 |
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 Apr 06, 2007 4:38 am Post subject: ABC NEWS Smears Swift Boat Veterans for Truth... |
 |
|
It's good to see Patterico holding ABC "News'" journalistic feet to the fire as they continue the leftist campaign of mis and disinformation against the SVPT...
| Quote: | 4/5/2007
ABC NEWS Smears Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with Slanderous News Article
Filed under: Media Bias — Patterico @ 3:10 pm
Amazing. The canard that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was a “smear campaign” is so well accepted by Big Media that ABC NEWS feels comfortable in portraying the Swifties’ ad campaign as “slanderous” and “smear ads.” These characterizations appear in a “straight” news story about the recess appointment of an ambassador who gave money to the group, and had his nomination nixed by a petty group of Retaliacrats bent on extracting some pathetic, small revenge.
(The first link above is to National Review’s Media Blog. The headline on the actual story has been changed, but the word “slanderous” remains in the body of the article.)
Meanwhile, I have yet to see anyone meet Beldar’s challenge to name a single specific and material statement of fact by the Swift Boaters that has been fully debunked, or shown to be fully unsubstantiated.
Wouldn’t stating material falsehoods be a critical component of a “slanderous” campaign of “smear ads”?
In fact, as I have previously observed, the media often has a worse track record of inaccuracies on this issue than do the Swifties.
By the way, if you are disqualified from government service because you once gave money to an organization that has engaged in slander and smears, that lets out anyone who ever subscribed to the Los Angeles Times.
Patterico's Pontifications |
..and, as a bonus, Beldar awakens from his long SVPT hiatus with a response to Patterico's mention of his challenge from long ago...
| Beldar wrote: | 29. I appreciate the link, Patterico, and I’m flattered that you remember that post from 2004.
Some of your commenters here, like many who commented on my original post, may not have quite understood the nature of the challenge.
In lawsuits, one side or the other frequently moves for “summary judgment.” That’s a procedural device by which the moving side asks the judge to declare that there is no genuine issue of material fact — and hence there’s no reason to hold a full-scale trial, precisely because there are no factual disputes that need to be resolved.
The classic (but not only) means for defeating a motion for summary judgment is to show that on some factual issue that’s important to the outcome of the case (i.e., a “material fact”), there is indeed a “genuine dispute.” When that happens, the judge isn’t supposed to make, or even permitted to make, decisions about the weight or credibility of evidence — he’s just supposed to determine whether there is any conflicting evidence that could require a trial to sort out. If there’s conflicting evidence, then there has to be a trial to resolve the conflict.
I believed — and continue to believe, after sorting through the hundreds of comments my post inspired back in 2004 — that the SwiftVets raised at least a “genuine issue” as to all of the facts that were material to each of the SwiftVets’ major claims. There was no major contention on which they had zero probative evidence; rather, on every one of their major claims, they had at least some supporting evidence.
The SwiftVets, in other words, would have survived a summary judgment motion if this dispute had played out in court. Looking at everything that had been gathered so far by either the SwiftVets or Kerry’s defenders, a judge would have been obliged to conclude that there were indeed “genuine disputes” that could only be sorted out through a full trial. That’s because it’s only after a full trial that the fact-finder — typically a jury, but sometimes by the judge performing a jury’s normal function by “sitting as fact-finder” in a bench trial — can make decisions on things like “Who, as between these two witnesses whose testimony is exactly contrary to each other, is more credible?”
This latest example you’ve linked from ABC News is, indeed, yet another of many in which mainstream media have pretended — assumed, asserted, declared to be a closed subject — that some or all of the SwiftVets’ claims were thoroughly “debunked.” I think that’s essentially equivalent to saying, “The SwiftVets’ claims would never have made it to trial if this had been a court proceeding — the judge would have thrown those claims out on summary judgment.”
And that’s just preposterous. There was at least some credible evidence to support every one of the SwiftVets’ major claims.
It’s entirely possible to say, “Well, I’ve looked at everything everyone’s gathered so far, and I believe Witness X is more believable than Witness Y.” But that’s not the same as saying, “Witness Y’s statements have therefore been ‘debunked’ and we can simply ignore them and permanently assess them as having zero value.” You can say, “In the conflict of testimony, I choose to believe this testimony, and to not believe that testimony.” But that’s not the same as saying, “There’s only testimony to support one position” — and that’s the essence of what the MSM said, and MSM organs like ABC News continue to say, about the SwiftVets.
It’s a damned shame that the political processes never allowed for any kind of close approximation to a trial on the merits. Remember the blustering threats that the Kerry camp made when the SwiftVets first came on the scene, to the effect that Kerry was about to sue them for defamation? I wrote at the time that those threats were completely bogus and that no such lawsuit would ever, ever be filed. First, truth is a defense; and second, there was no way in hell that John F. Kerry was going to give the SwiftVets the power to compel him to testify and fork over documentary evidence (e.g., his still hidden to this good day secret diaries that his pet biographer reviewed, and the portions of his military records that are concededly still hidden to this good day).
The SwiftVets, however, can take lasting comfort despite the outrageous use of the term “swift-boating” as an offensive phrase that is “generally understood to mean” engaging in unfair character assassination. I’d rather that term unfairly enter the venacular than that John F. Kerry have become the 44th POTUS — and their efforts did make a huge difference in that outcome.
Comment by Beldar — 4/5/2007 @ 7:52 pm |
and more from..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me how the lamestream media complains about "smearing a Veteran," but in doing so, smears well over 250 highly decorated Combat Veterans, as well as thousands more who support the Swift Boat Veterans.
_________________
Clark County Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deuce
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 589
Location: FL
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
failing continuously to provide accurate reporting, the DB Media continues to 'swiftboat' us veterans (to use their contorted definition). One of Patterico's commenters offers an alternative, since the left has stolen the word swiftboat as their own:
| Quote: | 9. I don’t know if its been nominated for inclusion in Webster’s Dictionary, but I have seen the word “swiftboated” used several times in the little bit of newspaper and blog reading that i do. To “swiftboat” someone is to slander and attack with false statements according to those [on the left] who use the word. I imagine those are the same people who thought abandoning Southeast Asia to mass slaughter was a “victory for peace”.
Perhaps we should coin another phrase, “kerry”, as to kerry, was kerried, etc. “To kerry” is synonymous with “pull the wool over your eyes”, but with a malicious rather than mischieveous bent. The term originated in the actions of Sen. John Kerry of the U.S., who after being an outspoken critic of the Vietnam war, was photographed throwing his “medals”* over the White House fence, and accused the US military of widespread war crimes in print and live testimony; portrayed himself as a proud US veteran and decorated combat veteran.
Ex. #1: “Most news outlets in the United States cooperated in the attempt to kerry the American public before the 2004 presidential election.”
Ex. #2: “The US Congress is attempting to kerry the American public by saying “we support the troops, but not the war”.
To quote the Professor in the Chronicles of Narnia, “What do they teach children in school these days!?!”
*Exactly what are “medals” vs. ribbons or bars or who knows what is still a matter of debate, probably another example of an attempted kerry.
Comment by MD in Philly — 4/5/2007 @ 6:06 pm |
I know it's too little, too late, but perhaps it's a start.
Deuce |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | | It never ceases to amaze me how the lamestream media complains about "smearing a Veteran," but in doing so, smears well over 250 highly decorated Combat Veterans, as well as thousands more who support the Swift Boat Veterans. |
I want to point out something quite straightforward here-
The Swift Vets and POWs for Truth have grounds for their own defamation suit against the MSM on this basis. Being called a "slanderer" and being called "discredited" are themselves defamatory accusations.
-- FDL
_________________
"Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute" - Thomas Jefferson on paying ransom to Muslim corsairs (pirates). |
|
| 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
