[Media-watch] FW: Swift Boat Smears

[Tim Gopsill]

-----Original Message-----
From: FAIR [mailto:fair at fair.org]
Sent: 30 August 2004 21:19
To: FAIR-L
Subject: Swift Boat Smears


                                 FAIR-L
                    Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
               Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/swift-boat.html

MEDIA ADVISORY: 
Swift Boat Smears: 
Press Corps Keeps Anti-Kerry Distortions Alive 

August 30, 2004 

A group of Vietnam veterans called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have
managed to dominate campaign coverage recently with a series of inaccurate
and unfounded allegations about John Kerry's Vietnam War service. But
instead of debunking the group's TV ads and numerous media appearances,
the press corps has devoted hours of broadcast time and considerable print
attention to the group's message.

At times, some reporters seem to suggest that the Swift Boat coverage is
being driven by some external force that they cannot control. "The ad war,
at least over John Kerry's service in Vietnam, has for the moment
effectively blocked out everything else," explained MSNBC's David Shuster
(8/23/04)-- as if the media are not the ones responsible for deciding
which issues were being "blocked out."

The New York Times similarly noted (8/20/04) that the group "catapulted
itself to the forefront of the presidential campaign," while Fox News
reporter Carl Cameron (8/23/04) suggested that "the controversy has
completely knocked Kerry off message, and the political impasse suggests
the story is not going away any time soon."

That "impasse" is largely the result of the media's failure to
sufficiently compare the Swift Boat charges to the available military
records and eyewitness accounts. Even a cursory examination of the
available evidence reveals fatal flaws in the group's charges, which fly
in the face of all documentary evidence, and the testimony of almost every
person present when Kerry earned his medals.

Larry Thurlow, the Swift Boat Vet who claims that Kerry was not under
enemy fire when he earned his Bronze Star, himself earned a Bronze Star
for actions under enemy fire in the same incident. Louis Letson, who
claims to have treated the wound that earned Kerry his first Purple Heart,
is not the medic listed in medical records as having treated Kerry. John
O'Neill, the leader of the group, has said that Kerry would have been
"court-martialed" had he crossed the border into Cambodia-- but O'Neill is
on tape telling President Richard Nixon that he himself had been in
Cambodia. Several members of the group are on the record praising Kerry's
leadership. And so on.

Imagine that the situation were reversed: What if all available
documentary records showed that George W. Bush had completed his stint in
the Air National Guard with flying colors? What if virtually every member
of his unit said he had been there the whole time, and had done a great
job? Suppose a group of fiercely partisan Democrats who had served in the
Guard at the same time came forward to say that the documents and the
first-hand testimony were wrong, and that Bush really hadn't been present
for his Guard service. Would members of the press really have a hard time
figuring out who was telling the truth in this situation? And how much
coverage would they give to the Democrats' easily discredited charges?

But when Kerry is the target of the attacks, many journalists seem content
to monitor the flow of charges and counter-charges, passing no judgment on
the merits of the accusations but merely reporting how they seem to affect
the tone of the campaign. As the Associated Press put it (8/24/04), Kerry
"has been struggling in recent days against charges-- denounced by
Democrats as smear tactics -- that he lied about his actions in Vietnam
that won five military medals." Credible charges or smears? AP's readers
could only use their own personal opinions of Democrats to judge.

To CNN, even the awarding of the medals became a matter of debate:
"They're not just attacking the medals that John Kerry might have won,"
reporter Daryn Kagan said of the Swift Boat Vets (8/24/04).

The notion that reporters cannot pass some reasonable judgment about the
ads was common. "There is no way that journalism can satisfy those who
think that Kerry is a liar or that Swift Boat Veterans For Truth are
liars," asserted NPR senior Washington editor Ron Elving (NPR.org,
8/25/04).

When asked if the Swift Boat ads, along with other ads critical of Bush,
were accurate, CNN's Bill Schneider (8/24/04) demurred: "I don't have an
answer because I haven't systematically looked at all those ads.
Certainly, the Swift Boat Veterans' ads-- that first ad has been looked at
with great care. And what the Washington Post concluded on Sunday was
those allegations have remained unproved." At this point, the 60-second ad
had been a major political controversy for weeks-- and CNN's senior
political analyst couldn't find the time to figure out whether it was
accurate or not?

An editorial in the L.A. Times (8/24/04) noted that the problem is not
that reporters can't say whether the charges are true-- it's that they
don't want to say: "The canons of the profession prevent most journalists
from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are
left with a general sense that there is some controversy over...Kerry's
service in Vietnam."

One suspects that the "canons of the profession" would be interpreted
differently if, for example, Republican Sen. John McCain was the target of
similarly unsubstantiated charges about his military service from a
partisan Democratic group.

And the editorial went on to fall prey to another journalistic
convention-- finding blame on both sides, even when only one side is at
fault-- when it equated the Swift Boat Vets with "MoveOn.org, which is
running nasty ads about Bush's avoidance of service in Vietnam."

Just as the Swift Boat Vets are "funded by conservative groups that
interlock with Bush's world in various ways," the L.A. Times said MoveOn
is "part of Kerry's general milieu," and "either man could shut down the
groups working on his behalf if he wanted to." The only difference that
the editorial acknowledged is that while the MoveOn campaign is ''nasty
and personal,'' the Swift Boat Vets ads are ''nasty, personal and false.''

Never mind that MoveOn is a grassroots organization with 2 million
members, founded in 1998 when Kerry was merely the junior senator from
Massachusetts, while the Swift Boat Vets have no more independent
existence than the ''Republicans for Clean Air,'' which attacked McCain in
the 2000 primaries and then disappeared.

But to many journalists, finding some way to criticize both sides is much
easier-- and politically safer-- than examining evidence to try to
determine the truth. CNN's Candy Crowley (8/6/04), for example, said to
Kerry political director Steve Elmendorf: "There have been ads out there
that have compared the president to Hitler, that have been really, really
tough ads." That comparison makes little sense, though; the Hitler "ads"
were submissions by individuals to MoveOn's ad contest, and were removed
from the group's website when they were discovered.

Another way of drawing a false equivalence is by talking about the
"negativity" of both sides. CNN's John Mercurio (CNN.com, 8/20/04) wrote
that Kerry's comments responding to the Swift Boat charges "were
notable--if only because they revealed how negative, and how responsive,
both campaigns have become this year." One would think, rather, that they
showed how negative one campaign was and how responsive the other was.

Jim Rutenberg and Kate Zernike of the New York Times wrote a similar
article (8/22/04), lamenting that while "this was supposed to be the
positive campaign," both sides have discovered that "negative ads work."
As evidence, the reporters noted that "Bush has spent the majority of the
more than $100 million he has spent on television advertisements attacking
his Democratic opponent."

This is presumably a reference to a Washington Post survey (5/31/04) that
found that 75 percent of Bush's ads were negative. Not mentioned, however,
was the Post's finding in the same story that Kerry's ads were only 27
percent negative.

Including that fact would have spoiled the premise of the article, that
the sin of negativity is committed equally by both sides. But sometimes
the truth is not somewhere in the middle.


      ----------
Your donation to FAIR makes a difference:
http://www.fair.org/donate.html

SUBSCRIBE TO EXTRA! AND GET FAIR'S NEW BOOK FOR FREE:
The Oh Really? Factor
http://www.fair.org/ohreally.html

FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at FAIR's online store:
http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/

FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair at fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair at fair.org .

You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
                                  FAIR
                             (212) 633-6700
                          http://www.fair.org/
                          E-mail: fair at fair.org

---
You are currently subscribed to fair-l as: timg at nuj.org.uk
To unsubscribe send a blank email to:
leave-fair-l at comet.sparklist.com

NOTE: To change your address, simply unsubscribe your old address, and re-subscribe with your new address.