On Oct 26, 10:45 am, "John W. Kennedy"  wrote:
> David E. Powell wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 4:08 pm, "John W. Kennedy"
 wrote:
> >> David E. Powell wrote:
> >>> Dude, Fox News hardly has a monopoly even if they got
caught in some
> >>> fabrication. Actually fake documents sounds more like the CBS story
> >>> that left Dan Rather in trouble.
> >> The only /proven/ falsifications in that affair were those coming from
> >> the ignorant (or lying) "experts" who claimed that
typewriters available
> >> in the 70s couldn't do proportional type. Hell, my father's secretary
> >> had a proportional-spacing typewriter in the 50s.
>
> > Check out the comparison, font for font, with a modern computer using
> > MS software at this link:
>
> That has nothing to do with the fact that these people /provably/ either
> lied about 70s typewriters or lied about being typewriter experts.

How rare was any sort of typewriter that did that, compared to common
office models then? Computerized typewriters were not the majority by
any means.

Also, the font and spacing matched so well to modern font that it made
it really hard to argue that the documents were not modern. It is one
thing to make it hard to prove a forgery is a forgery, but having one
that is hard to prove as anything but was the crusher.

As I said I don't put it all on Rather. I think he saw a story he
wanted to be true and wanted to jump on, and the timing was just too
good to pass up. As it turned out, it was too "good." It wrecked the
poor guy. It was intended to wreck GWB, and whatever one thinks about
a politician, if anything is wielded against them it should be the
straight stuff (And there is plenty of that to be found in political
races anyway.) Also, if an attack or piece of data turns out to be so
in doubt, or provably false it hampers future efforts along the same
lines. Also, if the documents were false (And from how CBS has handled
things since it is hard to see where they are really defending them)
it is a double whammy as the guy they were "credited" to was a dead
man who had no way to come out and answer questions either way and
they were meant to reflect on him as well.

Rather was (is) a guy that has a huge history, I really think his
network and other reporters wanted to see it his way and give him the
benefit of the doubt. he had just gotten too far in on it. As I said,
I am suprised it doesn't happen more and I don't blame him for it per
se as much as the source sho tossed him the bad data.

The original point I made was it wasn't just one network, news agency
or source one must be careful with. These days, it's basically all of
them.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32