SwiftVets.com

[integritycounts]

Big media's big mistakes Tony Blankley August 25, 2004
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20040825.shtml

another article from the same website --- also very good http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc20040825.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In light of the current torrent of public discussion about John Kerry and his Vietnam record, it can't be too long before the barons of the established mainline media will be dragged into a people's court for a show trial in which they may feel the urge to confess to their insufficiently inquiring journalistic minds. Luckily for them, this is America, and after their confessions there will be no gulags in their future -- only the re-write desk.

Mark the calendar. August 2004 is the first time that the major mainline media -- CBSNBCABCNEWYORKTIMESWASHINGTONPOST
L.A.TIMESNEWSWEEKTIMEMAGAZINEASSOCIATED
PRESSETC. -- ignored a news story that nonetheless became known by two-thirds of the country within two weeks of it being mentioned by the "marginal" press.

It was only after a CBS poll showed that Kerry had lost a net 14 percent of the veteran's vote to Bush -- without aid of major media coverage or substantial national advertising -- that the major media outlets began to lumber, resentfully, in the vague direction of the story. And even then, they hardly engaged themselves in the spirit of objective journalism.

According to Editor and Publisher, the respected voice of official big-time journalism: "Chicago Tribune managing editor James O'Shea tells Joe Strupp the Swift Boat controversy may be an instance of a growing problem for newspapers in the expanding media world -- being forced to follow a questionable story because non-print outlets have made it an issue. "There are too many places for people to get information," says O'Shea. "I don't think newspapers can be gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong, and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why."

Now, there are two revealing statements there. First, it is odd to see Mr. O'Shea, an official, credentialed seeker of truth, complaining about "too many places for people to get information." He sounds like a resentful old apparatchik glaring at a Xerox machine in the dying days of the Soviet Union.

The second noteworthy statement is the hilarious complaint that they can no longer merely think a story is wrong and ignore it: "Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why." It apparently escaped his thought process that if he hadn't yet investigated the story, it might not be "wrong." A seeker of truth in a competitive environment might have phrased the sentence: "Now we will have to report it to determine if it is right or wrong."

While Mr. O’Shea's confessions seem unintentional, the statement of New York Times deputy national editor Alison Mitchell is straightforward. Ms. Mitchell is one of the very best political reporters in the country. When I was Newt Gingrich's press secretary, we were covered regularly by her. While she was tough and unrelenting -- she was also impeccably fair and thorough. It therefore didn't surprise me to see her quoted in Editor and Publisher with the bluntly honest statement: "I'm not sure that in an era of no-cable television we would even have looked into it."

While she should be commended, as ever, for her unblinking honesty, what does that say about the mainline media? A candidate for president premises his campaign on his military record. Then 200 of his fellow officers, including almost his entire chain of command come out against him as unfit to command and appear to cite chapter and verse in support of their shocking judgment. And the newspaper of record would not "even have looked into it."

In light of developments, I wonder if the press barons are re-considering their prior news judgments. After all, even though big media has done exactly what Chicago Tribune Editor O'Shea said they would do -- try to prove the Swift Boat critics wrong; the record is, at best, mixed.

In fact, Fox News reported Monday that the Kerry campaign has said it is possible his first purple heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound -- just as the Swift Boat critics alleged in their book.

Even Mr. Kerry's people have admitted the Swift Boat critics were right about Christmas in Cambodia. Nor has big media yet been able to disprove the assertion of the critics that Kerry's purple heart wounds were mostly immaculate. As Senator Bob Dole, who spent a couple of years in hospital after his ghastly W.W. II wounds, said: "Three purple hearts and never bled that I know of."

The remaining allegations of non-combat are supported and contested by inconclusive but substantial evidence on both sides. Surely it was insufficient of big media to have decided, before investigating, that the charges were "wrong."

Some of the honorable members of big media are now doing some solid reporting on the subject. The Washington Post's David Broder in this week's column reported: " In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that "I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War," apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record." Indeed, some of us would think that sounded remarkably like "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

If big media returns to its duty to report even-handedly on this presidential campaign for the remaining two months, there may be no need to ship them off to show trials and re-education camps.

[The Cyber Menace]

Blankley was one of the first mainstream conservative journalists to vouch for the credibility of the SBVFT, as well as Robert Novak and some others. I'm convinced that it's because of the work of journalists like this that this story has survived long enough to force the left to respond.

At least we've reached the stage where Big Media has finally jumped on the story. Now it's just a matter of how serious they take the charges against Kerry. So far it's been more about their disbelief in the possibility that their hero Kerry could be flawed beyond repair than about journalistic duty to follow-up on the facts.

And it's because of the backing of journalists like Blankley and others that I believe there is far more credibility to the charges made by the SVBFT than the leftist press is willing to acknowledge at the present moment.

There's that, and the fact that more than one Kerry story has been proven wrong up to this point. Surely, there is more to come. Wonder if the media will be forced to buy it.

Furthermore, perhaps this story might finally expose something many of us have been claiming for some time - that the people in the media have been in the business of cheering for politicians and news stories that fall on their side of the ideological universe.

[fortdixlover]

[Dimsdale]

This is dynamite! Particularly after the feeding frenzy that erupted with the smears against the President's ANG service. They chose to overreport that story (and USA Today hasn't let it go yet), while choosing to underreport the SBVT story.

That is not balanced, unbiased reporting, that is partisan reporting, and a highly blatant example at that. The comparisons are startlingly revealing, or should be to anyone that could defend the difference with a straight face. The press has taken this opportunity to shout to the world that they fully support Kerry and will do whatever is in their power to elect him. And thanks to the McCain Feingold farce, they have most of the power to do this, as Rush has been warning for quite a while.

That they would laud Kerry's veteran status, then give a resounding backhand slap to over 250 veterans with superior credentials and rank simply reeks of favoritism. How can the word of Kerry, which is increasingly shown to be of little worth, trump the word, hell, signed affidavits of a huge group of vets that were right there with him, many eyewitnesses to his actions? I think we know.

[stealthy]

The Big Angry

By Stephen Green Published 08/25/2004

Should George W. Bush win reelection, you know who is going to be pissed off the most?

It won't the Deaniacs. It won't be (if you'll excuse the oxymoron) die-hard John Kerry supporters. It won't be gay activists, civil rights leaders, peaceniks, or even the brigades of B-list movie actors. All of them will be upset, surely, and some of them with good reason.

But Big Media is going to be angry. Stark raving, foot stomping, breath holding, going-to-bed-without-dessert mad.

source
_________________
American Conservative

[Michmaddave]

Yes
And that tantrum will expose the bigger lie, that the media in this country is "unbiased". That there is no left lean. Yes they will be exposed as the partisans they are, and Fox news will be the closest to center, maybe they are "fair and ballanced" after all??
I have said before, you must vote three ways; your voice, your ballot, and your wallet.
If you disagree with the politically vocal Dixi-chicks, or the left leaning bias at CNN then they will have to survive without your patronage.
_________________
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

[wvobiwan]

[coldwarvet]

"There are too many places for people to get information," says O'Shea. "I don't think newspapers can be gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong, and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why."

Kerry would have never been able to have gotton away with with the senate testimony he made in 1971 in todays world of media outlets.

My son who is in his senior year in a University of Minnesota mass communications program had never even heard about the VVAW and the wrongful depiction of the Vietnam era veteran before this campain.

CWV

If Kerry was a republican the SBVFT Story would have come out.
_________________
Defender of the honor of those in harms way keeping us out of harms way.

"Peace is our Profession"
Strategic Air Command - Motto

USAF 75-79 Security Police

[Cazador]

Hello,

Call me a little paranoid but I see an even bigger danger.

Note the following words:

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press."

Take this a step further and ask, what happens to us when the press, the watch dog over government, destroys its own integrity and trust with the people?

The blood that was shed to enable the press to report in freedom, without fear of retaliation is something the main stream press seems to have been forgotten. That's pure arrogance on their part and it is showing now as never before.

I think the Swifties are going to do more than keep a fraud out of the White House. They are opening up a discussion about the bias of the main stream press and how that effects their ability to be perceived as reporters of the truth.

Cazador

[Robert Cooper]

The lack of credibility of the mainstream media is directly related to their treatment of the Vietnam issue.

If the mainstream media had held a fidelity for the truth, there would be no need for "fair and balanced" news networks like Fox and public forums on talk radio.

The mainstream media duped America in their dealing with the Vietnam issue and, in my eyes - and apparently in the eyes of others, has forever lost credibility in serving as "The Eyes and Ears of America."
_________________
Know the difference between Politics and Mesmeratics - one embraces, propagates and promotes the truth, while the other manipulates it!

[Steve02C5]

[P. Aaron]

Cazador wrote:

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press." Take this a step further and ask, what happens to us when the press, the watch dog over government, destroys its own integrity and trust with the people?

What happens in a "free market' is the "mainstream" media get their collective behinds kicked by the likes of Talk Radio and the Internet. Thank God!

Robert Cooper wrote:

The lack of credibility of the mainstream media is directly related to their treatment of the Vietnam issue. If the mainstream media had held a fidelity for the truth, there would be no need for "fair and balanced" news networks like Fox and public forums on talk radio.

The "mainstream" media have fallen into a routine based on a belief system rather than a system based on the pursuit of factual data. They've done this at their own peril. Plus you can't continually anger the American public, and the people that defend it for long. You will go down! Or, you'll get beat.
Plus a "fidelity for the truth" would have meant that the truth of the tyrannical, despotic brutality that is communism would have been accurately reported on decades ago, perhaps saving millions of lives.
The "mainstream" media have alot to answer for.
_________________
A willing tool of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1981.

[Robert Cooper]