My thought/theory on this is that the networks probably use questionable 'evidence' on stories pretty frequently, as a normal way of doing business. Most targets of a hit story don't have the resources or voice to fight a network, and if they do, the network digs in its heels and starts digging more. I assume a lot of businesses or business owners might be somewhat apprehensive about a network with a vendetta against them, and would find it hard to PROVE anything is a forgery/fraud, etc.
A good object lesson is the ge/nbc vs GM pickup truck fabrications. NBC 'stood by their story' as well, even after GM sued GE, until apparently GM produced indisputable evidence. GE then settled for an undisclosed amount and had the NBC president apologize on the air, but the fact NBC was ready to go up against one of the biggest companies in the world with faked material tells me they don't think twice about doing it to a smaller entity.
They got careless. There was no reason for those memos not to have been faked on a typewriter from that period.
"My thought/theory on this is that the networks probably use questionable 'evidence' on stories pretty frequently, as a normal way of doing business."
Considering the ease with which they colluded with the Clinton crime family, and how readily they smeared the human race with "they all do it," I think your theory is accurate.
Which means this fiasco may have a sobering effect on a lot of news-hacks for some time. It leads to the prediction that we won't see as much sensational gotcha "journalism" for awhile.
"My thought/theory on this is that the networks probably use questionable 'evidence' on stories pretty frequently"
Remember Watergate?
"My thought/theory on this is that the networks probably use questionable 'evidence' on stories pretty frequently, as a normal way of doing business."
For part of my time in the military I got to read raw intel feeds every day.
As a result, I am convinced that the Networks--and the major newspapers and wire services--lie constantly.
I'm defining "lie" as acting with the malicious intent to deceive. That can take the form of omission, distortion, selective reporting, or outright fabrication.
For instance, I happen to know that some of the anti-Marcos riots in Manila were out and out fabrications. I don't know when the media started inventing stuff, but they've been doing it at least since the Marcos years.
They didn't bother to make it a good forgery because they are just so used to getting away with it. They're just not accustomed to being vulnerable to being caught.