SwiftVets.com

[fortdixlover]

Excellent article
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008006.php

Kerry Fools the Times

From this morning's Corrections section of the New York Times:

An article on Thursday about political advertising in the presidential campaign, including a commercial that accused John Kerry of having "secretly met with the enemy'' in Paris in the 1970's, misidentified the parties with whom Mr. Kerry said he had met at the Vietnam peace talks. (The error was repeated in articles on Friday and Saturday.) The parties were the two Communist delegations - North Vietnam and the Vietcong's Provisional Revolutionary Government - with whom he discussed the status of war prisoners. He did not say he had met with "both sides." (Go to Sept. 23 Article), (Go to Sept. 24 Article), (Go to Sept. 25 Article)

Herein lies a tale. In 1970, John Kerry traveled to Paris and met with both of the two Communist delegations to the peace talks that were then going on in that city: the North Vietnamese delegation and the Viet Cong delegation. Many observers believed at the time that Kerry's back-door "diplomacy" on behalf of the far-left Vietnam Veterans Against the War helped undermine Henry Kissinger's bargaining position in his negotiations with the Communists.

Fast forward to 2004. John Kerry is now running for President as a war hero. The Swift Boat Vets ran a television ad that attacked Kerry's meetings with the Communists. The New York Times immediately sprang to Kerry's defense, purporting to supply context for the Vets' "unsubstantiated" allegations.

On September 23, the Times wrote:

In another broadside against Mr. Kerry, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose past accusations have frequently been unsubstantiated, says in a new commercial that Mr. Kerry went to Paris in the 1970's and "secretly met with the enemy.'' (Mr. Kerry testified shortly thereafter that he had met with both sides at the Vietnam peace talks to discuss the status of prisoners of war.)
The Times repeated this claim the very next day, September 24:

Mr. Kerry's nemesis, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is spending $1.3 million in five swing states with a spot accusing him of meeting with the enemy in Paris - a reference to his trip to the Paris peace talks, where he met with both sides.
And again, the following day:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which drew national attention with advertisements making unsubstantiated attacks against Mr. Kerry's military service, has less money and uses several strategies to stretch its dollars, said one of its leaders, John O'Neill.
Many of the group's advertisements have drawn attacks from the Kerry campaign and others, attracting attention to the commercials, Mr. O'Neill said. Its latest advertisement claims Mr. Kerry traveled to Paris in the 1970's and "secretly met with enemy leaders." Mr. Kerry has said he visited the Vietnam peace talks and discussed the status of prisoners of war with both sides.


Notice that when the Times mentions the Swift Boat Vets, it usually makes a point of saying that their claims are "unsubstantiated." In the three instances cited above, the Times used the claim that Kerry had met with "both sides" in Paris to imply that the Vets' ad was false or unfair.

Only it wasn't. What the Vets said was true. Kerry didn't meet with "both sides," as the Times has now admitted; he met with both of the two Communist delegations. The Times misinformed its readers in order to defuse the impact of the Vets' ad and to promote Kerry's candidacy.

Why, exactly, does the Times (along with virtually every other mainstream media source) persist in repeating the mantra that the Vets' ads are "unsubstantiated"? What is "unsubstantiated" about footage of Kerry testifying before a Senate committee? What is "unsubstantiated" about the meetings with Communists in Paris, about which Kerry boasted in 1971? What is "unsubstantiated" about the ad in which Stephen Gardner says that Kerry's boat was never in Cambodia?

Given today's correction, do you suppose the Times will start referring to Kerry's responses to the Swift Boat Vets' ads as "unsubstantiated"?

[Steve Z]

According to the New York Times, any charge against a Democrat is unsubstantiated, while a charge against a Republican can be substantiated by forged documents. As Jessica Lynch's house can be described by a reporter who has never been there (Jayson Blair).

The New York Times is America's "Ministry of Truth", a la George Orwell in his novel "1984". They are allied with Eurasia, they love Big Brother, and the great wilderness west of the Hudson River is inhabited only by ignorant cowboys.

But the New York "Minitrue" is at war with Blogspeak!
_________________
The traitor will crater!

[poseidon]

[ArmybratNavywife]

Did the NYT's hire Baghdad Bob? I've been wondering what happened to him...really an add comparing the MSM to Baghdad Bob would be funny.

[Tom Poole]

[subsailor]

This might not fit a TV ad, but I would enjoy a video that mixed some of Kerry's more bizarre contradictions with Baghdad Bob's "over the top" statements. That has a visceral message.

[Dimsdale]

I am no Constitutional scholar, but would it be contrary to the First Amendment to make these sorts of corrections (legislatively), which are now lamely consolidating several repeated "mistakes" over several days, at least as prominent as the original articles, with identical placement, i.e. the front page, above the fold? For that matter, should it not be the responsibility of the paper to cover all the stories, i.e. the Swiftee/POW stories instead of suppressing them through "editing?"

The "corrections" center is beginning to overtake the "real" stories in the NYTimes and other MSM publications, which is good, because it is the true story (finally), yet bad because the hide it in small print in obscure places.
_________________
Everytime he had a choice, Kerry chose to side with communists rather than the United States.

[Scott]

Dimsdale,

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, either, but from what I've read, the First Amendment only applies to Government limits placed on speech. Self-censorship doesn't apply.

Also, not buying the newspaper in question is also outside the scope of the First Amendment...
_________________
Bye bye, Boston Straggler!

[poseidon]