That's almost as good as "wardrobe malfunction".

It's unacceptable because it's deliberately twisting the words of their expert to the point of dishonesty.

No expert told them there was any early-70
s typewriter that could have produced the memos.

No expert made any such affirmative pronouncement.

Saying there is still one machine that conceivably *might* have been able to reproduce SOME FEATURES of the documents, but I doubt the machine was used, is completely different from what the globe alleges their expert told them. That there WAS a machine existing that could have produced the documents.

Yup.

Fox News just reported (8:45 am central time, Wednesday) that CBS will supposedly be issuing a statement about the documents today at noon. We'll see, huh?

As of last night, the statement was going to be "we stand by our story."

check this bit from the end of the NYT report:

Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush's military service, Mr. Van Os said: "If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done'' - then, he continued, "what difference would it make?"

Wow. "Documents they BELIEVED had existed". That's the beginning of the end...

I think I have the appropriate song for this occasion:

The things, you say, your contretemps just give you away

The things, you say, YOU'RE UNBELIEVABLE! (ohhhhh!)

Is there any longer reasonable doubt that the Globe was complicit in sustaining a fraud of calculated partisan propaganda based on fictious material designed specifically to aid the campaign of John Kerry? I can see their new motto just below the masthead, 'Errors were made. Let's MoveOn.org.'

Thanks for pointing out the correction. I missed it this AM. Silly me ... I was looking for a great big giant headline! But I guess that's the point of tiny corrections pieces, huh?

Why am I not surprised.....

It's been less than a week since the Rathergate story has broken, i'd say the Blogoshere has done a great job popularizing this issue. Com'on on Bill what did you think ? that the Globe and CBS would lay down the poisaon pen without spilling more ink in an attempt to blot out the the facts?.

Bloggers ruined the four pronged political attack planned this week against Bush by willing partisan newspapers,book publishers, broadcast media hacks and the DNC.

You guys pissed in their Kool-aid.

The Globe article (all the way back on p.14!) is totally outrageous! This is what they have to say about the matter: "But the authenticity of those documents has been called into question." Called into freakin' QUESTION? But I'll bet you can't guess what expert they trot out to offer an opinion that they're probably fakes. Give up? It's Laura Bush!!! As if she's the only one calling them into question! No mention whatsoever of the bazillions of experts insisting they're fakes, the damning reports from the Washington Post, ABC News, and Lord knows who else! Another message to the ombudsman is clearly in order.

( Soft strains of "Do not forsake me oh mah darlin'...music swells...camera in frame shot of dusty main road through dodge....slow pan back...cue actors..."Action"...High noon...Columbia Pictures - Take 132.."snap"!

Set position 1-( Gary Rather, town marshal walks slowly, very deliberately down the center of the town...head slightly turned, eyes narrowed, right hand resting on his holster....jingling of spurs...camera pulls back to frame more of the street..)

Grace Kelly huddles in the shadows of the general store...train pulling away from the distant station...

Gary stops as Thomas Mitchel ( Carl johnson ex-con ) steps into view...

Set 3 - Zoom to Marshalls face ... Off camera voice of Mitchel...

dialog - Mitchel - ...."Ahm gonna kill you and then Ahm a'gonna take your girl Marshall..."

dialog - Rather - ...."Common ahead iffin you think your man enough..."

dialog - Mitchel - ..."Hold it Marshall ... Is that a shrink wrap copy of MS word in your holster?..."

dialog - Rather - "Well yes...Whats it to yah?..."

dialog - Mitchal - "Yah mean you're not a documents expert?"

dialog - Rather - "Well....no....but I did stay at a Holiday inn last night.."

scene wrap - Garce kelly softly sobbing in background - Mitchel leering - Gary looking shy and embarrassed - Music swells pan back for full street shot and cut.....

(My message to the Globe's ombudsman)

I still hold out hope for the integrity of the Boston Globe, but I have to say it's vanishing fast. In my last message alerting you to problems with coverage of Dr. Bouffard's analysis of the forged CBS memos, I said my disappointment would turn to anger if I saw signs of active dissemblance over this scandal. I think this morning's p.14 follow-up qualifies, where the only mention of the forgery scandal is this: "But the authenticity of those documents has been called into question."

Let me be clear. At this point there are dozens of experts, some of whom helped invent modern desktop publishing technology, willing to say in no uncertain terms that these documents are fakes. (Hell, I have over a dozen years under my belt as technical lead at a local publishing firm -- for credentials google "mike sierra" colophon site:oreilly.com -- and I'm certainly willing to say it!) So what expert do your reporters offer to render an opinion that they *might* be fakes? Why, none other than Laura Bush! This is transparent bias. And let's not forget that your paper utterly failed to mention yesterday's damning reports by such fly-by-night outfits as the Washington Post and ABC News.

I am very angry. For crying out loud, this problem needs to be fixed, not just glossed over.

Oh jeez, get a load of Christine's response. What an... aaaaaaaagnostic:

I take your point on several counts -- for example, that the Globe should have picked up the Post story yesterday. The paper also erred in the Saturday headline, corrected today. But I don't think we can quite say with certainty that the documents are fakes, or (taking into account the comments today from Killian's secretary) that the situation they described was fake. I think we just don't know. I wish we did. I hope we do soon.

That said, thanks for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,
Chris Chinlund
Globe Ombud

My response:

* Assuming what Killian's secretary says is true and that the documents are what the NY Times calls "Fake but Accurate" [?], doesn't that provide yet more evidence that the documents were forged?

* How many genuine experts need to declare these documents fakes before their judgement is considered more relevant than that of the president's wife?