Reader Herb Martin in Austin, Texas writes us with an excellent question:

What if the forgeries had been just a bit more competent?

Practically every other major media organization gives CBS and Rather a pass or claim 'no bias, just bad reporting' but had the documents been created as competent forgeries who doubts that CBS would be sticking by them even though:

 1) CBS had NO originals (as they originally claimed)

 2) The source Rather claimed "unimpeachable" was anything but

 3) Their was no providence for the documents
   (even though CBS claimed they originated in Killian's files)

 4) NONE of the CBS 'experts' would validate the documents
   (several of the CBS 'experts' were not even experts)

 5) CBS failed to test the documents for accuracy
   (all of the contemporary officers took one look and said 'fraud'.)

 6) CBS failed to use ANY source that disagreed with their BIAS

 7) CBS even refused to contact sources suggested by those sources
   they ignored, e.g., Killian's family recommended other officers)

 8) Anyone with a minimum of computer savvy could have warned CBS

Almost any competent computers person, especially with a military background, COULD have created MUCH better fake memos.

What if the documents had looked JUST LIKE the other documents released by the White House, or the Kerry Campaign?

CBS is still be given largely a pass for NO ORIGINALS, no CLEAR authentication by experts who would SIGN their own name under "These are authentic", and no providence for the documents.

Even were these memos not fakes, CBS had NOTHING.

Nada, never a thing.  They had copies of copies from an unknown source by way of an unreliable source who told CBS to authenticate them.

Imagine what a good document forger and Photoshop could have done with the basic idea if only given a few hours.....

How do you think all the so—called 'journalists' would feel if unsourced document describing their own fictitious crimes and misdemeanors started appearing —— leaving the journalists to prove themselves innocent.