He'd Rather Not

Dan Rather delivers a head-scratcher, reported by Howard Kurtz:

Asked if he was troubled by the handwriting and document analysts who say some of the typography and spacing did not exist in the early 1970s, Rather said he could not rule out the possibility of a hoax but sees no need for an internal inquiry.

Couldn't rule it out? Doesn't want any further internal inquiry? Is "CBS" a secret abbreviation for "Que sera sera"?

And here's another gem:

Before airing Wednesday's segment, he said, CBS "vetted" the confidential source who provided the memos and concluded that "he did have the ability to get access to these documents and he was being truthful."

How deeply reassuring. This is just like when Nick Kristof assured us that Bob Mintz was a "compelling witness". That assurance collapsed a day later.

Comments

[Jumbo]

Suit: Dan, this is dynamite stuff, but we don't want to look too eager. Have you checked it our? Is the source believable?"

Dan: Is the source believable? Of course he is: I believe him! What more do you need? I stake my reputation as an impartial non-partisan journalist on it.

Suit: Thank God. I just didn't want us to be accused of not using a critical eye. Your journalistic instincts are unimpeachable. Hell, let those internet nutjobs research and track stuff down; we've got Dan Rather's nose for a story! Okay, we lead with it, and you're on in 5 minutes. By the way, what's the frequency?

[J_Crater]

Narrator: Well, will Dan Rather be able to extricate himself?
Rather: I will as soon as I get loose.