Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (70482)	9/15/2004 2:44:56 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 794304

karen, the article LB posted last night said that CBS has been working on this for 4 years....4 YEARS! They have had plenty of time to totally vet all documents found, and to have every single item proven without a doubt.... In my mind, I simply can NOT understand why a "premier" News organization would rush to judgement without extremely solid PROOF these were not forged.... In addition, they did not voice ANY of the objections that a single person they interviewed had.... not a single objection. Message 20525826

To: Lane3 who wrote (70482)	9/15/2004 2:59:34 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 794304

In my experience they most likely all offered positive or neutral opinions along with caveats and CBS chose to not hear the caveats karen, if Will and the other expert who just surface gave CBS neutral opinions with caveats, then they are lying through their teeth now. Furthermore, we see from the ABC program that the doc CBS gave Will was one of the memos that they didn't include in the story. So CBS (and not just USA Today) had all 6 memos, and chose to run with just 4! If nobody had told them bad things about the memos, why not go with all 6, it would have been a stronger story? It certainly sounds to me like Will told them 'this memo is fake' - just as she is telling the public she did. In every practice, there are lines where mistakes cross into negligence cross into outright malpractice. My guess would be that "they" went forward on a plausible deniability wing and a prayer, perhaps subconsciously, and were surprised when it didn't fly Ah yes, the "true fakes" defense. We "know" the story is true, even if the evidence isn't. Definitely malpractice zone stuff, imo.