Reply #10: Learning from History [View All]

[The Roux Comes First]

Being so near-synched with Miller's "found" notes, this event worries me. Intent on some exchanges on this I have posted similarly elsewhere on DU. Rarely in the reporting and commentary on issues of this sort, here, elsewhere in c'space, or in corporate media, is there much if any discussion of the issue of veracity of the key exhibits.

We have seen examples of tainted/forged documents recently (yellowcake memo and Rathergate come to mind), with varied and creative sinister purposes behind them. The Rather episode stands out.

It seems easy to cobble together freewheeling notes, memos, and emails after-the-fact, with complete freedom to concoct contents for any number of vile objectives. Possibilities that come to mind include impugning the credibility of public figures or journalists, fuzzifying the historical record, or offering a distraction for the ongoing cacophony of evil spirits coming home to roost in the white house.

Presumably in trial settings efforts are routinely made to check on and document the bona fides of critical bits of documentation. In the meantime though, out here where we must do our own newsgathering and fact-checking if we really want to stay in touch and be anything like current (thanks * and MSM for that vital lesson!), it seems more care and skepticism is needed.

I'm seeking insights from those with working experience in professions like journalism and law enforcement. How hard would it be to fake a helpful email after the fact, and what are the chances of us getting conned by weakly-documented or even wholly uncorroborated documents like the Rove email?