August 19, 2004: The Media Is The (Non) Message

Instapundit has it just right this morning when he writes that mainstream media coverage and accuracy is a bigger issue than the election itself.

Elections come and go, politicians come and go, and pretty much all of them turn out to be disappointments one way or another. But the "Fourth Estate" is a big part of the unelected Permanent Government that in many ways does more to run the country than the politicians. And it's unravelling before our very eyes, which I think is the biggest story of the election so far.

Is this blogger triumphalism? Maybe, but a chink in the armor of information control has been created -- and it's growing. "Information control?" you ask. Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? Well, consider this: the major television networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) and The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times (not to mention others less important) all work from substantially the same world view with only the most minor variations. Some would call this "liberal." I don't at all, but never mind. It is nigh onto monolithic (with obvious exceptions) and it is protecting jobs, status, etc. as much as ideology. In fact, more than ideology, which seems to shift from day to day for pragmatic reasons. In that sense, these groups reflect the major political parties, which also appear more intent on winning, creating jobs for themselves, etc., than projecting specific policy.

This makes John Kerry the perfect modern candidate for the media because he is willing to switch views at the drop of the hat to preserve victory and his "culture." The most recent example is his attack yesterday on Bush's troop withdrawal plan, an idea which Kerry himself was backing less than a month ago. One wonders if he even remembers. Meanwhile, the major media continue to ignore the substance of the Swift Boat veterans accusations about Kerry's "grade inflation" in Vietnam. They do this despite the almost universal belief that a presidential election is greatly about the candidate's character and this speaks to that question in the most specific manner. Which makes the mainstream media propagandists, essentially, if you think about it.

So that leaves us renegades on the Internet. We're propagandists too. Big time. But at least we admit it. Judge us how you will. But judge the mainstream media the same way. And, yes, there is probably a war on between us of sorts. Let's hope it stays non-violent.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt has more on press malfeasance here.

MORE: Just for the record, the WaPo and others are casting aspersions on one of the Swift Boat Vets Larry Thurlow. They may be right. But frankly I don't care. That's about medals, arguably a pompous and silly side issue. (In warfare, they're given out by the bucketful anyway). What is not pompous and silly is a Senator lying on the floor of that institution in order to advance his foreign policy position. Cambodia, Mon Amour... Until the WaPo et al deal with that, they remain reified. And if they don't know what that means, they can look it up.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

"Well, consider this: the major television networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) and The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times (not to mention others less important) all work from substantially the same world view with only the most minor variations. Some would call this "liberal." I don't at all, but never mind."

You are right. What it is has already been identified - it's Big Brother.

Posted by: CERDIP at August 19, 2004 8:17 AM

I have come to believe that the real problem with the MSM is cultural. The MSM lives in a echo chamber that begins in J-school and is prevalent in newsrooms and on the cocktail circuit. Most journalists have little education or experience in the fields they cover, so their perspective is informed only by water-cooler gossip in the newsroom, table talk at cocktail parties and political spin delivered by politicians and bureaucrats who are their "sources." They don't have sources of information outside of this arena, and many journalists either don't know how to obtain other information or don't care to do so (either because they are too busy, too lazy or already have the information they want to support their story).

When members of the MSM insist that they are not biased toward the left (which they clearly are), I don't think they are telling a lie. They think they are telling a balanced story because everyone they talk to agrees with them. In short, they need to get out more.

Posted by: Ben at August 19, 2004 8:22 AM

I commented on this over at Captain's Quarters the other day. It's funny how bloggers all start blogging about stories we find and then pretty quickly we evolve into media critics because we see how biased the media are.

Posted by: Pat Curley at August 19, 2004 8:45 AM

Whether or not it's "liberal" depends on what we conclude "liberal" means. It's clear they're not "liberal" in the sense of open government, free trade, and freedom from coercion. They might be "liberal" in the sense that they'd get a high ADA score.

What's important is that they are in lockstep; Fox News and the blogs are all parts of the same phenomonon -- information "wants to flow", and there is a market for variety.

The networks hate it, though. Expect the derision to get worse before it gets better.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 8:46 AM

The MSM behaves and acts as one big cartel - their commodity is "news". They do not only protect their own turf - jobs, markets, etc.
They protect their "ideology" - as fluid and transient as it is. Their profits are both material and political. I believe that many more analogies can be drawn between this "news cartel" and any other, i.e. OPEC.

The next big question is - can MSM be charged with racketeering and conspiracy?

Posted by: marek at August 19, 2004 8:48 AM

I haven't bought a newspaper in I don't know how many years. And life is still good.

Posted by: Godzilla at August 19, 2004 8:54 AM

The withdrawal of troops from Europe is not a new policy. We've reduced those forces before and lastly, IIRC, under Clinton.

Posted by: D Anghelone at August 19, 2004 8:58 AM

Kerry is now responding to the Swiftboat Vets charges which means Plan A, ignoring them, hasn't worked. The media's outright disdain or silence on the issue likewise didn't work.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 19, 2004 9:00 AM

Roger,

I have stopped calling the press "liberal" for a bit. I agree with your assertion that there is nothing liberal about the media. I will, however, continue to use DNC/ in front of any MSM, NYT, WaPo, LAT or any other party organ.

I do believe this to be a culminating point for the brontosaurus stuck in the tar pit. The forebrain is stuck 20 feet down in the tar and and dying rather quickly while the hindbrain sends frantic messages to the tail to thrash about in a vain effort to get out.

Interesting that the DNC/NYT and DNC/WaPo collectively decided to begin forfeiting the last remnants of their integrity on the same day. They don't write a word on the magic hat Christmas tour of Cambodia, the DNC/Post even inverts the predicate subject for the story. The Elliot "change his story" ruse didn't pan out so now discrediting Thurlow on the basis of incomplete records is being given a try. Why didn't the Post publish the action report that instigated the commendation?

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 19, 2004 9:07 AM

When the mainstream media turned themselves into such a blatant propaganda arm for the Democratic Party, they essentially wrote off half the population and all of the red states. These "flyover states" might be a joke to them, but it's a big part of the country, of the economy, and of the government itself--if one cares to consider that the legislative branch just happens to be controlled by the very party that the MSM has been working so diligently to belittle and demonize. The media is going to find it harder and harder to influence the course of events in a country where half the population and a big chunk of the government isn't listening to them anymore. Instead these people and groups will look to other sources, in particular the internet, to both keep themselves informed and to dissemenate information to others.

The fact that Unfit for Command is going to debut at #3 on the NYT best seller's list--after the MSM has spent the last few weeks trying to impose a virtual blackout on the story--has proven how quickly and pervasively information can flow over the internet. Without the internet that book would have died without a wimper. Because of the internet, the book is selling like hotcakes and the story is being kept alive in spite of the MSM's best efforts to pretend it doesn't exist.

In a way their hubris that they could control the story by ignoring it backfired on them big time, Not only because it allowed the swiftboat vets and the internet to drive the narrative in a direction that ended up tarnishing their boy Kerry, but it pointed a big fat finger at their own bias and incompetence, and ultimately their growing powerlessness. (If that's a word?)

Posted by: penwil at August 19, 2004 9:09 AM

Add laziness to this mix. NYT published a front page, above the fold story on data of charter school performance "unearthed" by the American Federation of Teachers from the National Education Assessment website. As anyone with a brain knows the AFT is rabidly against charter schools. The NYT reporter doesn't tell us this. In fact what she does is basically spit back the AFT report executive summary - i.e., charter schools suck - and tables with no fact checking . For "balance" the report ambushes Chester Finn and asks for his reaction - " 'The scores are low, dismayingly low,' said Chester E. Finn Jr., a supporter of charters and president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation". I seriously doubt he had even heard of the report much less read it when he was contacted. Next day the editors lambast "Bush's" charter school program (well actually it was supported by Clinton too) on the opinion page.

If you are interested in a good roundup of the issue check out eduwonk , no Bush supporter, BTW. As eduwonk documents there were serious problems with this study and the NYT coverage is receiving scathing criticism from many other MSM outlets. Bloggers clearly have played a roll in holding the NYTs feet to fire.

Posted by: PeterArgus at August 19, 2004 9:09 AM

Guys: The NYT wrote an editorial today about the SBVT, and in fact made reference to web sites like this one. To quote them: "The assault is gaining attention, with Internet and cable television zealots debating combat minutiae and even whether Mr. Kerry enacted wartime events with his political future in mind or held secret meetings with Communists." Anyone here consider himself or herself a zealot?

Posted by: JBR at August 19, 2004 9:25 AM

Ben – “They think they are telling a balanced story because everyone they talk to agrees with them.”

Yes, some years ago it struck me that “balanced discussions” on NPR can be compared to socialist and communist having a debate on virtues of farm collectivization.

Posted by: Katherine at August 19, 2004 9:26 AM

I think Ben hit on one of the major problems: "Most journalists have little education or experience in the fields they cover"

By virtue of past training and job experience, I have more than a layperson's knowledge in a couple-three areas that periodically are the targets of reportage. I've frequently been shocked at the misinformation that is published and broadcast.

Posted by: BobT at August 19, 2004 9:37 AM

Frederick Turner at Tech Central Station nails the problem of press bias.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 19, 2004 9:49 AM

Ben and BobT are right on target: lack of substantive expertise. In many respects going to J-School is like getting a masters of Ed degree: no content area knowledge is required--perhaps that is the reason why both our schools fail their children and and J-schools fail their readers.

As an aside, Micky Kaus demolishes the AFT screed published as fact in the NYT and picked up as an NPR lead yesterday. Basically, the study was flawed because the AFT folks failed to control for race. To some extent this example highlights several things: (1) lack of substantive expersie because neither J-school or Master of Ed folks get any basic statistics and therefore cannot judge the metholdological worth of analyses; and (2) the NYT still drives other MSM markets in lockstep. Sad.

Posted by: RogerA at August 19, 2004 9:52 AM

JBR--

NYT: "The assault is gaining attention, with Internet and cable television zealots...

Great quote. Note the sly implication that all of us out here watching cable television or surfing the Internet are rabid philistines, while those high-minded enough to drink "sweet and light" coffee and read the New York Times for breakfast are our fair-minded, intellectual superiors.

What horsesh-t! I'm sure Little Pinch's shareholders are pleased with what he's done for them. It could be a long while before they see a return on their investment. I hope I live to see the day Lachlan Murdoch buys the New York Times Co. out of bankruptcy.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 19, 2004 9:56 AM

Ben's comment about journalists living in an echo chamber is right on target. It brings to mind the story of New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael expressing shock and surprise at President Nixon's re-election in 1972. She is said to have wondered: "How could he possibly have won -- I don't know a single person who voted for him!" And in truth, she probably didn't. This seems very believable to me; journalists are no better at seeing their blind spots than any of us. There's no excuse for not trying, though.

Posted by: JPLodine at August 19, 2004 9:57 AM

interesting article in today's WP--should initiate some discussion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

Posted by: doublecola at August 19, 2004 10:06 AM

DC - "interesting article … should initiate …. discussion."

You first.

Posted by: Katherine at August 19, 2004 10:14 AM

DC, who has spent over a week questioning motives, etc., has just fallen into the same Chinese finger trap that Kerry has is faced with. Once you move beyond either ignoring or smearing your critics to slamming the merits their case, well... then you end up having to defend the merits of your case.

The story now has to increasingly move towards an examination of the claims put forth on both sides.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 19, 2004 10:16 AM

Anyone here consider himself or herself a zealot?

Yes, but I bet the Times would be surprised what I'm zealous about.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 10:17 AM

nteresting article in today's WP--should initiate some discussion.

And by golly it has.

Now, did you have something to contribute yourself?

As we said the the spanking we administered Hollywood downstream, we're all interested in hearing what you think -- we're usually already aware of what the Washington Post thinks.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 10:19 AM

"drink 'sweet and light' coffee" ...

you mean "regular coffee"?

Got caught by that a couple of times when I first moved to NYC.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 10:21 AM

A True Story From Dennis-

Regular readers at this site might be surprised to find that I can be combative on occasion. No, really, I can! Anyway, I have a client, a nonprofit organization, that receives a substantial portion of it's funding from a particular County governmental agency. Over the 10 years of my relationship with this client I have chosen to take on, in a very public way, this particular governmental agency because of their overall incompetence. This culminated in articles in several of the local papers, a long Op-Ed piece critical of the agency's stewardship and public threats of lawsuits over improper conduct, and ended with the Executive Director and Finance Director of the agency being quietly replaced.

In the course of all this, I became know to several reporters covering parts of the Metro beat for the local rag. On day, out of the blue, I get a call from a reporter at the rag asking if I would care to comment on the local County Commissioners race. I asked him why the Hell the anyone would want my opinion on the relative worth of any of the Commissioners. The answer I got was that he had received my name from another reporter as 'a prominent critic of' this particular agency, which was part of the County government controlled by the Commissioners (there are three). So I said "Fire away" and the reporter started fishing for a quote that could be used against one particular Commissioner. After spending about 5 minutes answering questions that could not be construed as such criticism, the reporter started to get impatient with me. Finally, I just said "Look, I know your paper doesn't want [this particular Commissioner] to win re-election. I do read your paper. But that isn't my problem and there is nothing I can provide you in the way of either legitimate or specific criticism of this guy. If that is all you're interested in, you're wasting your time." His response: "That is what I'm interested in. Thanks anyway."

And this isn't the only example I could give you of this kind of nonsense. As someone who is a real professional in a real profession, I tend to get a bit testy about journalists claiming to be 'professionals'. But that's only because I've had to deal with them on a personal level.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at August 19, 2004 10:29 AM

Charlie--

I can't stand what they call "regular" coffee in New York. Give it to me black and strong. And don't put it in one of those leaky paper sacks, either! (They also don't know how to make pizza out there, but that's another story.)

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 19, 2004 10:36 AM

I think Ben hit on one of the major problems: "Most journalists have little education or experience in the fields they cover".

I wish I could claimthat it's just the leftish ones, too, but it's not. Rich Lowry made some atrocious innumerate mistake in the Corner a few weeks ago....

The weird thing is that journalists don't seem to much care if they have the facts right or not.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 10:37 AM

Just for the record, the WaPo and others are casting aspersions on one of the Swift Boat Vets Larry Thurlow. They may be right. But frankly I don't care. That's about medals, arguably a pompous and silly side issue. (In warfare, they're given out by the bucketful anyway). What is not pompous and silly is a Senator lying on the floor of that institution in order to advance his foreign policy position.

Interesting take on the Post article--should initiate some discussion, eh doublecola?

Or were you just trying to prove that, like Hollywood, you know how to link, too.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at August 19, 2004 10:38 AM

I can't stand what they call "regular" coffee in New York. Give it to me black and strong.

I'm with you. I grew up on "range coffee":

Fill pot with water. Add enough coffee. Boil until it looks done.

Throw in horseshoe.

If the horseshoe sinks, it's not done.

If the horsehoe floats, it's drinkable.

If the horseshoe dissolves, it's ready.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 10:43 AM

Has anyone seen the "Retro/Metro" black and white newsprint ad campaign over the last week or ten days? Its me been running in the WaPo.

Today, it turns out its another one of these "independent organizations" pumping out Hate Bush books and ads...

But its pretty clear--if you are a red state you are uneducated, backwards, a fundamentalist Christian, live in the South,--in other words a "Retro" rube.

If you are a Metro--you are educated, suave, agnostic and live in the Northeast and the Midwest ( the midwest, go figure! I think its a clue that they are targetting the Midwest swing voters...)--IOW, blue state and generally nice and intelligent.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that good hard-headed Americans everywhere will see through this patronizing baloney...its SO OBVIOUS.

Posted by: Hepzi at August 19, 2004 10:55 AM

Hehehe!

Obviously, none of you tough-regular-float-a-horseshoe coffee drinkers ever run across anything resembling Katherine’s Latte.
Technically is a latte all right, espresso and frothy milk all, but I will bet that the spike of caffeine that it delivers to the bloodstream 10 seconds after the first sip is far greater than any caffeinated beverage known to man, even those dissolving metal devices.
To prolong drinking pleasure it is served in 40 oz mugs.

Posted by: Katherine at August 19, 2004 11:00 AM

I slightly disagree with Ben on the problem with journalists being their lack of expertise on various subjects. I would submit, rather, that it is lack of expertise in their own field (journalism) that is a problem.

What are they teaching at these j-schools? I would really like to know. Considering how much impact these folks can have on our lives, it would be nice to know that they studied at least as much as I did in school (2 hours outside of class for every class hour, 6-8 hours per test...for core courses that I wanted to make an "A" in, anyway). I sincerely doubt that this much work is involved.

In engineering classes, all of this work had a Darwin-like effect: freshman attrition rates were rather high. The running joke among engineers was "hey, if you can't handle it, the business department is always looking for a few more!" -the implication (and reality) being that B.A. was much easier than aerospace engineering.

In summary, these folks seem to lack the discipline for their chosen fields. Doing a story on a complex or controversial topic should require long hours of research with opposing viewpoints equally considered (i.e., "We report. You decide."...no wonder I like FNC!). A more rigorous curriculum could fix this stuff.

Posted by: bdog57 at August 19, 2004 11:03 AM

I have been simply agog watching this story unfold. I had long believed the mainstream media leans "left" in the sense that they tended to hold to an identifiably Blue State, urban, moderate-Democrat worldview that tended to always self-correct toward itself. I almost never, ever use the phrase "liberal media bias" myself because I think that button gets presssed way, way too often by right-wingers and in any case I've got issues with calling that stuffy, highly orthodox and constricted worldview "liberal" anyway.

Call it moderate, mainstream-respectable if dull and predictable left, if you will.

But I never imagined the press was this far in the tank for Kerry. The mainstream press' virtual lockout and incredible one-sidedness on this story, coupled with the fact that the story's getting around practically everywhere, tells me things have obviously been weirder than I thought for a long time--or they're getting extremely weird right now because the mainstream press just doesn't know what to do with itself on this.

I discovered the Swifties and their band of brothers photo and their allegations a while before their ad came out. Then I noted that they had gathered more people to their side. Reported it all on my blog. Then, WHAMMO, the advertisement came out, and I watched how it was automatically, reflexively treated a certain way by the mainstream press---and how, absent blogs, that would have been the end of them.

And now look where we're at: one of the biggest political stories of the lst several years, more substantive by far than "Bush AWOL" or "Harken Energy" ever were, and yet here we have nothing but silence and dismissal.

For a story that everybody knows about. Well, everyone who's interested in politics, anyway.

Simply jaw-dropping.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at August 19, 2004 11:04 AM

Well said, Roger.

I think the poster child for the MSM is Maureen "Holy Halliburton" Dowd. Her columns and her countenance--witness recent C-Span interviews--are the fusion of the postmodern sneer. The sneer factor cannot be discounted in this context, as these folks really do think they know what is best for the rest of us, the great unwashed.

As a whole, the MSM is like Old Europe, living on borrowed time as the world passes it by. I give them both about 4-5 years more of relevancy.

Posted by: Lapsed Randian at August 19, 2004 11:06 AM

Roger,

Please review Slate story on Kerry and Bush (see http://www.slate.com/id/2105353/).

The mainstream says that Kerry is right and needs to be elected.

There is not much you/I can do. Kerry will be the next President.

Yours,
Pat.

Posted by: Pat_Henry at August 19, 2004 11:08 AM

Found this Judicial Watch calls for Investigation on Kerry over at Beldar's place.

Is this a Wow! moment? Beldar reports that this is "no amateurish effort."

Posted by: John Lynch at August 19, 2004 11:10 AM

Back in the old days, my officemates called my coffee "Black Death".

The first question anyone asked when they walked up to the coffee pot in the morning was "Who made the coffee?" If the answer came back "Drink it fast or it will clot", they knew it was my brew in their cup.

The upside of my coffee was that one cup insured that nothing worse could happen the rest of the day. That and the fact that it contributed to my mellow disposition.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at August 19, 2004 11:15 AM

Charlie

LOL. So somebody else on here knows how to make coffee the Western way?

Sadly, years of living with my New York wife have worn me down and now I take cream and sugar too.

MSM

I think the problem is worse than just the echo chamber effect. It's media concentration.

You've got to step back and think about what motivates a reporter or an editor. They're not well-paid people. They are people who like to write, but lots of people can write; they want their lives to have greater meaning. They're willing to give up money for that purpose. They want to control the thought process of their readers. It's similar to what Roger wrote about Hollywood (the place) once, something along the lines of "we control your dreams". Reporters control your reality. They like that. As Dennis's story illustrates, if they want to get a commissioner they will fish around until they can concoct the right story for that purpose. They're narrative-constructing left-brain people who aren't terribly concerned with right-brain facts. Facts are not why they are in it. People concerned with facts go into science and engineering and accounting.

But that's not necessarily a problem. The problem comes when an ever-smaller set of people controls all of the media. At a certain point the forces of social control take over and it is no longer possible to have an opinion which differs from the dogma of the day, whatever that may be. In a previous thread the danger of supporting Bush publicly were discussed. This illustrates a basic fact of human nature, that people seek to control each other socially and to control each other's political opinions. Social force fields are applied in various guises. Maybe they key your car. If you're a reporter or a Hollywood person, maybe they no longer return your calls, maybe you'll never work in this town again.

In U.S. Grant's Memoirs, he refers to the way various occurrences were played out in the Democratic newspapers, in the Republican newspapers, and in the Whig newspapers. In those times there were many competing outlets for news, they all had biases, and everybody knew the biases. There were, significantly, several choices. Nowadays, outside of the internet, there is almost only one choice. Thus, for example, I got in my car yesterday and listened to NPCR for the first time in months and got hit over the head with the charter school story. My son is in a charter school which just happens to consistently perform in the top five schools in the state, often number one, beating out the private schools handily. So I'm biased toward charter schools. Did NPCR tell me the background, that this story came from the teachers' unions? Of course not. Did they inform me that they had hoisted it wholesale from Pravda on the Hudson? Of course not. But I know a Democratic rag when I hear it. I turned the radio off. What choices do I have though? The local fishwrap merely picks up AP stories which have been written by some guy reading Pravda on the Hudson and Pravda on the Potomac. NPCR will pick up same.

Now, the MSM are consistently referred to here and elsewhere as "dinosaurs" and other similar pejoratives. But is that really true? Will something else replace them? Blogs alone cannot be the answer. Blogs can replace the op/ed pages but they cannot replace the news pages. I was speculating yesterday on what could possibly replace the noise papers. Imagine a website where the stories are written by anybody who thinks they have the information, rather than professional reporters. Imagine thousands of people feeding in information, getting paid minimal amounts of money whenever their story is picked up. Imagine that readers of this website can customize the news and that there is a feedback mechanism, so that writers who get picked up more often by readers get more opportunities for their story to move to the front page or even get paid more. Imagine that stories are selected based on their adherence to facts, with opinions discouraged. Sort of a massive CSPAN of newspapers. Imagine that readers can comment on each story, much as we comment here, perhaps even being allowed to change the story somewhat during the course of the day.

Is it feasible? Does anyone have any thoughts?

Posted by: WichitaBoy at August 19, 2004 11:21 AM

Charlie (Colorado),

You know, You're correct, I should have included my opinion. I was in a bit of a hurry and thought that the posting might initiate some discussion which I would later join. There was no sinister motive behind my action.

I've stated in other posts that Cambodia is something Kerry is going to have to deal with. I, frankly, don't care if he was there Christmas Eve or not. I've had things that I thought were seared in my memory that turned out to be not always right. Memory and the mind are not always accurate. I do think it's very important if he was in Cambodia or not--and what he was doing there. If he was never in Cambodia--or even within a mile or two of the border--but at least bringing a CIA guy VERY near there, then he's got a big problem--that needs to be pushed.

However, the medal thing as always bothered me. Elliot can't seem to make up his mind on what happened. Now we see that perhaps Larry Thurlow's memory is suspect. So maybe Kerry did act bravely.

from mediamatters.org...On Swift Boat Veterans for Truth chairman and co-founder Roy Hoffmann: "Hoffman acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, O'Neill has contributed $14,650 to federal candidates or national political organizations -- all Republicans. Then we have this:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408180004

and this: http://mediamatters.org/items/200408180004

I'm just trying to point out that some of those attacking Kerry on this issue are either dishonest or have poor memories themselves.

Posted by: doublecola at August 19, 2004 11:32 AM

Journalists and knowledge of the fields they cover...is there hope on the horizon? It seems that Columbia is trying to, thinking of, attempting to turn its 10-month grad school journalism program into a two-year program that teaches more than basic skills....

Lee C. Bollinger, President of Columbia University, on the Future of Journalism Education

But my sense is that we can do better than that. The educational goal ought to be to develop a base of knowledge across relevant fields that is crafted specifically for what leading journalists need to know: for example, a functional knowledge of statistics, the basic concepts of economics, and an appreciation for the importance of history and for the fundamental debates in modern political theory and philosophy. To address this assignment would require joint efforts of experts from around the university working closely with faculty in the journalism school. In addition to core knowledge, the faculty might decide upon a few of the most important subject areas of our time (e.g., religion, politics, life sciences, and the forces of globalization) and develop specific materials and course work in these as well.

It's a start. What I'm wondering is: Why hasn't this been done before?

Posted by: Syl at August 19, 2004 11:39 AM

Dean Esmay: "I have been simply agog watching this story unfold. "

Me too. That expresses it exactly. I am astonished at the bias, even after witnessing the selective coverage over the last year.

Just how stupid do they think we are?!

Posted by: Bostonian at August 19, 2004 11:51 AM

WichitaBoy: "They're narrative-constructing left-brain people who aren't terribly concerned with right-brain facts. Facts are not why they are in it. People concerned with facts go into science and engineering and accounting."

That's very insightful. The journalists whom we have been shredding do not seem to understand how to find supporting facts and do not seem to care whether any such facts exist. It is all narrative to them.

***
I sent the following letter to the Boston Globe:

Hi there,
OK, I am no reporter, but your column on Kerry's Cambodian Adventures is somewhat lacking. You've gotten as far as repeating some of the actual claims on both sides, and that's all very good. But several rather more fruitful lines of inquiry suggest themselves to me:

Is there any evidence of illegal incursions into Cambodia during this period? How were these missions handled? Who was on the teams? What vehicles were used? Did the teams use local people or did they ever work with the Navy? Were records even kept? Who had to sign off on these things? What was the protocol?

What would make these missions risky? How great was the risk of detection? How many boats patrolled the area? What was the weather? How much moonlight was there? How densely or loosely populated are the areas along these rivers?

Were there any physical obstructions near the border, perhaps created by our Navy or perhaps by the Cambodian government? Were there guards or patrols on the border? Has anyone ever interviewed any of them?!

Had there been any events on the Cambodian border recently? Was there any special reason to take care to stay clear of Cambodian territory or was the Cambodian government completely unconcerned?

What is a Swift boat like anyway? Is it suitable for clandestine activity? Is it quiet or noisy? What depth water does it need?

What other boats were we using in that area, who operated them, and were any of them unaccounted for?

What do the records actually say for the boat that Kerry operated? Are there records of all missions? Are there gaps? Would the records for this kind of mission be elsewhere?

What documentation is there to prove whether Kerry was at Sa Dec instead? What parts of his timeline cannot be pinned down definitively?

This is what we pay you for. Gossip I can get anywhere.

Posted by: Bostonian at August 19, 2004 12:01 PM

Just how stupid do they think we are?!

More importantly, how stupid are we? Do we watch the major network shows? Do we subscribe to a newspaper? (I don't.) If so, why? The change that is occuring can only be accelerated by people just saying no. No to network TV and no to subscribing to DNC/MSM rags.

Otherwise the answer to your question is rather simple. If you buy it, they think you're stupid.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 19, 2004 12:08 PM

I will bet that the spike of caffeine that it delivers to the bloodstream 10 seconds after the first sip is far greater than any caffeinated beverage known to man, even those dissolving metal devices.

Can you do one to go?

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 12:13 PM

The idea that somehow Thurlow has been shown to be dishonest is itself hilariously dishonest. The citation does not refute Thurlow's statements at all.

The reality that Kerry's shills do not want to acknowledge is that it is John Kerry who is telling different stories now, as his lies are exposed, not the Swift Boats Vets.

Posted by: Roberts at August 19, 2004 12:16 PM

Please review Slate story on Kerry and Bush (see Link...
The mainstream says that Kerry is right and needs to be elected.

Slate?

The mainstream?

William Saletan and Jacob Weisberg?

Pat, I know the mainstream. I've got lots of friends in the mainstream.

Slate ain't it.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 12:17 PM

hi all---

Hepzi

Has anyone seen the "Retro/Metro" black and white newsprint ad campaign over the last week or ten days?

Just back from the IL State Fair (incredible!) and yes, we did see the Retro/Metro ad in our hotel's USA Today.

It had a big B&W photo of George Bush above a big B&W photo of John Kerry, and neither my husband nor I knew, from looking at the photos, that the ad supported Kerry.

To both of us (for any newbies out there, I'm the Bush voter & my husband will vote for Kerry) Bush & Kerry looked equally unappealing.

It's pretty bad when a pro-Kerry outfit makes him look as bad as Bush to an ABB voter.

Plus, why would you choose to put Bush on top?

If you're for Kerry?

Strange.

I actually had to look the ad up on the internet to find out who it was against.

Posted by: Catherine at August 19, 2004 12:19 PM

Found this Judicial Watch calls for Investigation on Kerry over at Beldar's place.

Is this a Wow! moment? Beldar reports that this is "no amateurish effort."

Posted by: John Lynch [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 19, 2004 11:10 AM

John Lynch, the answer is yes, and in particular this allegation, per Beldar:

Although not based on new factual allegations, the Judicial Watch complaint swings a bigger spotlight onto young Kerry's post-war conduct � in particular, his meeting with representatives of the North Vietnamese government and the Viet Cong while he was still a commissioned officer in the US Naval Reserve.

Stay tuned.

Posted by: ter0 at August 19, 2004 12:20 PM

It is amazing that the first article on the Swifties Ad Campaign WAPO readers encounter is an attack on Larry Thurow. Not a very effective attack, either.

To a WAPO reader, this just popped out of nowhere. Do the customers wonder why they haven't heard any of this before? The WAPO ran a short story in May on the SBVT press conference, but have been ignoring it otherwise.

I expected the MSM to do this, even as it amazes me when they actually do. No report will come out that isn't lead by information that impeaches either the veracity or motives of the SBVT.

BTW - An interview with the SBVT web master is on Front Page Magazine online today.

-----------------------

Medals count. That's why the military gives them out. Today, the medal disputes count in that falsely achieved medals, or even legitimate medals that are for trivial wounds say something about the character of whoever wrote up the paperwork for the medals and whoever received them.

That Kerry's first purple heart (in date of injury) was issued last, by someone not even related to the Swift Boats, but rather a bureaucrat in Saigon, is beyond suspicious.

With the bronze star, we have the testimony of three that Kerry left the scene of the mine ambush while the other boats stayed there to help those injured and in the water. Then there's the question of whether fire was received. Three skippers remember no fire. WAPO finds a medal citation for Thurlow that claims fire, and it is only then that they publish their very first story (note that Thurlow says that if his own bronze star was awarded on the basis of that memo, it was fraudulent).

Meanwhile doublecola tries to smear John O'Neil based on a David Brock site which exists specifically to go after conservatives. The cause of the smear? Was it 7000 or 15000 that O'Neil gave to Republicans. Also, we have Nixon demonstrating miraculous powers, with his hand reaching from the grave to work the puppet strings on O'Neill. The Media Watch site discredits itself by claiming close ties between Nixon and O'Neil, which didn't exist (there was a loose tie - Nixon via Colson encouraged O'Neill's anti-Kerry organizatiion).

One of the odder things is that Kerry didn't need to lie to establish Vietnam combat credentials. He only needed to manipulate the system to get out after a short time, minimizing his risk, and that is why purple hearts, in particular, are critical in this story. It also is not the behavior of a war hero.

If you look at all the purple hearts, there is one where the fraud is extremely clear: the first one. The evidence is clear that there was no enemy action involved. That both the doctor (Letson was the doctor, the other guy who signed the medical paper was a corpsman - essentially a paramedic who worked for the doctor) and Kerry's CO refused to recommend a purple heart, and then it appear 3 months later signed by an unknown from Saigon (Kerry refuses to release his records) is damning.

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at August 19, 2004 12:26 PM

Most J-schools are not set up for broad education of future journalists. They are generally two-year programs tailored specifically to working for a newspaper or magazine (they usually offer TV & radio specialties in a separate curriculum).

J-schools do not teach anything outside of writing, p.r., advertising, journalism law and ethics. It is assumed all the basic components on a liberal education will be provided through other classes.

I would certainly agree most journalists would be well-served by courses in economics, statistics, logic, history, etc. But when criticizing the NYT or WaPo, you need to make a distinction. Their reporters are frequently, if not usually, Ivy League graduates. They often have master's degrees. Many have worked in other fields. They are not stupid or nearly as ignorant as you might think. The problem is they have chosen ideology over evenhandedness and a desire to tell the truth.

Like someone said the other day on another thread, a fish doesn't feel wet. In their Georgetown and Upper West Side fishbowls, these agenda-driven reporters don't even perceive themselves as biased. Witness the poll response where over half of journalists said they were going too easy on Bush.

The problem is with the editorial function. Like children who are allowed to act up, reporters who aren't reprimanded for slanted stories (or indeed, praised) will keep writing them. Editors at the NYT and WaPo are as embittered and partisan as they come.

Until all the sixties greybeards and proto-Marxists in the newsrooms go face down into their oatmeal the problem of extreme liberal bias will still exist. The real question is, by that time, will anyone even care?

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 19, 2004 12:26 PM

Slate ain't it [mainstream].

Slate's readership disagrees. All ten of them.

Good for a laugh, though. Mainstream? Anymore, it is kind of like citing The Nation as mainstream.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at August 19, 2004 12:28 PM

You know, You're correct, I should have included my opinion. I was in a bit of a hurry and thought that the posting might initiate some discussion which I would later join. There was no sinister motive behind my action.

Apology accepted. And we didn't ascribe any sinister motive, so much as another "link, don't think" appeal to authority.

As far as the whole business with Elliott, O'Neill's political contributinos etc -- there are several things you might want to look into. First of all, you might want to look up the term "ad hominem circumstantial": that's been the core of most of the arguments against all of these folks. O'Neill "was closely associated with" Nixon and Colson. O'Neill made campaign contributions to Republicans. Except that he at least says he contributed to Democrats as well, and the link that MediaMatters.org has to back up their assertions 404's. For that matter, mediaMatters.org is funded and supported primarily by Democrats.

If you can discount one, you must discount the other.

On the other hand, the book is coming out; it's apparently heavily documented, and you can look at the documents. If you actually read Elliot's actual affidavits, you'll find that it's not Elliot who's confused, and you'll also find out why Elliot says the Boston paper misquoted him egregiously.

If you're really interested in the facts, ask Kerry to file a Form 180.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 12:30 PM

But its pretty clear--if you are a red state you are uneducated, backwards, a fundamentalist Christian, live in the South,--in other words a "Retro" rube.

Just how stupid do they think we are?!

See? We've settled that and it all happened in one thread.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 12:33 PM

“People concerned with facts go into science and engineering and accounting.”

I don’t know about accountants, but plenty of engineers and scientists, even in so called hard sciences, have the skill of compartmelization developed to a very large degree. For these people facts and rigorous application of scientific method matter only within the narrow confines of their specialty and they fail to apply it to areas that they are not familiar with (witness many specialists making absolute idiots of themselves when they branch into unfamiliar territory).

Also, because scientist and engineers are experts in their area they often convince themselves that they can master any subject/skill just by light reading or just invent it. It goes like this: if I can figure how to this assay, surely I can build a company from scratch without help of any business people (real life example).
Add to it perennial frustrations that they encounter in the business world – where business decision are not necessarily based on cleverness of the code, or how fascinating the basic science is behind some research project, and they all grow to despise all those people who constantly thwart their expertise. So, they get convinced that experts are best to run anything, including a country, and so that central control (theirs, of course) is the best.

Anyway, politics for most people have nothing to do with facts; it is a matter of personal beliefs projected on their candidates

Posted by: Katherine at August 19, 2004 12:38 PM

Rick Lowry prints Thurow's full statement in The Corner today. He doesn't link it either, dammit.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 12:39 PM

Katharine, remember what Buddha said when asked what made him different from other men:

"I am awake."

There's a lot of somnambulism in the world.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2004 12:40 PM

doublecola

What you stated is the MSM's line and you're simply echoing it. Eleanor Clift on Foxnews today said that a couple of the swiftvets have been discredited so, therefore....

This simply isn't true.

You say:

However, the medal thing as always bothered me. Elliot can't seem to make up his mind on what happened. Now we see that perhaps Larry Thurlow's memory is suspect. So maybe Kerry did act bravely.

First, it's not about bravery. Kerry did face fire and that was brave. He just didn't face it during some of the times he claimed he did.

It's not a matter of Elliot not making up his mind..that is simply spin and obfuscation by Kranish.

Elliot was not there. True.
Elliot was told by Kerry the circumstances under which he was asking for Elliot to recommend a medal.
Elliot said okay and signed a recommendation.
Kerry goes off to Saigon with Zumwalt who writes up the citation (from Kerry's words to him, he had no other knowledge).
Zumwalt gives Kerry the Silver Star two days after the incident with no corresponding paperwork such as after action report and eyewitness accounts.
Elliot, in 2003, reads something in the Boston Globe from an interview with Kerry which speaks of that specific incident. It is not the same as Kerry told HIM years ago.
If Kerry had told the truth back then, Elliot would not have recommended the medal.
Elliot did not retract that.

Thurlow's memory? He says there was no hostile fire. He also says if his medal was given only beccause there was hostile fire he didn't deserve his either. Hardly a reason for Thurlow to make up a false memory about no hostile fire.

As for Hoffman, here is an interview done by my hometown paper, which didn't rely on the MSM to go out and interview him. He actually lives only a few miles from me.

Hoffman certainly knew of Kerry. Of course he wasn't there for the incidents in question. That's neither here nor there because others were. Not all swiftvets need firsthand knowledge of each specific incident for Kerry's versions of such to be in question.

And, ahem, none of the swiftvets, not one, has been discredited.

Factcheck.org did a piece on the Silver Star where it relies on wording in the citations to attempt to discredit the swiftees. The problem is, that's begging the question because the wording is based on Kerry himself.

When Thurlow said, of the Bronze Star incident, that Kerry probably wrote it up himself, that may very well be true. It wasn't uncommon for that to happen over there.

Posted by: Syl at August 19, 2004 12:41 PM

Catherine--

You went to the Illinois State Fair voluntarily? Not torture was involved? I find that hard to believe. Can we see an affadavit?

I grew up in Springfield and worked as a journalist at two consecutive Illinois State Fairs (during one of them Reagan made an appearance). I think if ever so much as look at another hot-dog-on-stick I'll puke! Those lemon shake-ups are damn good, though.

John Moore--

The most interesting thing about the WaPo story is that they appear to have accepted the Swiftees claims that Kerry fled the scene. Whether he or Thurlow deserves a Bronze Star is, I suppose, debatable. But this is an example of cowardice (under fire?), is it not? And isn't that what Thurlow meant when he said in the ad, "When the chips were down you could not count on John Kerry."

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 19, 2004 12:44 PM

I do not agree that the major problem is the quality of journalist's education. I think that WichitaBoy (11:21 post) is closer to the heart of the problem. The MSM are totally devoted to support the democrats more leftist agenda and Kerry's bid for presidency. This is it. Under these circumstances the notion of impartial reporting on anything that might be related to their struggle is laughable. Even if a reporter wrote something truly objective, his editor will add the necessary spin or slant. The stocks are falling - it's result of Bush's bad policies. The stocks go up - this is in spite of Bush's failing policies. Reporting on war, education, international relations are all going thru the "liberal" wringer.

What I do find suspicious is the perfect lockstep that the different newspapers, TV channels, radio, etc. are reporting or suppressing news in a quite selective manner. I would think that there must be colluding. And that's why I see MSM acting as a cartel.

Posted by: marek at August 19, 2004 12:46 PM

Peter Argus & everyone

So glad to see you bring up the charter school article & Eduwonk, which is a terrific site.

The charter school story appeared on Sunday, and my husband, who loathes Bush and is inclined to object to anything associated with the man (in this case school choice), thought the story was bunk by the time he finished.

This is a man who would have liked for the story to be convincing.

So the next day we wake up to a front-page TIMES story attacking NCLB.

This precipitated an argument that, for once, ended well when I produced book chapters & white papers from Brookings supporting NCLB, one of which stated outright that what is important about NCLB "isn't the money." (My husband had assumed that the "liberal" poisition on NCLB is that it is an "unfunded mandate," i.e. yet another Bush scam & broken promise. I was able to demonstrate that that is the partisan- Democrat-campaign position, not the liberal-think-tank position. Liberal think tank types, with rare exceptions--I think I'm right on this--aren't talking about funding. They're talking about compliance & results.)

Here's eduwonk on the charter school story:

More importantly, the effort to hang all this around President Bush's neck is ridiculous. Let's not forget that President Clinton was a strong charter school supporter as are many liberals and liberal-leaning organizations.

Eduwonk very much hopes that George Bush loses in November too! But this burn the village to save it mentality is remarkably counterproductive to what should be liberal goals.

Update: CER notes that the race issue notwithstanding, charters did not uniformly under-perform other public schools. Funny, that didn't make the cut in the Times story either. Dan Okrent, call your office.

And here he is on the NCLB piece:

The New York Times reports that No Child Left Behind is facing obstacles in the states. True enough, put they pale compared to the obstacles it's facing from The New York Times! Amazingly, no mention in this story of George Miller, The Education Trust, the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights. Probably just an oversight!

I just can't tell what's going on with the TIMES, if anything (i.e., I can't tell whether this is different from their usual coverage).

I love Bill Keller (I really do) . . . and I think Dan Okrent is doing a terrific job.

But I don't understand how the charter school & the NCLB articles got put together the way they did.

It's pretty bad when you have a Kerry supporter who blogs for a Clinton think tank (Progressive Policy Institute) invoking the name of Dan Okrent.

I do wonder whether this is the standard only-bad-news-is-news issue, or whether these articles appeared because they are bad for Bush & good for Kerry (or both).

Although I'm tired of blaming the media for Other People's Wrong Ideas, I have to say that my trip home didn't exactly prove the FINANCIAL TIMES' thesis that nobody reads the New York Times.

Nobody does read the New York Times, of course (relatively speaking) but even so both of my parents, separately, brought up the topic of NCLB & what a god-awful law it is.

My dad, who is in his eighties for pete's sake, starting going on about how NCLB forces schools to "teach to the test," so there's "no educational value at all" and my mom goes with the it's-not-funded meme.

Neither of them has the faintest idea that NCLB is a major piece of education law passed with full bipartisan support that is the only hope inner city children have of receiving an education on par with the education suburban children receive (which has significant problems of its own, may I add).

Posted by: Catherine at August 19, 2004 12:49 PM

Charlie,

There was a guy few years back who claimed to be able to send a cure for all sorts of illnesses by email; I make a deadly latte, but I still don’t know how to send it via Internet.

But should you be in SF you are most welcome to stop by and I’ll be happy to make one (or more) for you.

Posted by: Katherine at August 19, 2004 12:54 PM

Thanks for the content-free post, Akefa. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 19, 2004 12:55 PM

Akefa- "Your boy is gonna be crushed in November no matter what you say."

....or not.

Posted by: Katherine at August 19, 2004 12:56 PM

more on NCLB

Brookings has all kinds of wonderful material on NCLB & on curriculum issues (Tom Loveless is a name we should all remember; he's fighting the good fight, along with, as always, Diane Ravitch).

This is from a chapter in a new Brookings book on NCLB.

The Politics and Practice of Accountability
Martin R. West & Paul E. Peterson

As a path breaker, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal legislation signed into law in January 2002, stands alongside the pioneering compensatory and special education laws enacted in 1965 and 1974. In the words of political analyst David S. Broder, NCLB �may well be the most important piece of federal education legislation in thirty-five years.� The crucial aspect of all three pieces of legislation is not so much the money authorized as the policy framework imposed. Compensatory education and special education laws have never provided more than a fraction of the real cost of educating those they professed to serve. Similarly, NCLB increased the federal share of the country�s total school funding by barely 1 percentage point. The federal government�s fiscal role in education has always been small, in recent years hovering around 7 to 8 percent of all public funding of elementary and secondary education, with the balance being covered by local and, to an increasing extent, state revenues.

No, it is not the federal dollar contribution but the direction given to all school spending�whether federal, state, or local�that is key. Just as the 1965 compensatory education law sensitized the country to the needs of minority and low-income students, and just as the 1974 special education law guaranteed for the first time free, appropriate, education to disabled students, so the 2002 legislation redirects educational thinking along new channels. Under its terms, every state, to receive federal aid, must put into place a set of standards together with a detailed testing plan designed to make sure the standards are being met. Students at schools that fail to measure up may leave for other schools in the same district, and, if a school persistently fails to make adequate progress toward full proficiency, it becomes subject to corrective action.

Posted by: Catherine at August 19, 2004 12:57 PM

The media is solidly left of center, both in personnel and by organization. No surprise there - any number of polls confirm that the journo population is +80% Democrat. What compounds the existing bias is the quest for market share and the resulting rise of the zero-tolerance for failure standard that has been embraced pretty well around the entire table of political debate and media coverage.

Forget casting the first stone. We've seen a thirty year - old alleged DUI held up as disqualifying a man for public office. We've also seen a thirty year old military experience held up as ALL WE NEED TO KNOW about another candidate's fitness for office, and you go to hell if you think any examination of the last twenty years of elected office experience should even be mentioned.

There are echo chambers and there are echo chambers. We may get a good reverb going inside here every once in awhile, but the Grand Canyon is found in every news room that gets a whiff of something with which they can sell papers or time on the screen. People tend to work hardest at what they agree with. BAM (with apologies to Emiril) and there you have a bucket of Google hits about Terry Mac calling Bush a deserter compared to a postit note on the back of a jobjohnny in rural New Mexico that reads "Kerry/Magic hat/Cambodia/Gun running? also Troop withdrawls? - yes, two weeks ago, no, now??? WTF??? also Our Boys Home Replaced by french/German/Euro??? Ask editor - IMPORTANT!!!".

If CNN and the rest of the pack applied remotely the same standard of objectivity or asked the same questions of the Kerry camp that they would Bush in the same situation, this election would already be over. It is only with the unyielding and monolithic support of MSM that this race polls as closely as it does.

Some people are still limited to what they are told, not what they can learn.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 19, 2004 12:57 PM

Teachers shouldn't dine with students.
Officers shouldn't dine with enlisted persons.
Guards shouldn't dine with prisoners.
The press shouldn't dine with politicians.

Any of these corrupts the culture for which these relationships were designed.

Doublecola

If you've had things seared in your memory that turn out not to be true, like say you bought your car on Oct 8, not Oct 11, fair enough. If the things seared in your memory are made up out of whole cloth, you're not qualified to borrow ten bucks, much less for high office.

Would you say that Kerry lied about a private matter, like Clinton? Like being Commander-in-Chief would be a private matter?

I marvel that the liberal mindset can't absorb basic survival truths: sharks eat people, swimmers swim, liars lie. That's what they do. That's who they are.

Posted by: John Mendenhall at August 19, 2004 12:57 PM

Ah, but the real question is why do sharks eat people, swimmers swim, and liars lie. You obviously do not stop to consider the root causes. You need to work more on this nuance thing, John M.

Posted by: Katherine at August 19, 2004 1:05 PM

FA,

Whether Kerry's acceleration away from the scene was motivated by a very highly developed sense of self preservation or was an appropriate response to a potential ambush is a matter to be determined by the other skippers in the group he was with. There may have been an SOP in effect that affected his behavior.

There is more than sufficient information available to discredit Kerry without specultating about actual cowardice. What I have been wondering about is when Kerry is going to find a few more Swiftvets to stand beside him. If John O'Neill can round up 250 men to offset the 8-9 that stand beside Kerry, why hasn't Kerry rounded up at least 5-10 more staunch defenders? His response today was absolutely pathetic. His boat is taking on water and he's decided to personally drill some holes in the hull to let it out.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 19, 2004 1:10 PM

Fresh Air

Illinois State Fair.

Yup.

I took my family to see the butter cow (not nearly as good as when my mom's college friend, now passed on, made it for all those years) and I attended a Bob Ross studio demonstration on Working in Oils.

AND I drank a Jamaican beer at Ethnic Village (OK, there was NO Ethnic Village when I was a kid---though OTOH given the fact that the French food stand was selling "pork wraps" it's probably not accurate to say there's an Ethnic VIllage at the Illinois State Fair today, either) . . . so as I was saying, I drank a Jamaican beer at Ethnic Village and then, as a direct result, entered the Exhibition Hall with my 9-year old where I purchased a game system containing 76,000 games from an Israeli-South African.

Next topic: never purchase a game systems from Israeli-South Africans selling stuff at a State Fair.

I'm thinking we can take a pass on the affidavit, right?

Posted by: Catherine at August 19, 2004 1:11 PM

No, I have no comment on this--it's straight from the campaign--but now the MSM, I think, will have to cover the story...

from the Kerry campaign:

Today marks the end of the dishonest and disgusting smear campaign against John Kerry and his crewmates from Vietnam. This morning on the front page of the Washington Post, one of the central figures in the effort to distort John Kerry's military service was completely discredited.

The group behind this smear campaign calls itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." But the truth is the last thing they are interested in.

President Bush refuses to condemn this group. He wants them to do his dirty work. But this effort to distract attention from the issues that matter most has failed.

This morning, John Kerry said he learned an important lesson in Vietnam: "When you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker." Today he took these lessons to heart, knocked down these charges, and made a firm commitment to the American people that the lies about his military service will not stop him from fighting for affordable health care, good-paying jobs, and keeping America secure.

This doesn't mean that these blatantly false attacks won't continue -- the Bush-Cheney campaign is desperate and has no record to run on. But it does mean that we are not going to let them distract us from letting people know about John Kerry's plan to make America stronger at home and respected in the world.

Read the Washington Post article:

http://www.johnkerry.com/article

Read John Kerry's statement from his speech at the International Association of Firefighters Convention in Boston this morning:
Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn't interested in the truth -- and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the president won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know -- he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives every day. You know what it's like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you've done -- and so am I.

Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America -- then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security -- the issues that really matter to the American people.

Thank you,

Mary Beth Cahill
Campaign Manager

Posted by: doublecola at August 19, 2004 1:11 PM

Rick Ballard

What I have been wondering about is when Kerry is going to find a few more Swiftvets to stand beside him. If John O'Neill can round up 250 men to offset the 8-9 that stand beside Kerry, why hasn't Kerry rounded up at least 5-10 more staunch defenders?

I have been having that exact thought myself.

Posted by: Catherine at August 19, 2004 1:13 PM

Will somebody please tell Glenn Reynolds about the NCLB scam displayed in the NYTimes. He seems to have fallen for it.

Posted by: Syl at August 19, 2004 1:13 PM

doublecola & everyone?

Hmm.

Doesn't it seem wrong, tactically speaking, that Kerry himself is talking about these "smears"?

Isn't that something your surrogates are supposed to handle?

Posted by: Catherine at August 19, 2004 1:16 PM

Syl

I just checked instapundit---can't find a reference to NCLB.

Is it on Tech Central?

I'll check.

Posted by: Catherine at August 19, 2004 1:18 PM

Catherine,

If a candidate can produce proof that a smear is a smear, it is correct for him to take it head on. Kerry though, is saying "Who are you going to believe - me, or these 250 vets who were there and knew me". There are tree stumps all over America that are smarter than this man. Most rocks have more political sense than he displays. Show us your hat, John.

DC - Thanks for providing the proof.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 19, 2004 1:25 PM

So, if O'Neill's donations to Republicans are important wrt the Swiftvets, why aren't teahcer's union political donations important wrt the charter schools story?

Some will not be the least surprised to see some details of the political contributions made by the NEA .

The AFT is a bit more difficult to have a quick look at. Here is some info about their political donation record up to the 2002 election cycle. I don't know when the AFT became a part of the AFL-CIO or how to seperate the AFT portion of the AFL-CIO political donations out from the total.

As you might guess, these are just slightly weighted toward the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 19, 2004 1:25 PM

Akefa writes: Journalists know what they're doing. And they have alot more clout than echo chanbers like this one. You can't stop what's happening and it's killing you.
Well, I read part of the book everybody's talking about, and I think it's probably pretty truthful. But it don't matter.

This is to me a sad commentary--it tells me that the media is not reporting on the truth; journalists understand that, and because they have clout their boy is going to win and it can't be stoppped--Akefa: this is a great model for democracy? this is a good thing? You either have a serious means-end problem or no understanding the role of the press in a free society. Sad indeed.

Posted by: RogerA at August 19, 2004 1:26 PM

Hmmm, so John Kerry "won't let" anyone question his service anymore?

I didn't think Kerry liked the First Amendment much.

Meanwhile, he claims that the Swift Boats Vets are not telling the truth, this is amusing since he's already backed away from several of his stories and his campaign has had to delete stories from his website such as where he claimed credit for Peck's actions on PCF 94.

We know who the liar is, JFK.

Posted by: Roberts at August 19, 2004 1:27 PM

Ooops, sorry. That was Kaus not Glenn.

My bad

Posted by: Syl at August 19, 2004 1:35 PM

Regarding media political leanings, I periodically remind myself about one of the mainstream, CNN, founded by Ted Turner - former spouse of Jane Fonda.

How many Americans, like me, would be hard-pressed to resist the urge to strangle her within the first hour?

That Turner lived her with her for years speaks volumes to me. Now one need only posit two reasonable assumptions: 1) that since he tolerated her for years, his views probably do not diverge that dramatically from hers, and 2) that the organization he founded and originally staffed still reflects his views to some degree (as lefties would - correctly - assert re Murdoch and Fox, and fair enough).

I'm not making an ad hominem argument here. Turner and CNN are perfectly entitled to promulgate whatever view they like, and more power to him/them. My point is that, based on the reasonable assumptions above, the political views of the relevant CNN employees are likely to be well left of those of most Americans.

Last, is CNN a noticeably left-wing outlier on the spectrum of media? No. It's right in there with NYT, WaPo, LAT, etc.

So for me, the burden of proof is on lefties to establish the contrary position. An exchange of variables is a useful thought experiment: suppose who played (or had played) a prominent role in establishing one of the mainstream media had a similarly close connection to, say, Ann Coulter. Would anyone hesitate to impute a right-wing leaning to that publication?

Posted by: Occam's Beard at August 19, 2004 1:37 PM

"What I have been wondering about is when Kerry is going to find a few more Swiftvets to stand beside him. If John O'Neill can round up 250 men to offset the 8-9 that stand beside Kerry, why hasn't Kerry rounded up at least 5-10 more staunch defenders?"

I've been kinda wondering how these eight members of his Band of Brothers could take a year off to go campaigning? They paying the air fare, per dium and hotel bills?

Since the integrety of the Swiftboats Vets have been challenged, I think it only fair that any financial arrangements made for the Band of Brothers to be examined.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 19, 2004 1:40 PM

everyone

Conservatives & Republicans should insist on spotlighting the Republican Party's contribution to public education.

Democrats have been allowed to "own" this issue for far too long.

Kaus puts it best: the Democratic Party's position on education involves measuring "inputs" (usually funding) not "outputs" (educational achievement of students).

Democrats have been able, for years now, to say that they are the education party because they spend more money on education (which may or may not be true; I don't know).

Meanwhile Republicans have been working on the issue of what children are actually learning & getting no credit for it.

It's time to change the narrative!

Remember: computation scores for inner city black children rose during Reagan's administration, fell during Clinton's administration, and are now rising again. Tom Loveless, at Brookings, interprets this as a result of differing policies on education (though you should check his various essays for exact quotes).

Here is another passage from the chapter I quoted earlier:

As early as the 1950s, a few elitist curmudgeons objected to the quality of instruction in America�s schools. . . . Hardly anyone had paid attention to these malcontents, however, until SAT scores began their slide. . . .

Many expected that NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] would prove the SAT wrong, that it would show that the country was progressing after all, just as the P in the acronym promised. Unfortunately, NAEP, by revealing more losses than gains in student test performance, only confirmed what the SAT had suggested. . . .

Concern intensified when Americans discovered further that the United States lagged behind many countries it thought it had left behind. . . . The situation deteriorated the longer students remained in school. Among nine-year-olds, U.S. students performed in math and science among the top tier of nations, if not at the very highest levels attained by some Asian nations. . . . by age seventeen, they trailed all the other industrial countries in the world, remaining ahead of only such nations as Lithuania, Cypress, and South Africa.

. . . in 1982, unexpectedly, the Reagan administration made education reform a top political priority. A national commission, appointed by Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell, issued a report claiming that the quality of America�s schools was leaving the country endangered by foreign competition.

. . . That all this should happen during the Reagan years ran contrary to any reasonable expectation. After all, as a candidate for the presidency in 1980, Reagan had called for the disestablishment of the Department of Education that the Carter administration had successfully urged upon Congress just two years earlier.

. . . .

Still, the call for reform was not backed up by any clearly defined accountability scheme. It would take nearly two decades before another Republican administration would move beyond rhetoric and prompt a real intervention.

Posted by: Catherine at August 19, 2004 1:41 PM

Syl

Kaus does a take-down of the TIMES on the charter school story----

(I don't think he's mentioned the NCLB story.)

Posted by: Catherine at August 19, 2004 1:43 PM

everyone

I may have missed a link on this thread, but in case I haven't, check out the article Kaus links to on Democratics "despairing" over Kerry.

http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/pe_columnists/article/0,2071,NPDN_14960_3117495,00.html

Posted by: Catherine at August 19, 2004 1:46 PM

DC,
"Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.
"

As someone else asked in a prevous thread:
What leg wound????

Posted by: Erik at August 19, 2004 1:47 PM

Fresh Air and Katherine:

I won't claim that all journos are dumb as rocks.

Nor will I claim that scientists & engineers are always the best and brightest. (I've seen firsthand examples myself.)

But I'll maintain that journalists should be required to posess some basic, independently-acquired domain knowledge before they're permitted to attempt to "inform" others.

(Ignoring the cynical and probably correct arguments the journalists don't care if they're accurate...)

Posted by: BobT at August 19, 2004 1:49 PM

ALL,
I tracked down the contributions made by John O'Neill from 1990 to present using the opensecrets.org link found on MM.org and by using this website. Hate to say it, but the data matches up with that found here. The only way John O'Neill could have made $25,000 in Federal Dem contributions during these years (without it being tracked by the FEC) would be if they had all been less than $200. Or...

On the video he says that he donated to the Houston mayoral candidacy of Bill White. Is it possible that the Dem contributions he is referring to were for those vying for some kind of state/local office? Absolutely. Given that this is Texas we're talking about, it should be noted that a Texas Democrat is not a New England Democrat. There is reason you hear more and more about D to R defections in the South and it is because the LLL have taken over the Democratic Party...but that's another story. That said, if O'Neill is supposed to be neither D nor R, he probably is more conservative.

I think John O'Neill needs to come out and say who he donated what to. However...

DC,

This does not change the fundamental question of Kerry's various stories which accompany the record he has asked us to review (if only he were referring to his Senate record!). Somebody is lying on one side or the other. A larger number of the people who were there -including one Steve Gardner, who was on the boat with Kerry- disagree rather than agree with Kerry's various accounts of certain incidents (incl. the Bronze Star, 1st and 3rd Purple Hearts, and Christmas Eve (or any date) adventures in Cambodia.

The tactics that are being employed by the DNC's propaganda organ (a.k.a. the MSM) in dealing with these "problems" are silence and misdirection. These are old propaganda tactics and will not work in our information age. Of course, Kerry could clear all of this by releasing his records...assuming that he has nothing to hide.

You, and others, would be wise to ask for this as well. Otherwise, you run the risk of being on the wrong side of history (the truth will come out, even if Kerry makes into office). As far as I can see, this approach is the only one that makes sense. If Kerry's right, he'll be vindicated. If he's wrong, then a potential fraud would be exposed and not permitted to occupy the White House. Caveat Emptor.

Posted by: bdog57 at August 19, 2004 1:53 PM

Erik asked the question I was going to ask. Of course, if there is shrapnel in the leg, an Xray would verify that--xrays still show mine.

Posted by: RogerA at August 19, 2004 1:59 PM

"As someone else asked in a prevous thread:
What leg wound????"

Eric,

Perhaps, much like got got mixed up over the location of Cambodia and the date of Christmas, he is mistaking rice in his butt for metal in his leg.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 19, 2004 1:59 PM

Rick Ballard

If a candidate can produce proof that a smear is a smear, it is correct for him to take it head on.

Do you have some examples of this?

I wish I knew more about "public relations," in the sense of damage control------

You don't get into a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife situation when you refute a genuine smear?

Posted by: Catherine at August 19, 2004 2:00 PM

"from the Kerry campaign:

Today marks the end of the dishonest and disgusting smear campaign against John Kerry and his crewmates from Vietnam."

And so by royal fiat, his royal Kerryness, had declared the story endeth . . .

Not.

Meanwhile, Akefa, an apparently die hard Kerry supporter writes: "Well, I read part of the book everybody's talking about, and I think it's probably pretty truthful."

Golly, if even he thinks it's "pretty truthful", I wonder what all those swing voters in the swing states--who read the book or talk to somebody who has read the book, or who sees the add or talks to somebody who has seen the add--are going to think.

Even without the Cambodia/magic hat embroglio, Kerry seems to be running a bumbling campaign of late: He let Bush snooker him into coming out and saying he would have voted for the Iraq war even without evidence of WMDs. He made that silly remark about waging a more sensitive war on terror, and then whined like a baby when he got mocked for it (oh, the horror! Bad, Cheney, bad dog) Then he comes out against the European and Korean troop withdrawal, not a smart move in any event, but even less of a smart move when he had come out in favor of it just 18 days before.

And now the Bush campaign is running ads that point out how he missed 78% of his senate intelligence committee meetings. This is not likely to endear him to any voter with their head in a post 9-11 world.

Posted by: penwil at August 19, 2004 2:03 PM

My experience with journalists is that they believe that they are "informing the people". However, this usually means that they believe they are explaining the truth to the "common man", in a way so that the common man wont get it wrong. Just reporting the facts could mean that the "common man" dont understand the context, and might draw the wrong conclusions, so naturally, they help out by providing "proper context".

Or more simply put, most journalist have left leaning sympathies, and regard that perspective as context that should be reported.

I've also heard the excuse that a left perspective sells better, you'll get short simplistic articles, easy to read, simple nice sounding points, that provides a ready truth for the reader to keep, so he dont have to think for himself.

It's also been my experience that you could probably teach a reasonably clever chimp easier than you could an average journalist. Whenever I've been interviewed, I've been very careful to state basics facts, down to spelling out fieldspecific words, letter by letter, so they will at least spell it right. Yet almost all articles are full of factual errors, including the spelling of those words.

Posted by: Erik at August 19, 2004 2:07 PM

Okay, this is not about Kerry, and this is not about the Media, this is about a certain class of Democrats who hate Bush because they're frightened.

And it's about their way of thinking that some of us wedded to facts and reality have a hard time countering.

I'm trying to get inside their heads, and I can because I used to think in a similar manner (yes you can change the way you think, the way you think is just a habit like anything else.)

Yes, a habit. I bet Catherine would have something to say about that. But I digress...from the digression.

Onwards, and I'm thinking out loud here, if you are someone who 'hates Bush' so one of the things you hate is the Patriot Act for all the reasons people tell you to hate it...yet you are concerned about terrorists in this country

What do you do?

You secretly vote for Bush.

The reason is that he is keeping us safer with the Patriot Act. And if he wins you can continue to criticize him and be all for 'your civil rights' and be against the Patriot Act and be proud of your principles

Yet still be safe.

If Kerry wins there is the danger that the Patriot Act might be gutted.

You won't be as safe.

and

You can't protest that

(if you did, it would go against your principles)

Posted by: Syl at August 19, 2004 2:20 PM

Erik,

In re shrapnel in leg. He is obviousley referring to the self inflected shrapnel wound to "his ass" as he previously described it. This is dispositive proof that he doesn't know his leg from his ass and lends great support to the well known contention that he is unable to differentiate his head from his ass.

Catherine,

I'll search up a "head on" - McCain's rebuttal in the '00 SC primary comes to mind but there are better ones.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 19, 2004 2:22 PM

Occam’s Beard,

Not long ago Ted Turner visited Castro and expressed his admiration for the Cuban dictator.
That tells all I need to know about Turner's values.

BobT – “But I'll maintain that journalists should be required to posess some basic, independently-acquired domain knowledge before they're permitted to attempt to "inform" others.”

Oh, you get no argument from me there. It is something that I have been saying for years myself. In fact, part of contempt that journos have for business in general is that they have absolutely no real life experience in anything other than “constructing narratives”.
I was simply trying to point out that even if you are trained to value and pursue facts in your profession, it is no guarantee that you manage to transfer that skill to any other area of life.

Erik- “Just reporting the facts could mean that the "common man" dont understand the context, and might draw the wrong conclusions, so naturally, they help out by providing "proper context".

Just like priests before Reformation who insisted that only Holy Mother Church had a right to interpret Bible and whoever tried to do so on his own was a dangerous heretic best purified by fire.
Today we do not face a stake if we challenge the “established reality” ( i.e. established by MSM) but some do come close to excommunications – from families and friends.

Posted by: Katherine at