SwiftVets.com

[integritycounts]

1. You imply the funding of such a group is the basis of facts, this is a false conclusion and I expect Kathleen Hall Jamieson, to know better. As this artificial construct is presented in the title it skews the reader in the presentation.

2. Your analysis presumes a conclusion from the start.

3. You bring up critics of the ad as if there statements SHOULD influence the facts. Your job was to check the facts, not to check the commentators. By doing so you undermine the entire premise of your web site. I frankly find it shameful.

4. Ultimately in the end your site has no basis to even comment on this ad.
Your mission is:
"We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding."

The Television ad is comprised of the opinions of 13 people. There statements in the ad are opinions mostly. Appraisals of what they believe…based on their experience. You can not fact check those...you know that. For the statement that are FACTS, you analysis does not check them.

You do not check to see who the Doctor on duty was. That is a fact you should check.

You do not check to see if the other Veteran who claims there was not any enemy fire while men were in the water....you Could and Should check that. But do not.

You include statements by others within you web site, that appear to be written by fact checkers, while in fact they are biased.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, PhD, should be embarrassed and ashamed to be putting out such documents. This is the woman that got Networks to put TV ads into little TV looking graphics....so viewers could tell it was a news program air someone’s Campaign ad.
But on YOUR own website you present the views of partisans that can not be distinguished between your own writers.

This is shameful and embarrassing. Either your group is the folly of significant group think, ignorant of the WWW as a new medium for communication, or you are clearly expressing partisan views willfully or unknowingly via your analysis.

You inclusion of some interviews done on the 10th because it was published in the WSJ is just a way of justifying using selective media that only some have access to.
Your job was to check facts.
You failed at your job.
You entered in your own Bias.
You did not clarify.
You added to the confusion by writing in manner that does not clearly present who the speaker is.

If your students did this work it would be failed.
You know better, and should be better.

I formally request that you remove this page from the Internet, and to not put it back up until you have done a proper job. This is an embarrassment for fair media, and fair analysis. The observer has entered into the experiment and is changing the outcome.

Back to basics....Fix these problems. How can anyone trust you when it’s unclear who the authorship is?

Regards

[WallaceNails]

Damn Good JOB!
_________________

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!

[jbodell]

send them this link as well!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/11/115426.shtml

[Jack Lewis]

What is interesting is that since Elliot's account contains part that are second hand, the entire account is dismissed. But when Rasmussen's account contains mostly information that is second hand, his account is taken at face value.

They quote the Boston Globe's report on George Elliot, but omit the press release Elliot issued claiming the Globe misquoted him.

So much for "fact checking".
_________________
Truth, sir, is a cow which will yield such people no more milk; and so they are gone to milk the bull.
--David Hume

[integritycounts]

bump

[Lendorien]

Well laid out and presented, and I agree wholeheartedly. These "non-partisan" groups who present themselves as nonpartisan, then lean entirely in one direction are a fraud and well worthy of being called onto the carpet for it.

One quick note though. The word "There" is not a posessive word. The word you should be using is "their".

Example:
There statements in the ad are opinions mostly.

Should be

Their statements in the ad are opinions mostly.

I point this out because when sending this sort of letter out it's important to present yourself in the best possible light. As a person who's worked in media, this grammar error is glaring, and unfortunately detracts from what's being said by making the author look like they don't know how to use english gammar. As a result, people take you less seriously. I learned this the heard way.

Lend

[Scott]

[igor]

Here is more about Kranish...

Besides writing a book on Kerry, he was going to write a introduction to an "unofficial" campaign book for John Kerry before it was pulled from publication on the same week that the Swift Vet ad was released.

and maybe even the "official" campaign book as well...
c.f. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/08/08/20040808_024002_dnc89.htm
and
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cxZw7ydSwWsJ:www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display%3Fbook%3D1586483145+kranish+kerry+edwards&hl=en

[FredRum]

Google Cache is awesome. Didn't someone dig up a Kerry quote recently along the lines of "I wish Lexis/Nexis had a delete button"?
_________________