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: LindyBill who wrote (95284)	1/14/2005 4:31:57 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793980

One old-fashioned investigative technique was to publish unverified information in the hope that the resulting uproar would smoke out new sources that would provide the verification. That's exactly what The Miami Herald did in 1987, when it reported presidential hopeful Gary Hart's overnight liaison with Donna Rice. It had moral certainty that it was telling the truth, but not legal certainty The difference between Rathergate and even the Hart story (which I don't want to hold up as an exemplar), is that the Hart Story may have been reported unproven, but it wasn't a dishonest story. The journalist didn't have evidence or witnesses that would make a reasonable man believe that nothing was going on, which he had chosen to ignore. Mary Mapes, otoh, had testimony from Col Killian's CO, widow and son, that the docs were fakes, and evidence from members of the TexANG that Bush didn't need strings pulled to get in and had volunteered for Nam. All this testimony (plus more she declined to get because she said she didn't want to talk to pro-Bush sources) was thrown in the trash and not used in the story. That's not an unproven story, that's a hatchet job. Big difference.