"No, she wouldn't. And she shouldn't. And I would support responsible leftie bloggers if they engaged in meticulous journalism that began to lend credence to such theories in an attempt to provide truthful information."

This is exactly right. There must be supporters of Senator Kerry out there who are as appalled by CBS' behavior as I am. Damned if I can find them though.

A small few have commented in threads at INDC ...

She's a decent person. She is. Blinkered at times, but aren't we all?

But someone should point out to her: she is valiently trying to defend the indefensible. And that the phrase "I have no enemies on the left" is horribly destructive to the left's ultimate aim, which is to speak truth to power.

Well said... excellent points... had Fox News run a story with FAKE DOCUMENTS, the media would be running this story 24-7, demanding the release of the originals and FNC's sources... anyone who denies that is lying to themselves.

I'm a Democrat who's not voting for Bush, and I find CBS's behavior abominable.

Do I think, personally, that Bush flaked out on his military service? Probably. I've got this suspicion that he was drunk for a lot of it.

But a major news organization should not use OBVIOUSLY FORGED MEMOS to show how he blew off service. If the question is so important, then they should make sure their evidence is rock solid.

I think most of the he-said, she-said noise about either of Kerry's service or Bush's service ("Kerry didn't do that," "Bush would never have shown up," "I don't like Hanoi Kerry") is just noise. Because, for ANY issue, you'll find people on both sides of the political aisle willing to selectively remember anything. Especially with how nasty this political season has been.

These memos are actually unique in that they can be forensically analyzed. So they should be. Or, rather [sic], should have been.

When I wrote to Jeralyn asking her to link your Globe post, she emailed me back about only doing live interviews herself because of the frequency with which she's misquoted. Charitably, she ascribed this to reporters' lack of specialized knowledge in the given field on which the expert is testifying -- so I think we should cut her some slack on this. She is, after all, a defense attorney -- and one with a lot of experience doing media interviews.

I think she is wrong -- and blinkered -- but I think she's just engaging in the kind of advocacy her profession demands.

Jeralyn, REPORTING FOR DUTY, SIR !!!

Jeff -

Ok, then I don't want to see Jeralyn linking to any interview in the NY Times, Globe or WaPo, without similar qualification and skepticism of every interview.

And also note that my interviews with Dr. Bouffard were about 10x longer and more meticulous than the MSM bites, which were very broad characterizations necessary for use in a larger round-up of the story.

Bunk.

Don't uncritically believe a source who claims that his position has been misrepresented, especially when no specific factual misstatements are alleged. I don't know what happened in this case, but the fact is that sources often back off, or recast, statements that begin to catch public heat -- and they often accuse the reporter of having gotten it wrong in the first place.

I've been burned that way a few times myself when I had no tape or witnesses to back up the version I printed. And I have a great deal of respect for a few brave sources who could have gotten away with that excuse but were honest enough to take the heat for statements they later regretted.

The real issue is whether the man running for re-election as President lied to the American people about his Guard service, covered up that he got special treatment, or bailed early without permission.

Basically what she said is fabricated evidences to accuse Bush is not a factor to dismiss the credibility of the accuser (the MSM and Barnes in this case). Bush has been guilty as charged regardless the validity of the evidences. Blinker yes. Intellectual dishonest, yes.

David -

I understand your opinion, and agree, but journalism always requires judgment. I interviewed Dr. Bouffard four times - once initially, then when he updated and was more sure, then after he equivocated to the Globe and NY Times based on new info and then again after the Globe printed a story, so I've watched his shifts.

Note that I wrote my analysis of why I thought the Globe was misrepresenting after they published but before I interviewed Bouffard the last time, and he backed me up 100% and perhaps added vitriol. This is not because of any bias that I have, it actually surprised me ...

I was actually surprised by how right I was, because I feared exactly the shift in opinion and equivocation that you cite can happen.

In any event, as I said - look at the headline and compare it to the Globe's quotes and evidence used to back it up - the Globe is clearly being dishonest in a large way, no matter what the different interpretations of the specifics that took place in the various interviews (Globe, NYT, Chicago Sun-Times, INDC, you name it)

They do not back up that headline, and the crux of that headline is what's being parroted by CBS and many other papers that have picked up the meme.

Regards,

Bill

If reporters were truly objective, at the LEAST the question would be phrased:

"The real issue is whether the man running for re-election as President lied to the American people about his Guard service, covered up that he got special treatment, or bailed early without permission, OR SERVED WITH DISTINCTION AND LEFT WITH AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE."

Get that shit out of here, Luke. We are discussing media credibility based on a hoax, not the partisan opinions of the larger issue.

One thing that might not have been figured into the equation yet is that the headline was written by someone at the copy desk not relying on a reporter's notes.

And copy desk folks are not always known for their sense of "nuance" when writing headlines.

Still, even as a journalist with over 15 years experience, I can say that many quotes are taken out of context and put in whatever frame a reporter wants to put them in. When a source says he/she was misquoted or taken out of context, I tend to believe the source these days.

Look at what happened in the famous case with the New Yorker reporter and the psychologist Masson. Just because something's between those quote marks doesn't mean it's a verbatim quote.

"Ok, then I don't want to see Jeralyn linking to any interview in the NY Times, Globe or WaPo, without similar qualification and skepticism of every interview."

Why? Her position seems to be that she views all of them with a uniform degree of skepticism. So why mention it each time if the condition exists in perpetuity?

And I'm not attacking your work (which, incidentally, I just got done defending on Talk Left), I'm simply saying that Jeralyn is by nature an advocate, and advocates like to raise reasonable doubt at every turn.

That, and she linked to your coverage happily after I brought it to her attention because she thought it was important to the debate.

Jeff -

My point is ...

So why mention it each time if the condition exists in perpetuity?

... exactly. She shouldn't bring it up in perpetuity. So why did she selectively apply it in relation to my work? Why did she bother to diminish the accuracy of this example (even slightly) with a qualification?

Which is important in conjunction with ...

Why did she diminish forensic document examination, or the credentials of its practitioners?

Why was the argument moved to, "this isn't the real argument, George Bush's military record is?" When media incompetence and bias should be its own, distinct and MUCH MORE important argument?

Because of partisanship? Would her line be the same if this was an anti-Kerry forgery?

"The real argument is, why did John Kerry lie about his Vietnam service?"

Don't think so.

So back to the initial thing, my point is, it's kind of insulting if the NY times and papers like the Globe are cited on straight news stories on a regular basis without such rigorous qualification of the errors that are inherent and fundamental to the interview process between an expert subject and a reporter.

so why did she choose to use her advocate nature in the review of my account?

I am now 100% sure that these are forgeries, and the truth on this will come out, so perhaps this is all moot.

"No schools provide degrees in these fields." This really chaps my ass. Given the quality of Old Media reporting these days,it is painfully obvious that Columbia, et al, are not providing degrees in journalism either. The Blogosphere is doing their job better - how many bloggers are journalists? Is anyone here working in their degree? I work for a global corporation and no one I know is, assuming they even have one. It is generally good for getting your foot in the door. After that, performance and experience are what mainly counts.

Bill,

You are right on the money with regard to TalkLeft.

The people at both the Globe and 60 Minutes wanted these documents to be the real deal. That is the only possible explanation for their behavior.

Also, fonter's crack about Bush's Guard Service is slander pure and simple. His problem is like that of the foolish 'journalists' at the Globe and CBS: he wants Bush to be an idiot goof-off, therefore he is -- or at least was -- one.

Do any of the President's political opponents bother to think anymore?