SwiftVets.com

[Wolfgang]

It seems to me that this is MSM approach to the SwiftVets: ignore it so long as you can, then when absolutely necessary, report it, but only as follows:

1) Focus primarily or exclusively on the parts you think are weakest and for which you have some sort of rebuttal (e.g., the Globe's coverage of Elliot's alleged retraction), ignoring the main points until such time as rebuttal is available

2) Disregard, dismiss, or otherwise minimize the rebuttal to Kerry's rebuttal (e.g., Elliot's sworn affidavit reaffirming his previous sworn affidavit and claiming that the Globe distorted his remarks)

3) Gloss over issues of Kerry's integrity by focussing on good-faith memory lapses and the fog of war--even when such seem extremely unlikely to be the culprits in his apparently false statements
3.1) When the Swiftees apparently make a mistake or change something (e.g., adding/returning the two Swiftees who now aggressively support Kerry), make the most of this as a transparent political maneuver showing their corrupt character (as demonstrated by this duplicity, bad faith, untrustworthiness, cynicism, etc.) or incompetence; when Kerry apparently makes a mistake or changes something (e.g., Christmas in Cambodia; perhaps now the first Purple Heart), describe it as what it is (from a passionate Kerry's defender's perspective): an unimportant, minor mistake about events that, while "seared into [him]" happened 35 years ago and about which we'll probably never really know one way or another, but who cares anyway, since this election isn't about Vietnam.[/

4) Keep the burden of proof maximally on the Swiftees--make it clear (but never explicit) that while Bush's credibility is dubious and any evidentially grounded charges deserve a hearing, charges against Kerry must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt before they'll be taken as anything other than a smear or falsehood.

5) Sworn affidavits by eye-witness Swiftees are worth very little; any comments conflicting with the Swift Vets are substantially more accurate takes on the situation. As three corollaries to this:
5.1) John Kerry's character is not a legitimate issue in this campaign; the Swift Vets' character is.
5.2) John Kerry doesn't have any deep conflicts of interest or ulterior motives (e.g., gaining the most powerful job in the world) with respect to this issue; the Swift Vets do (they're obsessed by hatred, or just want to make a buck off a book).
5.3) Who funds liberal groups is not material to the merits of their case; who funds the Swift Vets is a primary issue in deciding the merits of their case.

To put this in a nutshell, the MSM genuinely looks at it this way, it seems: assuming that Kerry's basically telling the truth, perhaps with a minor mistake here or there, what are we to make these vicious attacks on him by SBVFT?

Every time they discuss the matter with their pro-Kerry MSM peers (or even non-pro-KErry peers who rely on the MSM for all their information), this approach and, even more, the results of this approach are ever more deeply embedded into their understanding of this issue. (This is a big part of the reason why it's entirely possible, especially for lefties in the media, to sincerely think, however falsely, that the SBVFT are just a bunch of lying, Bush-backing frauds.)

This is why the SBVFT must have a higher standard for truthfulness, precision, and caution than either the media (mainstream OR conservative) or the Kerry campaign. The survival of the truths they're defending may depend on this.

[fortdixlover]

[the0point]

I think one thing to also consider is that the MSM realize that their power is being threatened by the internet. Everytime they proclaim "It's over! Nothing to see here! Move along!" the blogs and internet crowd basically shrugs and laughs and fisks their spin. In fact I've read a few editorials that credit bloggers for keeping this story alive.

Think about it. A few days ago the NYTimes did a major hit piece, trashed everybody and effectively "ended" the story. Nothing happened, in fact the story got bigger and the NYTimes was exposed for the partisan stance they have chosen. We need to keep the pressure on with factual emails to papers and keep calling them to the carpet when they blatantly lie.

[Michmaddave]

Welcome to the left wing "mainstream media".
By resetting the "center" and claiming it, the left has moved the
dialogue and "mainstream" center far left, and taken the Democratic party with so much as to let someone like Kerry become their main man.
Ironic.

_________________
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

[gilliam]

MSM want Kerry to win.

But they also want a good story.

[ASPB]

If you stop buying their product and the products of their advertisers there will be no "liberal" mainsewer media in 2 years.
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB

[Michmaddave]

I mentioned on another thread, vote with your wallet. If you don't like dixi-chicks and their loud political statements, and don't agree with them, or you think CNN is too far left, then let them try to survive without your patronage. Hollywood, music, newspapers, and mags. And if you can't live without those products, then download them for free on shareware and on the internet, and the like, but don't pay for them. Do the modern free shareware program (Kazaa?) to download that album you want from the left wing artists, and then donate what you would have spent to SBVT!
_________________
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

[Wolfgang]

This pretty much shows what we're talking about. In my opinion, though, it's important to realize how this distortion can be an internally good-faith effort on the part of the press--willingly and dismissively insulting oneself from the countervailing facts and arguments, which is a good thing to do, so long as the whole controversy is a smear campaign.

So if you just beg that one absolutely critical question, or just make that one (in their world, highly rational) decision stop with the generally very pro-Kerry reporting in the NY and LA Times and WP, all the rest follows.


NPR's take on its own coverage--note in particular the point about unabashedly "coming close to endorsing the Kerry view":


http://www.npr.org/features/columns/column.php?columnId=2781901&wfId=3871102

NPR Ombudsman
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin

Reporting Unprovable Allegations in an Election Year

Web Extra Aug. 25, 2004 -- "He said/she said" allegations are proving to be enormously frustrating for many NPR listeners when it comes to the claims and counter-claims around Sen. John Kerry.

Most of NPR's reporting on this story is to repeat what others (notably print journalists) have found: that Kerry's claims about his wartime experiences are solidly based on the records of the Defense Department and by the predominant recollections of the majority of the veterans who were there.

Even so, some listeners say that they still have doubts and that NPR should do more on this story to investigate Kerry's bona fides.

Most listeners who have written on this subject say that the anti-Kerry forces are dubious at best and politically motivated by conservative money at worst.

When Being Even-Handed Is Poor Journalism

By far, the largest number of e-mails castigate NPR for reporting this story in an even-handed way.

....

NPR reporting has come close to endorsing the Kerry view. As early as June, NPR's Peter Overby reported that the money for the Swift Boat Veterans campaign had come from three conservative Texans: John O'Neill, Harlan Crow and Bob J. Perry. Overby reported that all three have longtime connections to the Bushes –-- both père et fils, as well as to President Bush's political advisor, Karl Rove.

....

"These are the facts," says Elving, "as best as we can determine. But talk radio and the cable TV shows have been dining off this story and making more of it than it deserves, especially in August when the news is slow and the campaign hasn't even officially started."

I agree with Elving. At the same time, the media in general and NPR in particular should be aware that they are particularly vulnerable to manipulation. Journalists pride themselves on being even-handed. That value allows the more unscrupulous political operatives to drive their messages right into the lead stories and onto the front pages, knowing full well that false impressions may be more lasting than thoughtful dissections and analyses.

....

'Charge First. Proof Later'

A recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times points out that U.S. electoral politics have a history of media manipulation:

Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times;" "there are [pick a number] communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation. (See story link in Web Resources, below.)

....

[Michmaddave]

Well what the internet, Drudge, Fox news have done and the major papers, major networks and CNN have not anticipated is that now they have to address every charge, not just those they want to address. There is no longer a monopoly. Every serious charge is suspect until debunked, and "good journalism" is in the eye of the beholder now, unlike then,,,.
If they don't address the charges of legitimate groups, like SBVFT, then they are exposed as partisan, and at best negligent of their duty as an impartial reporter.
_________________
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

[MagCo]

[I B Squidly]

Rathergate showed complicity in timing and topic between CBS, the DNC, MoveOn.org (funding Scott Glenn's "Unfit Commander ripoff") and as yet unknown purveyors of fraudulent documents.

Now we have another colusion of CBS, NYT, the DNC and the UN in another fatuous smear.

These are grotesquely blatant FEC and FCC violations. The FEC & FCC will do nothing if Kerry wins or Congress goes Democrat.

Only a big win for the Republicans followed by outrage expressed to our congressional rep's can deliver a necessary and instructive punishment to CBS.

[coldwarvet]

How long would NPR survive if it was forced to operate on the same basis as the AM talking heads? How is it that the left is allowed to use public money for another outlet for their anti American propaganda? Whenever they do a straw poll of their listeners the polling numbers are so out of whack towards the left it is obvious that they are playing to their left wing base. At least the right wing talking heads are honest about the direction they lean. MSM is so intellectually dishonest to keep this pretense of being objective in their reporting. It has gotton so bad that even elementary age children are seeing thru their shameful acts of bias reporting.
_________________
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