 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:23 pm Post subject: "Rosen: Story is none too 'swift'" |
 |
|
Mike Rosen comments on the leftist campaign to define "swiftboat" as a pejorative. Well stated Mr. Rosen, and it is an issue that needs to be hammered home to and by every conservative with a soapbox, microphone, keyboard or pen.
| Quote: | Opinion Columnists
Rocky Mountain News
Rosen: Story is none too 'swift'
October 27, 2006
Semantic infiltration. That's the tactic of getting your politically spun term accepted into general usage as an objective description in national discourse and the media. For example, if you're anti-abortion, you lobby for the emotionally charged term "unborn baby" rather than the more clinical "fetus." If you're a liberal who likes to shower hundreds of billions on social programs, you prefer the euphemism "investments" to "government spending." Mandatory Social Security taxes are often described with the friendlier term "contributions."
In a column earlier this year, I spotlighted "swiftboating" as a currently fashionable example of semantic infiltration used to deflect valid criticism of the likes of Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha and Al Gore. It's a loaded, critical term coined by leftists during the 2004 presidential campaign to counter Vietnam swift boat vets who challenged John Kerry's questionable claims of heroism in that war. I expect liberals to wield the term if they can get away with it. But I cautioned supposedly objective journalists to be wary of joining their cause in the use of that word. Apparently, to no avail.
Here's a recent case study. On Oct. 17, the Rocky Mountain News ran a story about an inaccurate attack ad in a local congressional campaign. The story included a sidebar under the heading, "Ever been 'swiftboated?' " In it, we were told the term has "spread into the English vernacular." We were also supplied with the following exclusive definition from the Web site, www.urbandictionary.com: "Swiftboated - To be unfairly and inaccurately attacked relentlessly in the media."
Well, I went to that site. It's not really a dictionary, it's a slang clearinghouse, a repository of postings from people who sign on and write whatever they want. Then, other people get to vote on the definitions by indicating their approval or disapproval of the offerings with a thumbs up or thumbs down. There were numerous variations of "swiftboating" to choose from, including some of an anti-Kerry nature not included in the sidebar, like: "The act of exposing the exaggerated claims of a person seeking to promote themselves (sic) into a position of authority." Or this one: "To be outed as a hypocritical liar." From the vote tallies on this and other politically charged or hip terms, it appears the site is dominated by predominantly young and liberal would-be lexicologists.
At another Web site, Vets for Truth, a group critical of Rep. John Murtha defines "swiftboating" as, "exposing the lies, deceit and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds."
Apparently, there's some disagreement over the definition of the term. But you wouldn't know it from reading the News story. The author of the story states as a matter of fact in his own voice, not attributed to some third party, that the 2004 anti-Kerry "Swiftboat ads featured a group of Vietnam veterans making unsubstantiated allegations challenging Kerry's record of wartime heroism. Kerry's hesitation to fight back was seen as a major flaw in his campaign to defeat President Bush. Since then the word swiftboat has become a staple in the debate on the ethics of using nonsupported allegations to attack candidates or ideas."
To be sure, there are those who spin the incident just this way, including some liberal reporters. But that doesn't make it objectively true. I'd call it one-sided, revisionist history. Another arguable interpretation would be that Kerry's claims of heroism were exaggerated, self-serving and disputed by other swift boat vets with firsthand knowledge of the events. Kerry did, in fact, fight back, but not persuasively. And liberals have contrived the term "swiftboated" to dodge accountability in the face of valid charges in a cynical attempt to discredit their accusers.
John O'Neill and the other Swift Boat Vets for Truth are adamant that Kerry was lying. The dispute was never resolved. Come on, News, fair-and-balanced ethical reporters aren't supposed to take sides.
An unfair attack should be exposed as an unfair attack, and heaven knows that during election campaigns the radio and TV airwaves are polluted with foul, unfair attack ads on both sides. But this dispute is about terminology. When reporters glibly label an unfair attack as "swiftboating," they're playing politics by accommodating left-wing semantic infiltration and certifying a partisan and debatable historical premise that John Kerry's swift boat critics were, in fact, guilty of an unfair attack. In the name of balance and accuracy, the term should be eliminated from journalistic stylebooks.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
About Mike Rosen
Mike Rosen hosts Denver's most popular local radio talk show on 850 KOA. He holds an MBA degree from the University of Denver, was a corporate finance executive at Samsonite and Beatrice Foods, served as Special Assistant for Financial Management to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy at the Pentagon and is a veteran of the U.S. Army. He's traveled extensively in Europe, the Far East, Latin America, southern Africa and the former Soviet Union. Mike grew up in New York and has lived in Colorado for over 30 years.
MORE ROSEN COLUMNS »
Rocky Mountain News |
Mike Rosen's daily streamcast is linked in the "Media Links & Events" topic at the top of this forum. You might want to tune in today as it's certainly possible that his column may be included as a topic of conversation...perhaps even consider a phone call of support yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, I think the explanation is far simpler, if one only tries to back up and observe the political phenomenon from afar - as I'll try to explain.
I don't know when it started, but the Democrats have developed the tactic to an art form of proclaiming someone possessing perceived background or experience (however phoney it may be) sympathetic to their cause as "The Moral Authority." Ann Coulter, in her book, describes this tactic as "sympathetic victim," but I contend it's bigger/broader than that, and will stick to the term "moral authority" to describe the tactic. Ann cites the cases of Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey girls, and most recently we've been witness to the uproar over the Michael J. Fox campaign ads - all examples of the "sympathetic victim" tactic. I don't think Ann included Max Cleland in her list, but he's another example of the supposed "sympathetic victim." The "sympathetic victim" is a favorite trial lawyers' trick to gain sympathy from a jury BTW.
But "sympathetic victim" doesn't cover the whole landscape of the Democratic tactic. E.g., it doesn't describe what we've seen with John Kerry, John/Jack Murtha, or several other cases which I'll not go into here. The tactic is to construct an "authority" on an issue with whom no one may dare disagree. When seen in this light all the "sympathetic vicitims" are, in fact, a sub-case of "moral authority" - just with a more heart-wrenching emotional appeal. "Sympathetic victim" and "moral authority" constructs are really variations of the same tactic.
I can't say that John Kerry was the first use of this tactic, but he's the first I can readily remember. The SBVFT challenged him (HOW DARE THEY?) and by-and-large prevailed. Thus, the term "swiftboating" was born, describing - in the eyes of the partisan MSM and their sheep the liberal Democrats - how someone actually had the audacity to challenge an anointed "moral authority," and was effective in doing it. In the eyes of the "anointing authorities" the only defense they could muster was to go on a personal, reality- and factual-denying, attack against the challengers.
Democrats seem to me, if anything, to be accelerating this "moral authority" tactic, undoubtedly because they are having great success at getting away with it. The current score is many wins, with one loss, and that loss was to the SBVFT. So we've been immortalized, and demonized, by the left wing simply because we represent the only group who has had the courage to stand up and challenge the "moral authority" tactic to date.
Until Republicans (shorthand for all the ideologies right-of-center) develop and organize an effective counter-tactic, we will just see more of the same, including the use of the pejorative term "swiftboating" to personally attack anyone who dares to challenge the Democratic-anointed "moral authority." But when Republicans do figure out how to lose their timidity and to actually challenge the Democratic "moral authority," effectively nullifying it as a successful tactic, I predict that at that time "swiftboating" will become, rightly, a very complimentary term in the political lexicon.
In short, I believe the fate of the term "swiftboating" is dependent upon when and how well Republicans learn to counter the Democratic "moral authority" tactic; the term, and it's meaning in political lexicons, is for now a pawn in the larger political landscape. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
