| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
On Monday Dan Rather defended his use of the memos. Missing from his presentation was the only thing that could possibly justify his use of them: provenance, i.e. proof of past ownership. Because even if the docs did match what typewriters of the time could produce, they could still have been forged.
This article from The American Spectator indicates that provenance is precisely what 60 Minutes does not have:
“We’re having a hard time tracking how we got the documents,” says the CBS News producer. “There are at least two people in this building who have insisted we got copies of these memos from the Kerry campaign by way of an additional source. We do not have the originals, and our sources have indicated to us that we will not be getting the originals. How that is possible I don’t know.”
How can CBS possibly vouch for the authenticity of these documents, if they don’t even know where they came from?
Suppose the documents did match what typewriters of the time could actually produce. That certainly wouldn’t prove they were real. Competent forgeries look real. The only thing that could prove they were not forged would be demonstrable, unequivocal proof of past ownership.
The American Spectator quote indicates that CBS News does not know how they got the documents, and therefore cannot possibly vouch that they are authentic.
Conclusion: Only demonstrable provenance can remotely justify Rathers use of those memos. Provenance is precisely what Rather is failing to provide. Its a gigantic gaping gap in his Monday-night defense. Without provenance there is no possible justification for the use of those memos.
