situation. It’s not just that they are they brushing aside the specific problems with the documents. They are not even acknowledging that they have an obligation to back up their evidence (forged or not!) with any sort of validation.
So what now? What if CBS just continues the “That’s our story and we’re sticking to it” approach? Or, at least continues it until after the election and then mumbles some words about how they seemed OK at the time?
In particular, are any laws being broken here? Is there some way to force CBS to out the forgers? Perhaps the FCC has some rules they can enforce? Or are we stuck with relying on CBS’s "journalistic integrity.
Let me make clear that I’m not either a Kerry or a Bush supporter, and I really couldn’t give two hoots which candidate this whole thing ends up helping (if it ends up doing so either way).
But I am incensed beyond words that a major network can put out something like this - in the guise of a news story - in the home stretch of a presidential campaign, and get away with it just because they’re able to say it with a straight face.
Well, unfortunately, it does. No matter how clear it is that Bush weaseled out of his duties at the end of his guard service even without the memos all people (and by people, I mean those people who don’t have the time to read 50 blogs on the matter everyday) will remember is that the memos were fake and thus discount the entire story as false. Brillant spin work by the Bushies.
Well, my question wasn’t about the point of the story. Personally, I think it’s all but certain that President Bush did not show up for his guard duty after he transferred out of Texas. And I certainly have no arguments with the idea that he got into the guard in the first place, and out of it a year early, because he’s from an influential family.
But there’s no longer any reasonable doubt that the documents are fake. Transparent ones, at that.
And, fake or not, by CBS’s own descriptions they put them on national television without due dilligence. Coming from “secret files” that just happen to turn up weeks before the election? Never seeing the originals? Consulting just two people - one over the phone (!) and one about the signature on one of the four docs?
The question, then, is simply whether or not this rises to the level of lawbreaking? Is it fraud? Or slander/libel? Or some sort of election tampering? Or can a national news organization just say anything they want if they’re willing to take the consequences to their reputation?
Yes, there is a reasonable doubt. That site doesn’t guarantee their authenticity, but it does a good enough job that I think it shifts the burden of proof back on those who claim they are fake.
Hmf. A single web site that begins by calling the critics of the documents “wingnuts” isn’t exactly going to shift the burden of proof.
OK. This issue is too politically charged right now; I withdraw the question. I’ll ask again in a week when we can focus on what CBS did, rather than name-calling.
And, charizard–when you repost this next week, I suggest another forum, unless you can make it an “asking-a-question(s)-that-has-a-factual-answer.” And leave out the commentary.