In article ,
wrote:

Somewhat smarmy, but welcome nevertheless:

********************************
After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence
in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them
journalistically," he said. "I find we have been misled on the key
question of how our source for the documents came into possession of
these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been
raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -- if I
knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the
story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the
documents in question."

*****************************


Also:
"It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit
of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without
fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in
our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "

No favoritism?
Fair?
Running a bash-the-candidate story 8 weeks before the election?
That's a new definition of fair to me.
Where is the bash Kerry story that should be there for balance?
This story's mere presence on a highly watched news show this
close to an election demonstrates favoritism.

I have questioned the credibility of television news, 60 Minutes in
particular and CBS in general ever since they ran the Audi unintended
acceleration stories back in the 80's. There have been many, many
instances of biased journalism from this crew since then.

This story bears an uncanny resemblance to NBC's rigged gas tank
explosions in 1992.

Dan Rather's rush to get this story into the news and smear Bush weeks
before the election speaks volumes about his politics and ethics.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur