Dan's last stand?

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by marichiko

One can't help but wonder why any Bush opponent would feel the need to forge the documents in question. The whole thing smells funny to me.

Because that's what they do. In an election year, both parties have teams of people whose only job is to dig up dirt about the other party/party candidate and let the public know about that dirt. And sometimes a third party will do the work for them and they'll just ride that particular wave of crap. Either way, if they get a hold of something that could possibly tarnish the other's reputation or "prove" the other wrong, they'll grab it and run with it, even if it's smelly nasty and squishy.

[tw]

An anchorman is responsible for the reports of his journalist. Walter Cronkite was not the kindly man we saw on TV. He was brutal with his reporters to confirm the facts. Cronkite literally held a reporters feet to the fire. He asked damning questions. It is why he earned the "most trusted man in America" title.

The closest we have to that today would be Peter Jennings. So I find it ironic that ABC News would be first to question those documents.

Go to the local news to see examples of bad journalism. Those pretty faces often are not there because they 'hold feet to the fire'. Unfortunately, some see the pretty face rather than concentrate on the factual content. IOW another classis example of making decisions based upon emotion (the first impression) or upon facts (the integrity of reporters working for that anchorman).