Fraud by CBS?

CBS is beginning to hedge a bit on the Killian memos. In its September 16 "For the Record" statement, it says:

Are those documents authentic, as experts consulted by CBS News continue to maintain? Or were they forgeries or re-creations, as Knox and many others believe?
 
We will keep an open mind and we will continue to report credible evidence and responsible points of view as we try to answer the questions raised about the authenticity of the documents.
 
Having said that, 60 Minutes feels that it's important to underscore this point: Those who have criticized aspects of our story have never criticized the major thrust of our report -- that George Bush received preferential treatment to get into the National Guard, and once accepted, failed to satisfy the requirements of his service. If we uncover any information to the contrary, that information will also be reported.

Expressing a willingness to consider "credible evidence" is an improvement over its previous stance -- but not much of one. It's still trying to draw attention away from the issue of whether Dan Rather faked a major news story. It still hasn't made high-resolution scans of the memos, which would help to resolve many questions, available to the public. Yes, it's an important question whether George W. Bush had an honorable service record or not; but if a major news organization has faked evidence in order to make people believe he didn't, that's an earth-shaking story in itself. Even if the underlying story is true, that doesn't excuse fabricating documents to bolster the claim.

Dan Rather has said, "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill." This is like presenting the famous blurry picture that might be the Loch Ness Monster or just an otter and demanding in an insulting way that professional photographic experts prove that it isn't Nessie. Rather isn't telling us who provided the document, and refuses to name the expert who authenticated them in spite of the denials by all the experts whom CBS did name.

Speaking as a software professional with extensive experience in typography (and therefore as part of the "professional rumor mill" whom Rather insults), I can't provide proof of the inauthenticity of the documents, especially from a low-resolution scan of a copy. I can't prove that the Shroud of Turin isn't a miraculous image of Jesus, and can't prove that Dan Rather isn't a space alien. All I can do is point out how implausible a set of circumstances such things would require; the burden of proof is on the assertion of the positive.