Pajama Pundits

Dan is a stand-by-his-forged-documents man

While perusing the comments at sisu, I came across a blog - Fine? Why Fine? - I hadn't visited before and found this interesting tidbit there:

I cannot believe that a previous case in which Dan Rather stood by forged documents did not come up once--to my knowledge--during the whole Rathergate debacle. Must be read to be believed.

Now, at least I understand why CBS and Dan Rather stonewalled. Not being a lawyer, and not being a 'professional' journalist, I didn't quite understand what Times v. Sullivan could mean for Rather and CBS.

Posted by Donna B. on Friday November 26, 2004 at 8:24pm 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks

(link)

Rob A. (mail) (www):

Thanks for the link. I'm still miffed that this didn't come up back in September. For all the digging the uh, (lower-case) "pajama pundits" did on Rathergate back in September that no one came across this story is still amazing. But the bloggers should be excused because the Quill is a trade rag for journalists. Actual "jouralists"--at least a couple must read it--have no excuse. I still find it hard to believe that not a single on remembered Rather's previous forged docs incident. They really circled the wagons for Danny-Boy.

11.27.2004 8:58am