The Gilligan defence

I can't figure out if the Washington Post actually believes this or they are trying to offer CBS a lifeline, a means of scapegoating the White House for the memos.

The papers were hand-delivered at 7:45 a.m. CBS correspondent John Roberts, filling in for Rather, sat down with [White House communications director] Bartlett at 11:15.

Half an hour later, Roberts called "60 Minutes" producer Mary Mapes with word that Bartlett was not challenging the authenticity of the documents. Mapes told her bosses, who were so relieved that they cut from Rather's story an interview with a handwriting expert who had examined the memos.

Mapes is going to be sacrificed. "Howard said Mapes told him the analysts' concerns had been addressed." [Which is odd when CBS never mentioned having concerns before now and doesn't again until after the broadcast and blogger reaction.]

WashPo offering CBS an out. It's a hoax. [Bolding mine]

As they continue their investigation into whether they were hoaxed, CBS officials have begun shifting their public focus from the memos themselves to their underlying allegations about the president. Rather said that if the memos were indeed faked, "I'd like to break that story." But whatever the verdict on the memos, he said, critics "can't deny the story."

The problem is, they they aren't claiming a hoax, as Mark Steyn points out. "The only reasonable conclusion is that the source -- or trail of sources -- is even more incriminating than the fake documents. Why else would Heyward and Rather allow the CBS news division to commit slow, public suicide?"

WashPo final paragraph unintentially sums up the CBS problem.

As the days begin to blur for Josh Howard, he embraces the same logic: "So much of this debate has focused on the documents, and no one has really challenged the story. It's been frustrating to us to see all this reduced to a debate over little 'th's."

It's a debate over fraud, stupid, and journalistic ethics. The Independent calls it the

"Gilligan defence", pioneered by the BBC journalist in the corporation's 2003 row with the Government over the "sexed-up" Iraq weapons dossier.In both cases, the accused party claims that, whatever the doubts about the supporting evidence, the basic story was true."