Cracks are appearing…

Cracks are appearing in the CBS News organization.

CBS News’ Bob Schieffer said Tuesday he hopes the network does more reporting to definitively prove the authenticity of memos 60 Minutes II received about President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard.

“I think we have to find some way to show our viewers they are not forgeries,” Schieffer, CBS’ chief Washington correspondent and host of the network’s “Face the Nation,” said at a news conference in Sioux City. “I don’t know how we’re going to do that without violating the confidentiality of sources.”

No, see, that’s the whole problem. If you folks are so sure these are authentic, saying why doesn’t require you to say who gave you that information. And frankly the only way to ensure authentication is to have the originals; no handwriting expert worth his pay would guarantee anything without the originals. Do you have the originals? If so, why not bring them out, instead of 10th generation copies? If not, how can you possibly be so sure of them?

But let’s assume for the moment that saying why would give away who. Are handwriting experts really confidential sources? Someone leaking information from the White House; yes. Someone vouching for your reporting; no. If you revealed an inside source of information, you might not get their cooperation, or leaks from others, in the future. Are you worried that if you reveal the name(s) of your expert(s) that they’ll no longer work for you? Now why would that be? Could it be that their reputation would take such a hit being associated with this, and they agreed up front to stay anonymous?

Or perhaps the sources you’re referring to are actually the folks you got the documents from. Where they came from shouldn’t matter more than the authentication, especially since many of the people who would known of Killian’s personal files (his wife, his son, his secretary), are all shooting down their authenticity. What should matter most is expert testimony. If you think you can only prove they’re good by exposing confidential sources, that doesn’t speak well for your due diligence.

CBS has stood by its story, with Rather saying there is “no definitive evidence” that has emeged [sic] to prove the documents are fake.

“He is very confident of his sources,” said Schieffer, who has talked to Rather daily during the flap. “He says he is absolutely convinced these documents are real.”

Again, it’s the sources that convince Rather of the validity of the memos. If they’re experts, why won’t they reveal themselves? If they’re operatives,…well, we know why they wouldn’t want to reveal themselves. Either way, it’s bad for CBS.

CBS, which has declined to reveal the source of the memos, has pointed to its own experts who have verified that documents could have been produced on typewriters of the 1970s. But the Washington Post reported Tuesday that the lead expert CBS retained said he examined only Killian’s signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

It again brings up that question; if the on-air experts are ambivalent, why not bring out those that stand, rock-solid, behind their conclusions? Hmmm.

“People ask me, ‘Do I think somebody was trying to set up Dan Rather?’ I say, “No that’s completely out of the question,” said Schieffer, who addressed the Siouxland Chamber of Commerce’s annual dinner/meeting Tuesday night. “Would somebody do this in an effort to smear George Bush? That may be so. We’re in the middle of a political campaign, and this would not be the first campaign where somebody on one side slipped something to a reporter because he feels it would hurt the guy on the other side.”

Schieffer is trying to patch up the cracks now. Everybody does it, it’s no big deal. (Echoes of the Clinton administration, eh?) But he’s conveniently sidestepping the real issue. Nobody’s suggesting that political operatives try to make the opponent look bad. The current accusations are that CBS took poor forgeries, did minimal checking on them, ignored contrary evidence, and used them to buttress a report on their premier news magazine. And if Rather wasn’t set up, then he was either foolish or complicit. None of those outcomes speaks well of him as a news anchor.

(Cross-posted at Redstate.org, where you can comment.)

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!