I have up to now been reluctant to completely buy into the idea that stories are consciously ignored or emphasized by the press to forward an agenda. The 5 to 1 liberal bias in broadcast news was, to me, a problem, but not necessarily a problem of intentional sin. I suspected it from time to time, but my faith in humanity kept me from buying it.
Thank you, Dan, for opening my eyes.
How many stories did you do on the preponderance of evidence that scores of swiftboat veterans represented? Or, as I suspect (because I don't watch you mainly because of egotistical self-important, primadonna behavior I've seen you engage in in the past - another Sept 11, 1987 springs to mind for one) did you instead focus on possible connections between the Bush campaign and the swiftboat vets, or work on discrediting their stories?
Now to the crux of the matter .... you presented as physical evidence -- a linchpin argument, documents that backed up Operation Fortunate Son's (oops, no connection to you, right?) claims, aiming to convince millions of voters (I mean viewers) that it was an open-and-closed case.
The documents, as it turns out, are likely forgeries. You say "well, they might be, but that's not important."
NOT IMPORTANT? In what Universe? Saddam Hussein's? Oh, that's right, Dan. I forgot. You're buddies with the victim of America's great crime.
"Your honor, this glove was found at the site of the crime, and it belongs to the defendant"
"But the glove was manufactured two years after the crime took place."
"It doesn't matter, your honor. There was a glove that belonged to the defendant at the crime scene, take our word for it. If you don't believe us, take the word of one of the defendant's enemies. She said there was a glove, and it was his. This one merely represents it."
PS - vote for the other guy.
Dan, you Walter Cronkite wannabe, you'll never fill his shoes.
"And that's the way it would have been. If I could prove it. Which I can't ... I mean won't. Courage."