posted September 13, 2004 02:08 PM            

CBS anchorman Dan Rather claimed Friday that his "60 Minutes" team thoroughly authenticated a document purporting to show a cover-up of George Bush's National Guard record, but produced only one expert to back his finding.

And by Saturday, even that testimony had come into question.

Rather's lone expert, Marcel Matley, "is primarily a handwriting expert whose expertise in document evaluation has been challenged by the head of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners," reported the New York Post.
What's more, the document in question was a photocopy, not an original, something Matley himself once said precluded any conclusive authentication.

In an essay for the American Law Institute unearthed by RatherBiased.com, Matley wrote:

"Do not passively accept a copy as the sole basis of a case. Every copy, intentionally or unintentionally, is in some way false to the original. In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries."

In fact, by the time of Rather's Friday broadcast, an array of document experts had spoken out on his earlier report. So, why didn't the CBS News star cite any of their analysis?

Because almost none of it backed his reporting.

Sandra Ramsey Lines, for instance - a forensic document expert who edits the Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners - told the Associated Press that she "could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer."

Lines told the AP that she was "virtually certain" that the memos were written on a computer, not a Vietnam-era typewriter.

Beyond the particulars of Rather's dubious documentation, new details emerged on Saturday strongly suggesting that the evidence in question had been fabricated.

The memo - a complaint by Bush's Guard commander, Jerry Killian, that he was being pressured by his own boss, then-Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, to "sugarcoat" Bush's record - had a 1973 date.

According to the Dallas Morning News, however, Staudt retired in 1972.

posted September 13, 2004 02:10 PM            

In a development that could have devastating implications for John Kerry's presidential campaign, CBS News is refusing to say whether the top Democrat, his campaign aides or any other prominent party officials had anything to do with supplying "60 Minutes" with a National Guard memo about President Bush that experts say was forged.

Asked about a Kerry connection to the forged memo, a senior CBS official told the New York Post, "I can't answer that question."

The unnamed CBS executive then promptly hung up.
Since Wednesday, when he first aired the Bush Guard document as authentic, CBS anchorman Dan Rather has steadfastly refused to identify its source. Ruling out the Kerry campaign, however, certainly wouldn't violate that confidentiality pledge.

On Friday, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe vehemently denied that his office or anyone at the Kerry campaign was involved.

"No one here at the Democratic National Committee had anything at all to do with any of those documents," McAuliffe told reporters. "I can unequivocally speak for the Kerry for President Campaign Committee, nor do they have anything to do with these documents. Absolutely not."

posted September 13, 2004 02:24 PM            

The director of the Texas Air National Guard at the time President Bush served there said Sunday that Guard documents obtained by "60 Minutes" purporting to show dissatisfaction over his performance are "forged as hell."

"They're forged as hell," former Guard director Earl W. Lively told the Washington Times. "There's no way that [Bush's commanding officer] Jerry Killian would have written what they've come up with."

posted September 13, 2004 04:23 PM            

Amid criticism, CBS stands by its reports
By Mark Memmott
USA TODAY

CBS News again defended its reporting Sunday, even as other media raised doubts about the authenticity of memos the network uncovered about President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

Spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said CBS “continues to work the story.” CBS looked at all the issues critics raised about the documents before it reported about the memos last Wednesday on 60 Minutes, she said. “We did due diligence” and are satisfied the documents “are genuine,” she said.

But newspapers and TV networks have presented experts with different opinions — though no consensus — about the documents' authenticity. The stories underscore how difficult it can be for reporters, editors, readers and viewers to make sense of the news when the news media rely on unnamed sources and when technical questions cast suspicions over key evidence.

The controversy also renews questions about whether the media are more vulnerable to being manipulated by partisans seeking to influence the presidential campaign.

“Everything just goes so much faster” in the age of the Internet and cable news networks, says Charlotte Grimes, professor of political reporting at Syracuse University. “It's very hard for the media to find a firm place to stand and sort facts from reality.”

Indeed, many newspapers on Thursday gave prominent play to stories about questions the memos may produce regarding Bush's National Guard service, without raising significant doubts about their authenticity. Friday, the stories took a 180-degree turn: the coverage was focused on whether the memos are real.

The debate about the memos began after Dan Rather's report Wednesday on 60 Minutes. Almost immediately, the Internet was abuzz with charges from conservative “bloggers” that the documents might be fakes. They allegedly were written by Texas Air National Guard Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, since deceased, who was one of then-Lt. George W. Bush's commanders.

USA TODAY obtained copies of the memos Wednesday night, shortly after the 60 Minutes broadcast, and reported that in Thursday's editions. The newspaper's editors, like those at other media, relied in part on the fact that the White House did not challenge the memos' authenticity and released copies late Wednesday.

“Since we've become aware of questions about the authenticity we've been pursuing those questions aggressively,” USA TODAY Executive Editor John Hillkirk said Sunday.

The Internet chatter, which continued throughout the day Thursday, helped spur The Washington Post and The New York Times to have experts examine copies of the memos. Both Friday stories cast doubt on the documents.

Rather has long been criticized by some conservatives as being emblematic of the liberal news media.

On Friday's CBS Evening News, he narrated a nearly six-minute report on the controversy, a long piece for a network news show. He said “some people — including many who are partisan political operatives,” were questioning the 60 Minutes story. The documents, Rather said, came from “un-impeachable sources” who remained unnamed.

On Saturday, a Boston Globe story lent credence to the memos' authenticity, while others in the Dallas Morning News and Los Angeles Times raised more questions.

While she strongly defended CBS' reporting Sunday, Genelius would not directly answer one question about the 60 Minutes story.

Asked twice whether the network contacted Killian's family before the 60 Minutes broadcast, Genelius would only say “we talked to many people” about the documents. Both Killian's son and his widow have since said they don't think he wrote the memos.

posted September 13, 2004 08:28 PM            

The documents are believed to be forgeries by the experts who have examined the typeface used and matched it to Microsoft Word....which didn't exist in the 1970's.

The expert CBS used gave an opinion on a signature only and admits he isn't competent to judge the authenticity of the document itself.

Dan Rather and CBS attempting to discredit the President's Air National Guard service. Not working and when those documents are traced back to the Kerry campaign, as I believe they will be, they're going to blow up in Kerry's face. Of course, there will be a fall guy/gal but I think most people already have the picture.

Sure, we can share a stroy

Those Discredited Memos
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: September 13, 2004

Washington — Alert bloggers who knew the difference between the product of old typewriters and new word processors immediately suspected a hoax: the "documents" presented by CBS News suggesting preferential treatment in Lt. George W. Bush's National Guard service have all the earmarks of forgeries.

The copies of copies of copies that formed the basis for the latest charges were supposedly typed by Guard officer Jerry Killian three decades ago and placed in his "personal" file. But it is the default typeface of Microsoft Word, highly unlikely to have been used by that Texas colonel, who died in 1984. His widow says he could hardly type and his son warned CBS that the memos were not real.

When the mainstream press checked the sources mentioned or ignored by "60 Minutes II," the story came apart.

The Los Angeles Times checked with Killian's former commander, the retired Guard general whom a CBS executive had said would be the "trump card" in corroborating its charges. But it turns out CBS had only read Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges the purported memos on the phone, and did not trouble to show them to him. Hodges now says he was "misled" - he thought the memos were handwritten - and believes the machine-produced "documents" to be forgeries. (CBS accuses the officer of changing his story.)

The L.A. Times also checked out a handwriting analyst, Marcel Matley (of Vincent Foster suicide-note fame), who CBS had claimed vouched for the authenticity of four memos. It turns out he vouches for only one signature, and no scribbled initials, and has no opinion about the typography of any of the supposed memos.

The Dallas Morning News looked into the charge in one of the possible forgeries dated Aug. 18, 1973, that a commander of a Texas Air Guard squadron was trying to "sugar coat" Bush's service record. It found that the commander had retired from the Guard 18 months before that.

The Associated Press focused on the suspicion first voiced by a blogger on the Web site Freerepublic.com about modern "superscripts" that include a raised th after a number. CBS, on the defense, claimed that "some models" of typewriters of the 70's could do that trick, and some Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House included it.

"That superscript, however," countered The A.P., "is in a different typeface than the one used for the CBS memos." It consulted the document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines of Paradise Valley, Ariz., and reported "she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer."

The Washington Post reported Dan Rather's response to questions about the documents' authenticity: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill" and questioned the critics' "motivation."

After leading with that response, Post media reporter Howard Kurtz noted that the handwriting expert Matley said that CBS had asked him not to give interviews, and that an unidentified CBS staff member who had examined the documents saw potential problems with them: "There's a lot of sentiment that we should do an internal investigation."

Newsweek (which likes the word "discredited") has apparently begun an external investigation: it names "a disgruntled former Guard officer" as a principal source for CBS, noting "he suffered two nervous breakdowns" and "unsuccessfully sued for medical expenses."

It may be that CBS is the victim of a whopping journalistic hoax, besmearing a president to bring him down. What should a responsible news organization do?

To shut up sources and impugn the motives of serious critics - from opinionated bloggers to straight journalists - demeans the Murrow tradition. Nor is any angry demand that others prove them wrong acceptable, especially when no original documents are available to prove anything.

Years ago, Kurdish friends slipped me amateur film taken of Saddam's poison-gas attack that killed thousands in Halabja. I gave it to Dan Rather, who trusted my word on sources. Despite objections from queasy colleagues, he put it on the air.

Hey, Dan: On this, recognize the preponderance of doubt. Call for a panel of old CBS hands and independent editors to re-examine sources and papers. Courage.

posted September 14, 2004 11:12 AM            

When C.redibility is B.asically S.uperficial
Vincent Fiore
Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004

Since 1962, Dan Rather and CBS News have been an American institution. CBS, one of the big three alphabet media empires, has had one of the most successful news programs on television in “Sixty Minutes,” of which Rather is the lead correspondent.

On the Wednesday edition of “Sixty Minutes II”, Dan Rather interviewed one Ben Barnes, a former lieutenant governor of Texas who claims to have helped George W. Bush get into the National Guard and out of going to Vietnam. (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main642060.shtml)

The controversy centers around four documents that CBS obtained from unnamed sources, essentially claiming that Bush was suspended from flying, failed to report for a physical, and was being pressured by superiors to “sugarcoat” Bush’s performance.

The originator of these documents is the now-deceased Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Bush’s superior at the time.

In the new media world of the Internet, news travels fast. Almost immediately, Internet bloggers cried foul over the memos, and even the old media had to sit up and take notice. ABC News made it their lead story on Friday, and the Washington Post had it on page one of their papers. Are these documents as phony as the day is long? And is CBS an echo chamber for the Kerry campaign. Maybe, and yes.

On the Documents: Numerous typographical anomalies point to a technology that was extremely sparse, and in some cases, unavailable in 1972. Words and terminology like “superscript” and “Times New Roman,” has become a subject for the water cooler set and coffee klatch devotees.

But many other peculiarities point to the folly of the “60 Minutes” report.

Rather neglects to mention that James Moore, a key source for his story, is a left-wing author who has written two unflattering books against Bush—“Bush's Brain,” and “Bush's War for Reelection.”

Rather ignored statements from Killian’s wife and son, who on numerous radio and TV spots stated that Killian hardly kept notes, and kept no personal files. Killian’s widow and son further state that Jerry Killian very much liked Bush. Instead, Rather and “60 Minutes” pin their hopes upon people like Moore, Barnes, and Maj. General Bobby Hodges, who at first believed that the memos were written by Killian. But now they tell ABC News that he was “misled” by CBS, and further states that the documents are “computer-generated” and a “fraud.”

There are many more inconsistencies in this story, far too many, for a near-iconoclastic organization like CBS to be ignorant of. Even the organization’s signature expert, Marcel Matley, had undermined Rather’s case against Bush when he wrote this in an op-ed several years earlier for the American Law Institute: "Do not passively accept a copy as the sole basis of a case. Every copy, intentionally or unintentionally, is in some way false to the original. In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries."

This is important to know, as CBS had photocopies of the documents in question. Another little nugget worth dwelling on is that Dan Rather’s chief accuser against Bush, Ben Barnes, said he helped Bush get into the Guard when he was lieutenant governor of Texas. That was in 1969. Bush joined the Guard in May of 1968.

This sounds all too familiar. Remember John Kerry’s “Christmas in Cambodia” yarn?

“On more than one occasion, I, like Martin Sheen in "Apocalypse Now," took my patrol boat into Cambodia. In fact, I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodia border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.”

Great story, but one of the problems with it is that Nixon was not in office yet. Oops.

This all leads to a conclusion that many on the right, and middle-of-the-road viewers, believe to be true: Old media monoliths like CBS cannot be considered non-partisan, and cannot be relied upon to report objectively upon the political events as they happen.

CBS has none-too-quietly campaigned against Bush all year long. They have done so through the very source of their long-celebrated asset, their investigative news shows.

Besides the networks standard liberal bias - as ex-CBS insider Bernard Goldberg exposed to all in his book “Bias,” - CBS has taken a direct hand in John Kerry’s campaign for President.

On January 11, Leslie Stahl of “Sixty Minutes” questioned former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill on his new book “The price of Loyalty,” written by Ron Suskind. In it, O’Neill spins a tale of the President’s obsession with invading Iraq, and how Bush was “always trying a way to do it.” In the end, O’Neill sounds more frustrated at the lack of recognition, and appears badly out-of-step with the administration.

On March 21, Leslie Stahl interviewed Richard Clarke, former terrorism czar and now animated anti-Bush foe, on his new book “Against all Enemies.” Many saw Clarke as an opportunist, and disgruntled ex-political chief.

On April 18, “Sixty Minutes” Mike Wallace interviews beltway scribe and reporter Bob Woodward on his new book, “Plan of Attack,” a book anticipated for weeks by the elite establishment as a condemnation of the Bush administration and its “rush to war” against Iraq. Stunningly, Woodward actually solidifies Bush’s credentials as commander-in-chief, whereupon the White House provides excerpts of the book on its web site.

On April 28, Dan Rather on “Sixty Minutes” reported on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, creating a firestorm that is still being investigated. While CBS delayed the initial broadcasting of the infamous prison pictures at the request of Gen. Richard Myers, the broadcasting of the pictures themselves was an error in judgment and a service to terrorists everywhere.

All the above are examples of CBS attempting to sway public opinion against Bush through their news department, without much of a chance of rebuttal from the accused.

CBS knew there were questions about the veracity of the four documents Dan Rather led with, but, nevertheless, chose to believe in them. Dan Rather knew Ben Barnes swore previously against having any contact with the Bush family as far as helping Bush get into the guard, but that was not questioned. Rather himself has played the role of Democratic fundraiser in Ben Barnes’ very district in Texas, but that is conveniently omitted.

CBS and Dan Rather particularly, have disgraced themselves. If these documents are forged, as I believe them to be, John Kerry and his campaign are finished. Furthermore, Rather and CBS will have done what Republicans could not seem to do: effectively highlight once and for all that liberal bias among the main stream media is very real, and active in the selection of the next President.

As the old media crumbles around itself, the new media steps up to fill the void. It was the Internet that broke this story, and talk radio that gave it flight. I do not think the Dan Rathers of yesterday’s news will be missed. After all, people want the facts, not an ideological reinvention of them.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/14/95641.shtml

posted September 14, 2004 12:19 PM            

They're all biased. They're all driven by money and sensationalism. Fox no more or less and the others.

I think the extreme left hates Fox because it ended the liberal monopoly on news reporting.

posted September 14, 2004 01:42 PM            

New York Times
Washington Times
LA Times
Washington Post
Boston Globe
Chicago Sun Times
Atlanta Journal Constitution
San Francisco Chronicle
Miami Herald
St. Petersburg Times
Tampa Tribune
Chicago Tribune
Baltimore Sun
New York Post
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Dallas Morning News
Wall Street Journal

ABC World News---Peter Jennings
NBC Nightly News---Tom Brokaw
CBS Evening News---Dan Rather
CNN News
Fox News

posted September 14, 2004 01:52 PM            

I'll only comment on the ones I'm familiar w/:

New York Times LEFT
Washington Times LEFT
LA Times LEFT
Washington Post
Boston Globe LEFT
Chicago Sun Times
Atlanta Journal Constitution
San Francisco Chronicle LEFT OF LEFT
Miami Herald
St. Petersburg Times LEFT
Tampa Tribune LEFT
Chicago Tribune
Baltimore Sun
New York Post LEFT
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Dallas Morning News
Wall Street Journal RIGHT

ABC World News---Peter Jennings LEFT
NBC Nightly News---Tom Brokaw LEFT
CBS Evening News---Dan RatherLEFT
CNN News LEFT
Fox News RIGHT

Newsweek LEFT-CENTER
Time Magazine LEFT - CENTER
New Yorker LEFT
US News and World Report
Mother Jones
The Nation

posted September 15, 2004 08:42 AM            

In my opinion, the media is what it has always been, a way to slap propaganda around in order to shift the masses into believing whatever will sell papers.

Who gives a flying sh@t which papers, ''news'' magazines, or broadcast networks lean which way? You can't please all the people all the time, and of course controversey SELLS.

If you can't deal with the fact that everytime you buy a paper or read an article that doesn't agree with your particular opinions, DON'T FREAKING BUY IT. It's not that hard to find other articles that won't pi$$ you off that much, there are other forms of media that cater to pretty much anything you want.

I guess I just don't understand the point of coming here to point fingers at each other and go ''hahahaha all the Democrats are liars'' or ''hahahaha all of the Republicans are going down''... Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, so live with it, and don't expect everyone to ''have proof'' for the way they feel about certain things.

Call me a peace sign wearing hippie Aquarius if you want to, but it's been this way since the country was founded, and it's not going to get any different any time soon. Let us not forget:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

posted September 15, 2004 09:39 AM            

But it's still too early to don party hats. We don't know who provided the documents to CBS. At this time, there is no line that directly links John Kerry to those documents. You can theorize all you like, but they will remain theories until CBS reveals its source, or a source comes forth or is discovered.

Oh hey, as far as media sources go, let's not forget Clear Channel, which owns the majority of radio stations in the U.S. They are way far on the right. Even the media company I work for has made it very clear that it expects its management to vote/support Republican.

Bottom line to me is that the U.S. Presidental race is one of the ugliest things we Americans support. The mud-slinging is too tiring, and only diverts our attention from the truly important issues our country faces. We raise our children to be better people than the politicians who govern our country.

Frankly, I don't give a damn what Bush did in the Air Force, nor do I care what John Kerry did in Vietnam. That was way too long ago. I am not the same person I was 20 years ago, and I don't expect these men are, either. I don't give a damn if Bush tooted coke at Camp David or wherever it's been alleged he did so. Forged Documents? I posted a news story (which is not singular, there are other sources of the same story) earlier in this thread that the Bush administration used forged documents itself as part of its justification for Iraq. That's far more troubling to me.

posted September 15, 2004 09:41 AM            

quote:

---

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

posted September 15, 2004 12:15 PM              

The ones I do know, I'll have to agree with Isis that they are probably more left than right... but I stand firmly by my belief that they are more biased toward money than they are toward the left.

posted September 21, 2004 03:00 AM            

In what may be the most damaging revelation yet in the Rathergate document scandal, CBS News is admitting that it steered the source of forged military records damaging to President Bush to the Kerry campaign.

In exchange for the meeting with Kerry communications director Joe Lockhart, that source - former National Guard Commander Bill Burkett - agreed to give CBS copies of the Bush records.

USA Today is set to report in Tuesday editions:
"Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a female producer talked to him about the "60 Minutes" program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett."

"At Burkett's request, we gave his (telephone) number to the campaign," Betsy West, senior CBS News vice president, confessed to USA Today.

Late Monday, CBS said it was investigating the role of "60 Minutes" star producer Mary Mapes in setting up the contact between Burkett and Lockhart.

"The network's effort to place Burkett in contact with a top Democratic official raises ethical questions about CBS' handling of material potentially damaging to the Republican president in the midst of an election," the paper said.

Aly Colón, a news ethicist at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, said the collusion between CBS and the Kerry campaign to damage President Bush "poses a real danger to the potential credibility of a news organization."

posted September 21, 2004 09:35 AM            

quote:

---

"The fact that CBS News would coordinate with the most senior levels of Sen. Kerry's campaign to attack the President is a stunning and deeply troubling revelation."

---

If this is true, I agree, it's reprehensible.

But do you truly believe such action is beneath any politician?

I remain more deeply trouble by forged documents used by the Bush administration to support invasion of Iraq.

posted September 23, 2004 12:36 PM            

Quoting U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 63, Section 1343, New York Times columnist William Safire went straight to the heart of the CBS Rathergate scandal, writing, "At the root of what is today treated as an embarrassing blunder by duped CBS journalists may turn out to be a felony by its faithless sources."

Writing in Wednesday's New York Times, Safire noted that the statute holds that "Whoever, having devised any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

Safire contends that law applies to those who "conceived a scheme to create a series of false Texas Air National Guard documents and append a photocopied signature to one of them."

Says Safire, that person "then helped cause the fraudulent file to be transmitted by means of television communication to millions of voters for the purpose of influencing a federal election" – which he adds is "no mere 'dirty trick' but a potential violation of federal law."

Safire writes that it must be revealed:

Who was the forger?

Did others conspire with him or her to present an apparent government document - with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to defraud, which is a felony in Texas?

Who was meant to to benefit from the forgery and how?
While admitting that the feds and the courts "have no business forcing journalists to reveal sources," Safire argued that there is no ethic that requires a journalist to protect a source who lied.

Accordingly, he wrote, Dan Rather went to the Texas ranch of his source and telecast Bill Burkett's admission to having falsely "thrown out the name" of someone who gave him the false evidence, adding that his real source was some hard-to-find mystery woman named Lucy Ramirez.

Safire speculates that in return for his fake documents the Bush-hating Burkett got "coveted access to someone high up in the Kerry campaign."

Burkett was able to reach Kerry's ally former Sen. Max Cleland, to "plead for access to higher-ups so as to launch a 'counterattack' on Bush, who was benefitting from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on Kerry's war record. Cleland, he says, confirmed getting the call and said he told Burkett to try the Democratic National Committee. ..."

When Burkett's call to DNC headquarters was not returned, he then asked CBS producer Mary Mapes to help him get the top-level Kerry access he craved.

Prior to the "60 Minutes" telecast, Mapes or some other "60 Minutes" staff member got Burkett what he wanted - a call from Joe Lockhart, the newly hired former Clinton press aide.

With the number generously supplied by CBS, Safire recalls that Lockhart called Burkett. "We don't know what was said," Safire wrote, adding that "the call from on high was payoff in itself."

Safire wonders what CBS should do now. He suggests that:

The network should release Rather's interview with Burkett in its entirety, including the outtakes.

Mary Mapes, at the center of all this, should be allowed to speak to reporters.

Viacom should use its vast resources to track down the possible original sources, who likely have engaged in criminal conduct.
Appointing independent reviewers should not be a device to duck all others' questions, Safire argues, saying that this is U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's trick to stonewall his Oil-for-Food scandal.