Swift Boat Smears

[Guest guest]

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 ). 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 .

 

You can to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our

r list is kept confidential.

FAIR

(212) 633-6700

http://www.fair.org/

E-mail: fair

 

 

 

Find local movie times and trailers on Movies.

http://au.movies.