Catherine says:
ìAlthough journalism in the broad sense is my profession (Michael Kelly would say it’s my “craft”), I’m just the writer.
(Ö)
ìWhat I can tell you, though, is that forged documents are so far out of bounds as to Defy Description; at least this situation defies my own powers of description.î
—————————
Yes, well, it is basically true in the principle. But these things do happen and the more powerful the player, the greater probability that he/she will get away with it.
I am a scientist: I have similar belief about falsifying data. In research setting, cheating is mind-bogglingly stupid because a result, no matter how exciting, must be verifiable. Yet it happens. Publish or perish. We all remember cold-fusion fiasco.
When the Monica story broke out I did not believe the allegations until Clinton confessed, simply because I could not fathom that somebody could be stupid enough to endanger so much for so little ñ and yet it happened, because the major player was used to having power and getting away with things.
Another example: I am well familiar with inner works of small start-ups and have been always astonished how tight are the SEC laws regulating financial disclosures of companies and management. Strictly speaking, it is almost impossible to get away with any cheating ñ and yet Enron et al. happened. Powerful players, yet again, are the ones more likely to try to be, shall we say, creative.
So, at this point it is easy for me to believe that what Rather et al. did has been done before with impunity. Imagine: how would we ever find out that these are forgeries without the army of the ìcitizen journalistsî (I donít think I like term, though, it does smell of guillotine)? Even if the memos looked suspicious to us, the explanations about IBM Selectrics, assurances of CBS witnesses etc. would have muddied waters enough to leave room for doubt. Rather is so powerful that he can afford to play fast and loose with evidence and I am convinced that the fact that this time he was caught still did not sink in and that is why is stonewalling.
Besides, what does he have to lose? He already has his gazillions, he is retiring, and no matter what he is not going to lose the readership of his outcoming book ìHow I defined events of American Politics for three decadesî – all those people who bought Billís drivel are going to snap this one up, too. (I made up a title, but I am sure something like that is coming). If he managed to influence the outcome of the election, great, that would add a nice final chapter. If not, all well, it was worth a shot. Reputation? Who cares about reputation in these post-modern times? Besides, time heals all wounds. Even Nixon was praised right and left when at his funeral.
PS. Many thanks to Buddy Larsenís son.
PPS. Full disclosure: I never approach my computer without formal attire: business dress in the morning, a cocktail dress in the afternoon, an evening gown after 6PM. Of course, I have jewelry to match: I favor silver in the morning, followed with colored stones in the afternoon ( saffires and opals for preference) and diamonds and pearls with the evening gowns.
Of course, as any self respecting netizen I do not own pajamas.
