Even I think I am spending way too much time on the Killian memo issue, but I'm visiting it again because, dammit, I'm an expert. And I don't think they are forgeries.

I studied typography as an academic discipline (circa 1971) as part of the old journalism school curriculum at U of Missouri. I spent roughly 30 years in the book publishing business, most of which was on the production side dealing with type compositors and printers. I have worked with typography and printing processes from the end of the raised-metal-type era to current digital technology. I have designed and written complete type specifications for more books than I can remember.

As a production editor in the 1980s I became especially good at measuring the type in books to be reprinted so that corrections could be made by patching the film. To do that, I had to measure the old type and match font, body size, ledding, and letter spacing exactly. This is not a skill people need much any more, since books are stored digitally. But I still know how to do it.

I'm bouncing around the web seeing wingnuts flying off about proportional letter spacing and kerning and whatnot, and I'm telling you these people are off the wall.

Read the details here

As of now, I believe all of the "proof" of forgery of the Killian documents has been tossed out of court, so to speak. We've accounted for proportional type several different ways, centered heads, all manner of character questions (including the famous raised "th," which turns out to have been a special character on some type element balls, as I suspected), kerning (there wasn't any), and the astonishing fact that when you set the same document twice in the same type face and size it will look pretty much alike. Imagine.

The hyenas on the right are still mindlessly yapping about forgeries, because that's what they do. But by now most people with brains understand the documents are most likely authentic.

According to this LA Times article, the "forgery" claim can be traced to an anonymous poster on Free Republic. Of course. Then some junior technoweenie on Little Green Footballs discovered he could replicate the documents on Microsoft Word, which said junior technoweenie, who clearly knows absolutely nothing about typography, assumed was proof the documents were phony. And then Matt Drudge picked it up, and then it went to mainstream media. And this in a space of about 12 hours.

No question that the Web is impacting major media and the political campaign. The question is, how? Quoting the LA Times:

This was the first time, some said, that the Web logs were engaging in their own form of investigative journalism — and readers, they warned, should be cautious.

"The mainstream press is having to follow them," said Jeffrey Seglin, a professor at Emerson College in Boston. "The fear I have is: How do you know who's doing the Web logs?

"And what happens when this stuff gets into the mainstream, and it eventually turns out that the '60 Minutes' documents were perfectly legitimate, but because there's been so much reporting about what's being reported, it has already taken on a life of its own?"

There are two legitimate issues here. One is the content of the documents, which proves Our Fearless Leaders was indeed a spoiled little princeling who got away with disobeying a direct order while dissing his country.

But the other question is, how can we restore some semblance of responsibility to news reporting?

When I was in journalism school (a zillion years ago, seems like) there was this notion that a professional journalist verified his information before making a story public. And even then, statements were to be cautiously edged with lots of qualifiers just in case the reporter had been misled.

But now false allegations hit the public so fast the whole world hears them before knowledgable people can clear their throats to speak up.

Short of giving a responsibility transplant to anyone within ten feet of a computer keyboard, I don't know what to do.