This diary is not directly about the evidence surrounding the Weiner photography, and its alleged authenticity (or lack thereof). But as one of those annoying "tech experts" who occasionally comes out of the woodwork to offer my opinion on the validity of, say, Obama's birth certificate, the "n-word" allegedly being shouted at a Palin rally, North Korean missile photos, and other evidence-based topics, I have to assign credit and blame for this ongoing irritating "expert opinion" phenomenon to the Killian memos controversy from 2004.
In the Killian case, as you may recall, CBS News was duped by some pretty obvious forgeries which were exposed by bloggers and, as Jon Stewart famously coined them, "amateur Helveticologists". It was a huge David vs. Goliath moment for bloggers, and arguably the first major news event ever shaped by the new "blog" phenomenon. In fact, with the explosive way the whole Killian memo controversy went down, it is indeed possible that the mess influenced the election, especially given the close voter totals in states like Ohio. After all, my own mother changed her planned vote from Kerry to Bush because of that controversy, and I doubt she's the only one.
I myself wrote extensively on the Killian memos at the time, and was quoted by quite a few prominent publications (mostly right-leaning, naturally, as it was the right-wing media who stood to gain from the accusations, as would be expected.) I patiently published my findings, explaining the typographic evidence and the proof the documents could not have been created on a typewriter available at the time. I even gave a few interviews on the subject. As you can imagine, my Republican friends and colleagues felt my opinions were gospel, and my Democratic friends and colleagues were convinced I was wrong, right up to the point CBS published a retraction.
The final internal review from CBS goes into extensive detail from document experts as well, which confirm these findings, and the proof of the forgery is now considered fact. In fact, I even used the Killian memos for years in my college design and typography classes I used to teach. But its almost forgotten that at the time, there were people on both sides who claimed insight on the matter, and used their own findings and evidence to argue the documents were authentic after all. Just as there are currently hundreds of individuals showing their findings that the Obama birth certificate is a forgery, and likely believe what they're saying, too. What happens is that most people treat their preconceptions as fact, as a starting point, and therefore ignore all evidence that contradicts what they've already considered a "fact". If you go into the research on, say, 9-11, believing as a fact that 9-11 was an "inside job", then you have to only consider evidence which supports your theory. Even if it means you have to ignore the 95% of evidence which doesn't support your theory. Ditto moon landings, Roswell, Obama's Kenyan birth, the "myth" of global warming, and so on.
On virtually any issue, there will be evidence for and against a particular position. The trick to determining truth is to reject preconceptions and examine all evidence objectively. This is almost impossible to do in practice, but we can at least try. You can't go into a forensic examination convinced of one party's guilt or innocence beforehand. It clouds your judgment to the point where you can't even trust your own findings, even if you're right.
In this case, not only were some researchers blinded by their presumption of Weiner's innocence, but there was also a distrust of the messenger (reflexively dismissing anything Breitbart was claiming.) This happened during National Enquirer's Edwards accusations as well. I remember getting H/Red into oblivion for asking -- just asking -- if someone thought there might be merit to the John Edwards love child accusations. I bet many others were punished as well for expressing the same concern. The prevailing wisdom was that the National Enquirer's reputation was so irredeemably poor that anything they claimed must not only be suspect, but in fact the very opposite must be true. Given the Enquirer's history of unsourced yellow journalism, skepticism was certainly warranted, then and now. But it was a mistake to assume that everything they reported was a lie, just as it was a mistake to assume that everything Breitbart reports is a lie. After all, do we assume that when the Enquirer writes an article about how much Barack and Michelle are in love, it means the Obama's marriage is trouble? Of course not.
Healthy skepticism of, say, Fox News, is always appropriate. But outright dismissal is not. As happened with the Killian memos, it was only natural for right wing voices to play up this controversy, and left wing voices to downplay the evidence. This is always what will happen. It's healthy to have the "other side" investigating our guys, just as it's healthy to have us investigate theirs. Scandals by Republican politicians are not going to be uncovered by Republican-friendly individuals, and scandals by Democratic politicians are not going to be uncovered by Democratic-friendly individuals. Both sides are needed for a proper check and balance.
Yes, while trying to defend Weiner, some undoubtedly smart techies had their blinders on, and their unwillingness to consider evidence that opposed their preconceptions led to some very, very poor conclusions. But I'm still glad as hell they tried, because at the end of the day, I sure wouldn't want to only trust experts hired by Andrew Brietbart. Would you?