ON THE OTHER HAND ... Here's a post to the Daily Kos suggesting that the Killian memos could easily have been produced with an IBM Executive electric typewriter. Salon's got a good round-up on the story.
We know this for sure. Either CBS News, one of the largest and most prestigious news organizations in the world, couldn't find a competent forgery expert when it needed one. Or the Washington Post and the New York Times, two of the largest and most prestigious news organizations in the world, couldn't find a competent forgery expert.
What is wrong with these people?
3 comments:
You say: "We know this for sure. Either CBS News, one of the largest and most prestigious news organizations in the world, couldn't find a competent forgery expert when it needed one. Or the Washington Post and the New York Times, two of the largest and most prestigious news organizations in the world, couldn't find a competent forgery expert."
I disagree, and I think you're missing a pretty obvious point (which I don't think is implied by the tone of your other posts): There is a third option, which is that CBS News, the Washignton Post and the NYT not only could but in fact did hire competent forgery experts who examined the documents thoroughly and concluded that they were authentic.
I agree there are oddities about the documents, and it is definitely worth looking into, but with their latest statement it's clear that CBS isn't backing down at all. See here and here. I think the case is not quite as open and shut as you contend.
- geoff [geoff-public -at- stuebegreen -dot- com]
Huh? I certainly didn't say it was open-and-shut. The experts used by CBS News on the one hand and the Post and the Times on the other come to diametrically opposite conclusions. That's why I said that either one side or the other couldn't find a competent forgery expert. Got it?
Well, I screwed that one up, didn't I? I retract. But regardless of my error (chaning topics somewhat...), I don't think the newspapers are really going out on a limb that much. There *are* apparently a number of folks with some sort of expertise in the area who have raised doubts about it, and that's newsworthy in and of itself. Unlike CBS, neither the Post nor the Times are vouching for their reliability, and thus their reputations aren't nearly as on the line.
Post a Comment