|
THE
MEDIA AND THE "HE-SAID, SHE-SAID" GAME
SUMMARY
FACTS
(For detailed proof, scroll down or click here)
-
Many media outlets
continue to present SBV's egregious and fake claims
as part of a he-said, she-said narrative, thereby lending some
undeserved credibility to a bunch of ultra-partisan fraudsters.
Others have given SBV massive latitude by NOT critically examining the full
breadth and depth of their egregiously false
charges against Senator John Kerry (some
media,
"journalists",
and serial
liars
are
far
worse
than others on this). The result is that people who can barely
keep track of the accusations are given the impression that there
is "something" to the allegations, even though that
is completely NOT the case. Until these media outlets
(especially Cable TV) reform their manner of coverage and clearly
shoot down lies and unsubstantiated allegations as garbage, there
will be no end to this form of politics and smearing of good
people.
-
In the "Detailed
Facts" section I merely highlight articles or narratives that
have appeared in the media pointing out what I stated above. Do
take a moment to read these articles.
DETAILED
FACTS
1. The Daily Show with
Jon Stewart (via Atrios) 2.
Los Angeles Times Editorial via Atrios 3.
E. J. Dionne in the Washington Post, via Atrios 4.
Alessandra Stanley in the New York Times 5.
Matthew Yglesias in The American Prospect 6.
Media Matters - on media bias and favorable coverage of Bush --
whose substantiated record in the Vietnam years was less than
compelling - while airing repeated false, unsubstantiated charges
against Kerry by a bunch of serial liars 7.
Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk on the abysmal behavior of
the media in response to the myriad false charges of SBV
1.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, via Atrios:
Last
night's Daily Show:
- STEWART: Here's
what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is
pretty much right there in the official records of the US
military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?
CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll
be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few
days.
STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's
established.
CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible
fact is one side of the story.
STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story?
I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your
opinion?
CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have
'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half
the time repeating what one side says, and half the time
repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might
wanna look it up some day.
STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the
evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?
CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants
the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh,
this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks
any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job
to stand between the people talking to me and the people
listening to me.
STEWART: So, basically, you're saying that this back-and-forth
is never going to end.
CORDDRY: No, Jon -- in fact a new group has emerged, this one
composed of former Bush colleages, challenging the president's
activities during the Vietnam era. That group: Drunken Stateside
Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability. They've apparently
got some things to say about a certain Halloween party in '71
that involved trashcan punch and a sodomized piñata. Jon --
they just want to set the record straight. That's all they're
out for.
STEWART: Well, thank you Rob, good luck out there. We'll be
right back.
(thanks to reader n)
2.
Los Angeles Times Editorial via Atrios
EDITORIAL
These Charges Are False ...
It's one thing for the presidential
campaign to get nasty but quite another for it to engage in
fabrication. The
technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was
perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its
roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a
charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed
the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128
times"; "there are [pick a number] Communists in the State
Department." But make sure the supporting details are
complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.
Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists
have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the
rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the
canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying
outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left
with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis'
patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been
distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on
now) by these laboratory concoctions.
It must be infuriating to the victims of this process to be given
conflicting advice about how to deal with it from the same campaign
press corps that keeps it going. The press has been telling Kerry:
(a) Don't let charges sit around unanswered; and (b) stick to your
issues: Don't let the other guy choose the turf.
At the moment, Kerry is being punished by the media for taking
advice (b) and failing to take advice (a). There was plenty of talk
on TV about what Kerry's failure to strike back said about whether
he had the backbone for the job of president — and even when he
did strike back, he was accused of not doing it soon enough. But
what does Bush's acquiescence in the use of this issue say about
whether he has the simple decency for the job of president?
Whether the Bush campaign is tied to the Swift boat
campaign in the technical, legal sense that triggers the wrath of
the campaign-spending reform law is not a very interesting question.
The ridiculously named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is being funded
by conservative groups that interlock with Bush's world in various
ways, just as MoveOn.org, which is running nasty ads about Bush's
avoidance of service in Vietnam, is part of Kerry's general milieu.
More important, either man could shut down the groups working on his
behalf if he wanted to. Kerry has denounced the MoveOn ads, with
what degree of sincerity we can't know. Bush on Monday — finally
— called for all ads by independent groups on both sides to be
halted. He also said Kerry had "served admirably" in
Vietnam. But he declined an invitation to condemn the Swift boat
effort.
In both cases, the candidates are the reason the groups are in
business. There is an important difference, though, between the side
campaign being run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry
campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign is nasty,
personal and false.
No informed person can seriously believe that Kerry fabricated
evidence to win his military medals in Vietnam. His main accuser has
been exposed as having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago.
Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in
question, as well as by documentation. His accusers have no evidence
except their own dubious word.
Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we
can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false. Or
at least, there is no good evidence that they are true. George Bush,
if he were a man of principle, would say the same thing.
3.
E. J. Dionne, Washington Post, via Atrios
Link:
- The media have to
do more than "he said/he said" reporting. If the
charges don't hold up, they don't hold up. And, yes, now that
John Kerry's life during his twenties has been put at the heart
of this campaign just over two months from Election Day, the
media owe the country a comparable review of what Bush was doing
at the same time and the same age.
If all the stories about what Kerry did in Vietnam are not
balanced by serious scrutiny of Bush in the Vietnam years, the
media will be capitulating to a right-wing smear campaign.
Surely our nation's editors and producers don't want to send a
signal that all you have to do to set the media's agenda is
spend a half-million bucks on television ads.
This is also a test of John McCain. When he ran against Bush
four years ago, McCain was smeared mercilessly. When McCain
protested to Bush about the attacks at one of their debates
during the 2000 primaries, Bush brushed him off.
"John," Bush said, "it's politics."
McCain snapped back, "George, everything isn't
politics."
4.
Alessandra Stanley in the New York Times
Fred Barnes, the
executive editor of The Weekly Standard and a regular Fox
commentator, ardently defended the Swift boat critics of Mr. Kerry,
saying on Fox that a majority of the senator's Vietnam brethren
believed that Mr. Kerry "fabricated or exaggerated his
record." Mr. Barnes added that "the entire chain of
command above Kerry have said the same thing." He did not
mention any notable exceptions in that chain of command, including
Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, a former secretary
of the Navy who said Mr. Kerry fully merited the Silver Star. Mr.
Barnes's hyperbole went unchecked.
CNN showed less
relish over the Swift boat clash, but it was not much more helpful
in separating fact from friction. Wolf Blitzer's interview with the
tart-tongued Mr. Dole made a lot of news on Sunday, but CNN allowed
him to make misleading assertions without pointing out where he was
in error. Mr. Dole suggested that Mr. Kerry was in a rush to obtain
his Purple Hearts to meet a regulation that allowed soldiers to
leave the war zone after winning three. "I mean, the first one,
whether he ought to have a Purple Heart - he got two in one day, I
think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because
three Purple Hearts and you're out." ( Mr. Kerry did not
receive two Purple Hearts for events of the same day. He received
them for the events of Dec. 2, 1968; Feb. 20, 1969; and March 13,
1969.)
Finally, yesterday
afternoon, Mr. Blitzer spoke to Mr. Dole by telephone and asked him
if he regretted any of his statements. Mr. Dole said he did not.
"I wasn't trying
to be mean-spirited," Mr. Dole said. "I was just trying to
say all these guys on the other side just can't be Republican
liars."
That kind of air-kiss
coverage is typical of cable news, where the premium is on speed and
spirited banter rather than painstaking accuracy. But it has grown
into a lazy habit: anchors do not referee - they act as if their
reportage is fair and accurate as long as they have two opposing
spokesmen on any issue.
5.
Matthew Yglesias in The American Prospect
CABLE
"NEWS" NETWORK.
I turned out CNN a few minutes ago to try and watch John Kerry's
speech. For a little while, the network decided to cover the speech
by, you know, broadcasting it. But at 12:09 Wolf Blitzer cut
away, preferring instead to describe the speech. Then he said
it came in the context of a "controversy" about Kerry's
military service and proceeded to launch into a five-minute report on
the charges, Kerry's response, and Bush's counteresponse. He left out
minor details like the absence of factual underpinnings to the SBVYY
allegations or that Bush's anti-527 crusade makes little sense in
light of his long,
documented
record
of
association
with such groups.
6.
Media Matters
Two
candidates, two military records, two standards
Media
extensively covers baseless allegations about Kerry's Vietnam
service; ignores well-substantiated facts about Bush's service;
unanswered questions linger about Bush's apparent failure to report
for duty
Both current
major-party presidential candidates served their country during
Vietnam. Both candidates' service has been questioned.
The similarities end
there.
John Kerry, according
to every available piece of documentary evidence, including official
U.S. Navy records, served bravely and honorably, won five medals
(including three Purple Hearts), and saved a crewmate's life.
Everybody -- everybody -- who served on Kerry's boats during the
incidents that led to his medals agrees that he deserved them and
praises his distinguished service.
President George W.
Bush, according to the documentary evidence available, apparently
didn't bother to show up for duty for a lengthy period in 1972-73 --
a period when, according
to USA Today, "commanders in Texas and Alabama say they
never saw him report for duty and records show no pay to Bush when
he was supposed to be on duty in Alabama." In contrast with
Kerry, who has shipmates who sing his praises, Bush hasn't been able
to produce anyone who can credibly say they remember serving with
him in the Alabama Guard.
Though much is known
about Bush's Guard record -- that he was grounded from flying for
failing to take a physical, for example -- some questions linger.
Among those identified
by USA Today:
Why did Bush,
described by some of his fellow officers as a talented and
enthusiastic pilot, stop flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972
and fail to take an annual physical exam required of all pilots?
What explains the
apparent gap in the president's Guard service in 1972-73, a period
when commanders in Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report
for duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was supposed to
be on duty in Alabama?
Did Bush receive
preferential treatment in getting into the Guard and securing a
coveted pilot slot despite poor qualifying scores and arrests, but
no convictions, for stealing a Christmas wreath and rowdiness at a
football game during his college years?
[...]
The Associated
Press filed a lawsuit this summer requesting copies of Bush's
military records stored in a Texas archive on microfilm. It sought
information that might explain why Bush did not take his flight
physical and whether he showed up for duty in Alabama in the fall
of 1972, AP spokesman John Stokes said.
One might think --
since we already know that Bush skipped a required physical, causing
him to be grounded, and that records give no indication that he
showed up for duty for several months -- that media coverage of
questions about the candidates' Vietnam-era service would focus on
Bush's record. But that's not what has happened so far during this
presidential campaign, according to a Media Matters for America
review of media coverage of the candidates. Not only has the media
given substantially more attention to baseless charges leveled
against Kerry, they have repeatedly held Bush to a lower standard
than other candidates.
OVERVIEW of Media
Coverage of Questions Surrounding the Candidates' Military Careers:
| 2004
Media Coverage of the Candidates' Military Service |
| Media Type |
Bush/Ala.
National Guard |
Kerry/Swift
Boats |
| All News |
752 |
1,924 |
| U.S.
Newspapers and Wires |
398 |
1,440 |
| ABC, CBS, NBC,
CNBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC |
125 |
314 |
| Methodology:
Based on searches of the LexisNexis database conducted on
August 25. Totals for "Bush/Ala. National Guard"
include all hits in the given LexisNexis source files that
return for the search: (George w/2 Bush) and (Alabama w/5
national guard). Totals for "Kerry/Swift Boat
Vets" include all hits for the search: Swift Boat
Veterans and Kerry |
CASE STUDY:
Baseless claims that Kerry lied get heavy coverage while media
ignores Bush's proven lies
Baseless allegations
that Kerry has lied about his military record have gotten heavy
media coverage in recent months -- but lies we know that Bush has
told about his own military record have gone virtually unreported by
the media.
For example, Bush
lied during his 1978 congressional campaign, falsely claiming he had
served in the Air Force. The Associated Press reported on July 14,
1999:
A pullout ad from The
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal of May 4, 1978, shows a huge picture
of Bush with a "Bush for Congress" logo on the front. On
the back, a synopsis of his career says he served "in the
U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard where he piloted
the F-102 aircraft."
Bush didn't serve in
the U.S. Air Force; he served in the National Guard. When confronted
with questions about the ad, Bush said, "The facts are I served
600 days in the Air Force," basing his claim on the assertion
that National Guard service and Air Force service are the same
thing. But the Associated Press reported that there is, in fact, a
difference between the National Guard and the Air Force:
The Air Force says
Air National Guard members are considered 'guardsmen on active
duty' while receiving pilot training. They get active-duty pay,
which is more than their Guard pay, during pilot training. They
are not, however, counted as members of the overall active-duty
force.
By claiming to have
been in the Air Force, Bush may have been trying to create the
impression that he was in -- or could have been sent to -- Vietnam.
But when he had the opportunity to volunteer for
"overseas" duty, Bush refused, as page 22 of these
Bush military records (pdf) reveals. Indeed, Bush once famously explained
why he joined the National Guard: "I was not prepared to shoot
my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I
willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how
to fly airplanes."
MMFA can find
only one media mention on LexisNexis since January of this obvious
Bush lie about the Air Force: an article
on Salon.com in February.
Another example of a
clear-cut Bush lie about his military record that has gone almost
completely unnoticed by the media this year is a false claim he made
in his autobiography about how long he flew jets for the Guard. The
Boston Globe reported:
"Bush himself, in his 1999 autobiography, A Charge to Keep,
recounts the thrills of his pilot training, which he completed in
June 1970. 'I continued flying with my unit for the next several
years,' the governor wrote."
But, as USA Today
reported,
Bush "stop[ped] flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972"
-- less than two years after completing his pilot training. Not only
did Bush stop flying in the spring of 1972, he was grounded from
flying in August 1972, after refusing to take a required physical.
Clearly, Bush lied in
his autobiography when he said he "continued flying with"
his unit for "the next several years." He doesn't seem to
have done so for even two years, much less "several."
But the media has
ignored this clear lie that George W. Bush told in order to advance
a political campaign. A search of the LexisNexis database yields
only seven hits for 2004 -- three of which are versions of an Eric
Alterman column
that appeared in multiple newspapers, and one of which is a letter
to the editor.
CASE STUDY on the
media's double standard: Wesley Clark got negative coverage for
remarks made at his campaign event; Bush has escaped similar
scrutiny
In January, during
the Democratic primaries, filmmaker Michael
Moore, appearing at a rally for then-presidential candidate Ret.
General Wesley Clark, called Bush a "deserter," referring
to Bush's apparent failure to report for duty in Alabama. A
firestorm quickly developed, and Clark was widely condemned in the
media for not challenging Moore's comment. During a Democratic
primary debate, moderator and ABC News anchor Peter Jennings even
suggested that Clark's failure to contradict Moore was an example of
poor "ethical behavior."
Jennings, to Wesley
Clark during the January 22 Democratic debate in New Hampshire:
JENNINGS: General
Clark, a lot of people say they don't know you well, so this is
really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends. The
other day, you had a rally here and one of the men who stood up to
endorse you was the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore. You
said you were delighted with him. At one point, Mr. Moore said
in front of you that President [George W.] Bush, he was saying
he'd like to see a debate between you, the General [Clark], and
President [George W.] Bush, who he called a deserter. Now, that's
a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to
know why you didn't contradict him and whether or not you
think it was -- would have been a better example of ethical
behavior to have done so?
Jennings flatly
declared Moore's allegation "reckless" and "not
supported by the facts," despite the fact that, as noted
earlier, there is no evidence that Bush showed up for duty when he
was supposed to. And Jennings wasn't alone in criticizing Clark; the
condemnation of Clark's decision not to contradict Moore's comments
was so great, the event has been blamed for Clark's defeat in the
primaries. For example, on the June 30 edition of FOX News Channel's
The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill
O'Reilly said:
O'REILLY: Kerry has
a problem, and we discussed this last night. I don't know whether
you saw The Factor last night. But he can't ally himself
with Michael Moore, because you saw what happened to Wesley
Clark, when Wesley Clark wouldn't even repudiate Moore. And that
blew Clark right out of the race. He can't partner up with
Moore, because as you said, there are a lot of independents who
don't like this kind of stuff. It's disrespectful, is what it is.
A search of the
"All News" category on LexisNexis finds 293 articles that
mention Clark, Moore, and the "deserter" comment.
Fast-forward to
August: At a Bush campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon, two Bush
supporters attacked John Kerry's military record -- one even
suggesting Kerry received his Purple Hearts for "self-inflicted
scratches" -- in questions to Bush. Bush did not denounce the
comments, or disagree in any way. Instead, he thanked the supporters
for their comments.
Surely, then, the
media has taken Bush to task the way they took Clark to task? And
perhaps even more harshly, since there is no evidence that John
Kerry's military record is anything less than exemplary, while there
is considerable evidence that Bush didn't show up for duty when he
was supposed to?
Well, not quite: The
media has ignored the Bush event and ignored Bush's tacit
endorsement of the attacks on Kerry's military record made in his
presence (which, by the way, recalled the 2000 Republican primaries,
when, according to the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette, "Bush stood on a stage and listened as a
supporter accused McCain, who spent more than five years as a
prisoner of war in Hanoi, of turning his back on veterans").
A LexisNexis search
shows only six mentions of the Beaverton incidents: two Washington
Post articles, two Washingtonpost.com articles, a column by Gene
Lyons in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and a Scripps Howard
article. The Bush event is perfectly analogous to the Clark/Moore
event (except that Moore had considerably more evidence to support
his position than did the questioners at the Bush event) -- and yet
the news media, which covered the Clark/Moore event so thoroughly,
has ignored the Bush event.
Below are the two
exchanges that occurred during an August
13 Bush "Town Hall" event in Beaverton, Oregon:
Q: Mr. President,
Mr. Kerry seems to have a lot of trouble remembering dates -- when
and if he was in Cambodia; who was president -- Nixon or Johnson
-- when he was assigned to Vietnam; what bills in Congress he
worked for and when; cannot remember if he campaigned in Oregon or
California for George McGovern. Your last opponent you exposed
with fuzzy math. It's time to expose John Kerry with fuzzy memory.
[applause]
BUSH: You got a
question?
Q: I, too, want to
say God bless you, Mr. Bush. My husband and my twins and I pray
for you daily, as do many homeschoolers.
[applause]
Thank you for
recognizing homeschoolers.
BUSH: You bet.
Thanks.
[...]
Q: On behalf of
Vietnam veterans -- and I served six tours over there -- we do
support the president. I only have one concern, and that's on the
Purple Heart, and that is, is that there are over 200,000 Vietnam
vets that died from Agent Orange and were never -- no Purple Heart
has ever been awarded to a Vietnam veteran because of Agent Orange
because it's never been changed in the regulations. Yet, we've got
a candidate for president out here with two self-inflicted
scratches, and I take that as an insult.
[applause]
BUSH: Well, I
appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Six tours?
Whew. That's a lot of tours. Let's see, who've we got here? You
got a question?
7. Columbia
Journalism Review's Campaign Desk on the abysmal behavior of the media
in response to the myriad false charges of SBV
By Brian Montopoli,
Thomas Lang, and Zachary
Roth
News consumers haven't heard much over the past couple of weeks
about the economy, terrorism, health care, or Iraq. Instead, the
talk has been focused on Vietnam, thanks to the Swift Boat
Veterans For Truth, who have released in quick order two ads and a
book denouncing John Kerry as a dishonorable man who lied to earn
his medals, lied to Congress as an antiwar activist, and
ultimately betrayed his countrymen. Liberal commentators, not
unjustifiably, are blaming the SBVFT for polluting campaign
rhetoric with their loaded claims and harsh attacks. But the
lion's share of the blame should not fall on the group, whose paid
ads, after all, have appeared in just three states -- and are the
kind of strident attack that might easily have quickly dropped off
the national radar screen. While the SBVFT may have a questionable
grasp of the facts, it has been extraordinarily sophisticated in
its manipulation of the media. To understand why this campaign has
been hijacked by a small group of veterans bearing a thirty-year
old grudge, it's worth examining the institutional
susceptibilities of a campaign press corps that allowed the
SBVFT's accusations to take on a life of their own. The SBVFT may
have put themselves in the game, but it's a flawed media that made
them stars.
Campaign Desk has written
many
times about the perils of "he said/she said"
journalism, the practice of reporters parroting competing rhetoric
instead of measuring it for veracity against known facts. In the
wake of the first SBVFT spot early this month, cable news programs
for the most part offered viewers two talking heads, one on each
side of the issue, to debate the merits of the claims. Verifiable
facts were rarely offered to viewers -- despite the fact that
military records supporting Kerry's version of events were readily
available. Instead of acting as filters for the truth, reporters
nodded and attentively transcribed both sides of the story,
invariably failing to provide context, background, or any sense of
which claims held up and which were misleading. And sometimes even
that was asking too much. According to Media Matters, the Aug. 4th
editions of FOX News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes"
and MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" both reported and
aired the ad without mentioning (1) that despite the ad's claims,
those featured in it did not serve on Kerry's boat, (2) that the
SBVFT was wrapped in Republican ties, dating all the way back to
former Nixon protege John O'Neill, or (3) the fact that the doctor
who claims to have treated Kerry in the ad was not the medical
official who signed his medical records.
Why was the press complicit in keeping afloat a story so easily
debunked?
Several factors were at work. The initial ad by the swift boat
vets came out in August, which shaped up to be a slow news month,
politically speaking. Issues like Kerry's health care plan weren't
capturing viewers' imaginations, there hadn't been a terrorist
attack or notable capture for months, and Iraq, continuing U.S.
casualties notwithstanding, wasn't generating much new news. With
its natural bias towards ratings-generating conflict, the media
readily embraced the SBVFT story, which, with its harsh
allegations and clearly demarcated opposing sides, had about it
the smell of blood in the water.
As radio talk shows and cable shoutfests seized upon the
"story," the few outlets that initially ignored it or
gave it little play were forced to ratchet up their coverage -- a
classic example of the elements of the media lower down the
professional food chain effectively setting the news agenda.
Yesterday, Alison Mitchell, deputy national editor of the New
York Times, confessed to Editor & Publisher
magazine that "I'm not sure that in an era of no cable
television we would even have looked into it." And James
O'Shea, managing editor of the Chicago Tribune, fretted to E&P
about feeling forced to follow a story that he might not otherwise
bother with, just because it's gotten so much air time from the
carnival barkers who populate daytime cable and radio.
That sort of thing could have been avoided had news
organizations been more aggressive in exploring the SBVFT when it
first organized. Last May, without much fanfare, SBVFT held a
press conference announcing the group's formation and laying out
its agenda. In an open letter to Sen. Kerry, the group wrote,
"Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted
material facts as to your own conduct in this war," and in a
press release let it be known that it intended to publicly examine
Kerry's war record. That night, ABC and NBC ignored the
development entirely on their nightly news broadcasts, while CBS
provided a short report. On Fox News, political correspondent Carl
Cameron delivered a report remarkable for its similarity to those
seen on TV in recent weeks. He recapped comments from veterans
both in support and critical of John Kerry, adding that some of
the veterans who are now critical of Kerry previously supported
him in 1996. According to Cameron, the Bush campaign denied any
involvement in the attacks. Kerry, he said, was doing his best to
stay out of the fray. And with that (after a few brief debates on
"Hannity & Colmes"), the story went to bed.
In June and July, the press hardly moved the story an inch. By
the time the SBVFT resurfaced in early August with its first ad,
the story had lain fallow for three months. So the news reports
that came out in the wake of the the first August ad elaborated
little on Cameron's original story. No news organization, it
seems, had seen fit over the summer to launch a more thorough
investigation into the veterans, despite their coming out party
months before.
The "fog of war" can cloud newsrooms just as much as
it does battlefields, of course. But given the SBVFT's open letter
and virtual declaration of war on Kerry last spring, such
investigations should have come as a matter of course.
Throughout August, even as the Swift vets' book hit bookstores
and a second ad was rolled out, the campaign press mostly
continued to frame the story as a "he said/she said"
battle -- at least until last week, when what had been an oddly
quiescent press corps lurched awake and began to subject the story
to closer scrutiny. The New
York Times and Washington
Post published articles highly critical of the SBVFT
earlier this week, and the Times today meticulously laid
out the connections between the swift boat vets on the one
hand and lawyers, political strategists and donors to the Bush
campaign on the other.
After countless unchallenged segments on the cable news shows
and print articles repeating a variety of erroneous SBVFT claims,
the mainstream press had belatedly awakened from its summer
dormancy and measured spurious claims against known facts. But it
had come far too late.
Reporters can, and do, argue that it is not their job to
ascertain the veracity of such claims unless and until the Kerry
campaign itself raises its voice in protest. But even if you buy
that antiquated job description of a good reporter -- and we don't
-- there's another ball most of the press is dropping in its
coverage of the swift boat imbroglio. Once the Kerry campaign
itself began to hit back by questioning the credibility of the
Swift Boat Veterans' claims and arguing that the group was doing
the president's "dirty work," the press still failed to
adequately scrutinize the competing arguments at hand. When Kerry
called on Bush to condemn the Swift Boat ads, the White House
pointed out that the president had himself been the target of
harsh attack ads run by independent "527" groups
supporting Kerry, and repeated its months-old contention that all
such outside advertising should be banned.
The press dutifully reported this argument. But rarely if ever
did reporters see fit to assess the validity of the comparison the
Bush campaign was making. The anti-Bush ad most often cited by the
White House as comparable to the Swift Boat spot was a MoveOn ad
that questioned the president's service in the National Guard. But
each one of the claims made in the MoveOn ad -- that Bush used
family connections to get into the Guard, that he was grounded
after failing to show up for a physical, that he wasn't seen at a
Guard meeting for months, and that he was released eight months
early to attend Harvard Business School -- is not in dispute. The
overall tenor of the ad is harsh, to be sure -- so harsh, in fact,
that Kerry quickly called it "irresponsible" -- but
there's been no real argument that any of its assertions are
untrue.
Compare that to the Swift Boat ads. Given that military records
support Kerry's version of events, and that the credibility of
many of Kerry's accusers is now in doubt, it would seem that if
anyone should be on the defensive for lacking corroboration and
documentation, it's those defending Bush's service record, not
Kerry's. No anti-Bush ad from MoveOn has flown in the face of the
preponderance of evidence in the way that the Swift Boat ad does.
The press, then, should have pointed out the illogic of grouping
the two spots as one and the same.
In the end, as always, the information that voters receive
depends entirely on the way in which the press frames the story.
The problem is that once an easy storyline is entrenched -- that
Kerry and his detractors disagree -- too many reporters fail to
press on. In this case, they neglected to either test the veracity
of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or to compare their ads with
those financed by other 527s like MoveOn Voter Fund.
There have been dozens of press failures during this
presidential campaign. But this one, even given the Times'
and the Post's belated efforts to get to the bottom of
things, has to rank as a low point.
In the end, the whole ball of wax certainly did nothing to help
the mainstream press' credibility with what is an increasingly
dubious audience.
The most telling comment on that front may well have come from
the unlikely duo of Jon Stewart and Ted Koppel, who shared a
telecast during the Democratic convention. Koppel, by way of
introducing his own viewers to Stewart, complained that "a
lot of television viewers -- more, quite frankly, than I'm
comfortable with" -- get their news from Stewart's
"Daily Show" on Comedy Central. Stewart, almost as if
trying to reassure Koppel, responded that his fans were watching
him not for news per se, but rather for a "comedic
interpretation" of the news. Koppel was unmoved. People watch
Stewart "to be informed," Koppel insisted gloomily.
"They actually think they're coming closer to the truth with
your show."
With that, Stewart pounced. "Now that's a different thing,
that's credibility; that's a different animal."
Yes, it is.
Clarification: The above post has been changed to
specify that MoveOn
Voter Fund is the 527 arm of MoveOn.
|
