Giving air time to the authors of a work of fiction on John Kerry's war record does not seem to me to be in the spirit of rigorous analytical fact-checking that ought to underpin journalism. Just because somebody makes charges that a certain version of historical facts is incorrect does not elevate them to the level of credible source worthy of time in the public discourse. To claim John Kerry's war record is a lie in the face of the overwhelming documentary evidence of the US Navy is to argue for a conspiracy so vast as to make Roswell UFO cover-ups seem credible by comparison. What's next, a CNN segment that will feature holocaust deniers debating with Simon Wiesenthal?
And if John O'Neill is to be given the credibility of a national platform, why not ask him about his own history of anti-Kerry bashing, documented on the Watergate tapes as having been orchestrated by the dirty tricks squad of the Nixon era? Why not discuss his own credibility and that of his co-author, Mr. Corsi?
"Objectivity" does not mean "there are two sides to every story". It means looking at the most objective sources of information and evaluating them in a rigorous manner. I sincerely hope CNN will aspire to better editorial standards for its choice of subjects and guests during the coming months.