-- James A. Donald:
For example the viewer sees CBU-15 described as nerve gas. The viewer then sees Moorer and the interviewer talking about a battle in Laos, then there is an editing cut, and then the viewer sees:
On 10 Dec 2001, at 14:53, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I don't think your summary is correct. CNN hired an outside reviewer who came up with this report, which recommends retraction of the story but accuses the reporters of no malice: http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/02/tailwind.findings/
"No malice", not "no lies" The reason he concludes "no malice" is that he concludes the reporters really believed the US had used nerve gas, not because he believes the reporters had truthfully reported the evidence. The edited Moorer seemingly admits to the use of nerve gas, and another witness seemingly admits to personally massacring civilians. In the unedited versions, they do not. The reason it was "no malice" is that the reporters actually had some evidence -- but not evidence persuasive enough to report on television. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG LU0N6i897F7dj1cMd1Rd3z4T8cvfH/3QdF6Yx98j 4B2ygdObW0RForD1jMTcV2PBVSHc8W09z7xvkq3y9