The heading says it all. What journalistic purpose can be served by continuing to protect the ultimate source of fraudulent documents? If CBS does not produce the source of these documents, by what logic could they reasonably take this position. As the evidence mounts that these documents are in fact fakes, I for one, am beginning to see a mounting conflict of interest in CBS’s position in this matter.
I, for one, don’t care about the journalistic purpose of anything they’re doing. I want to know their source just because it has the potential to be quite fascinating. It probably isn’t, of course, because so few of these little hullabaloos turn out to be fascinating in the end. But think of the possibilities…
Politics and the media rarely fail to entertain me.
Well, in the very least they should admit they were wrong. That would at least be a small slap at Dubya.
I think this is the right way to go - yet it seems that CBS has their story and they’re sticking to it.
Not providing the source, under these circumstances, would certainly create the implication of liberal bias on the part of CBS. Rather than just giving us their unbiased news reports and not attempting to be “movers and shakers” in the election process – isn’t that who they tell us they are?
How would this be a slap at Bush, since the documents that might be fraudulent discredit his military service? It would be a slap at the Bush bashers that provided the false documents.
To answer the OP, journalists that give up their sources, even bad sources, seldom get any new sources. IMHO, the purpose served would be for CBS to continue to gather news.
I meant the “admitting to making a mistake” part. 
If the documents are proven fraudulent, then CBS should reveal the fraudulent source – but not necessarily any innocent go-betweens who had no reason to think they were false.
What is the current evidence that the documents are false? (I haven’t seen the latest news.)
- We know that typewriters did exist at that time that produced the hypertext.
- We know that typewriters did exist at that time that had proportional allowances for different letters.
- A relative’s opinion is not proof.
There was some information about someone being retired when he was referred to as if he were active. What are the details on this?
What further actual evidence is there? (I’m open-minded to evidence one way or the other.)
But wouldn’t that create an actual incentive for some to knowingly supply false information and not affect, at all, those who act in good faith? Saying that we will not expose you, even if you act in bad faith, even if you knowingly attempt to pass us and the public fraudulent information, seems to be contrary to authentic news reporting.
By Zoe: * “(I’m open-minded to evidence one way or the other.)”* Indeed. 
What I saw was a statement by somebody that one of the officers that is alleged to have signed one of the documents had actually retired 18 months prior to the date of the document. But what I saw was a long, long way from proof.
Zoe, these young whipper snappers aren’t as slick as politicians used to be. Tricky Dick and Lyin’ Lyndon may have got caught a time or two, but they sure didn’t get caught as easily as those who are in it these days.
Such stupidity makes one fear for the future of this great country of ours, no matter who wins this time.
Tigers2B1, I’m just making a guess about that, since this is IMHO. I don’t know what CBS’s position will be in the final analysis.
PussyCow, unless I’m reading this whole thing wrong, the mistake (if there was one) was made by CBS news in accepting documents that discredit Bush as true, when they might be false.
As I for one have no idea what the chain of custody of these documents has been, is there any way of knowing for sure which go-between(s) knew they might have been fraudulent, and which didn’t know? And even if there is a way to know, did the CBS staffer who did the research know?
Maybe I’ve been living in a cave or something, but I have no idea what the buzz is all about. What exactly are these documents everyone is talking about?
This certainly isn’t the evidence but it does cite some of the expert opinion. Note that CBS’s “lead expert” has indicated that he never indicated that these documents were not forgeries. Note also that Col Killian, who couldn’t type, had to use a typewriter during the 70s that produced documents that look exactly like MS WORD ONLY when he was critical of Bush and then switched to a 1970s - conventional typewriter for other documents. A 1972 typewriter, that by mere unlucky coincidence, includes ALL of the mentioned software functions of a MS WORD document —
The latest from MSNBC.
Here are some of the alleged “Guard documents” produced by CBS for those who want to view them. Note that these are in .pdf format.
For the most obvious - note the superscripted “th” in item two at this first link. The proportional spacing and the New Roman script you’ll have to eyeball unless you have the time to create it in MS WORD, bring it to the right size and then superimpose.
Sorry – I meant to also add this quote and the link.
I’m no expert on the situation, but CBS news (60 minutes) ran a segment showing documents that indicate George W. Bush’s service in the National Guard was less than satisfactory. The documents are pretty damaging to Bush.
Now there are claims that CBS was duped and the documents are false. Some experts in the field state that the documents were produced by technology that wasn’t available circa 1970. Others state that at least one of the officers who’s signature is on the documents had retired well before the date on the document.
Just politics as usual.
CBS shouldn’t have to come up with its sources until Robert Novak comes up with his sources on the Valerie Plame affair.
Fair’s fair.
This is an apple. This is an orange. From the OP:
Robert Novack’s source was not giving fraudulant information. If these documents prove to be false then the source is not a valid source to be protected any more than the guy who found the Hitler diary. If the documents prove to be forgeries then CBS should reveal who pulled the wool over their eyes.
Let’s look at some details.
Some critics are saying the documents can be duplicated easily with MS Word. That’s not true. The old IBM Times New Roman had a different “4” than the MS TNR font. The documents have the IBM 4. Also, some of the letters are slightly above the baseline. That happens with typewriters, but never with MS Word.
Some critics say the TNR font did not exist back then, that it was made for Microsoft. Nonsense. That typeface was designed before Bill Gates was born.
Some critics say that typewriters of that era couldn’t make a superscript “th” or do proportional spacing. Not true. IBM models could do both. The “th” key was a special order item, but the 111th had a “th” in its name, so there was good reason to have that feature on its typewriters.
The OP makes the assumption that evidence is mounting that the docs are fake. In fact, it’s the other way around. As more information is revealed about typewriters and typefaces, the charge of fraud is looking more vaporous with each passing day.
Seems to me they had better issue an immediate retraction and apology! Think about it:
-No professional expert is willing to authenticate these documents
-they(CBS) have produced copies only
-all of the evidence (so far) argues that the documents are fakes
-the only reputable “confirmation” is from the Colonel’s 84-year old secretary, who says the documents are “true in spirit”
They better issue a retraction…they might find themselves a defendent in a civil lawsuit! :wally
Well, to be fair, the IBM Composer, which is the typewriter which people use when making your argument, had a $4,000 price tag (in 1970 dollars). Mrs. Knox, Col Killian’s secretary is on the record as saying that she used a conventional, stanbdard issue typewriter during that period and that she type Col Killian’s documents. Also, it is reasonable to conclude that a small National Guard Office didn’t need, nor could they could justify a $4,000 typewriter in 1972. Hell $4,000 would have bought you a nice car in '72. Anyway IF that National Guard office did have one of these IBM Composer typewriters, as you seem to think is a reasonable conclusion, and Killian only used it to when typing memos critical of Bush – it would have been a labor-intensive job to do that. Questions of why he would do it that way and why the office would have had such a machine (a machine which was unknown to Mrs. Knox, Col Killian’s secretary at the time) remains ALL a mystery. See the quotes below –
http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/14/41465b214495d
IMHO, CBS loses more credibility with each day they refuse to produce the source(s) of these documents.
One other thing – about the “different 4” which you mentioned — I’ve looked everywhere and can’t find an expert opinion about the “different 4.” Did you find that opinion on the Net? I know this is IMHO but would you provide the source for that opinion? Is it your own or is that the opinion of one of the numerous experts who have looked at these documents. I’d like to read it IF it’s from an expert. thanks -
AskNott:
What are you talking about with the “4”? I just looked at all four documents linked in post 11 above. Two don’t have the number 4 at all, and in the other two, the number 4 is perfectly consistent with Times New Roman in Microsoft Word, at least on my computer.