Well, Mr. Ra^ther: Did Killian Have Access to a High-End Typesetting Machine or Not?

As others have noted, Dan Rather has utterly inverted the normal rules of evidence to his advantage. He claims that his story is backed up by a "preponderance of the evidence," but demands "definitive" evidence the documents are forgeries before he will recant.

He and CBS News have also taken the position that they need only prove that it is merely possible that some typewriter out there could have produced documents looking something like this, whereas the critics must prove, dispositively, that that's entirely impossible.

That doesn't seem to have been the low evidentiary hurdle the SwiftVets were expected to clear.

MyPetJawa has decided to get in on this crazy "bloggers actually doing original reportage" kick that seems to be all the rage lately, and he's done a little research. I don't think his findings are anywhere near conclusive, but if an amateur one-man blogging operation is able to call up and read military procurement contracts, why isn't CBS News able to do so, and thereby actually prove their allegations?

What the hell is going on? Is the legitimate media now claiming for itself a lesser standard of evidence and fact-checking than they demand for one-man amateur internet bloggers?

If that's the case, they might as well come straight out and admit that bloggers are generally more reliable than they are.

posted by Ace at 03:39 PM

| Access Comments