Monday, March 07, 2005
Cancel Your L.A. Times Subscription
Today Drudge linked this article by Scott Collins on Dan Rather's impending retirement. In addition to all the confusion and poor morale now engulfing CBS, it describes some of the ups and downs of "Hurricane Dan's" career. Buried deep in the article was this nugget (emphasis mine):
Less than two months before the election, Rather, a correspondent on "60
Minutes Wednesday," presented a report that suggested Bush received preferential
treatment while serving in the Texas Air National Guard. It was based, in
part, on documents that could not be authenticated.
Is "could not be authenticated" the best Collins can do? He must be kidding. I may be making too much out of this, but "forged" or "fraudulent" would be more accurate terms for the TANG documents. Judging by the tone of most of his article, I don't think Collins was trying to protect Rather from further embarrassment. But it does seem like sloppy reporting.