Ace of Spades HQ

« Why Won't the Media Insist Kerry Release His Military and Medical Records? | Main | Our Balanced Media, Redux: WaPo Reporterette Fellates John Forbes Kerry in Print »

August 19, 2004

Our Balanced Media: Numbers Don't Lie

Just submitted to the Ace of Spades HQ Washington desk by correspondent Aaron Burr:

[T]o date, The Washington Post has printed 1 story mentioning Kerry's "Apocalypse Now" fantasy in Cambodian waters. The New York Times? 0.

Yet, a NEXIS search of "Bush" w/10 "National Guard" w/10 "records" pulls up a whopping 34 such stories in the Post alone. Including nasty digs by Art Buchwald and Richard Cohen and such headlines as --

Bush's War-Era Records Damaged; Alabama Service Still Not Verified (July 10, 2004)

Bush's Guard Service In Question; Democrats Say President Shirked His
Duty in 1972 (Feb. 3, 2004)

Few Can Offer Confirmation Of Bush's Guard Service; Friends and
Acquaintances Lack Firsthand Knowledge (Feb. 15, 2004)

Many Gaps In Bush's Guard Records; Released Papers Do Not Document Ala.
Service (Feb. 14, 2004)

And the Times? 43 stories, including the expected Frank Rich sneer ("faded
into the memory hole along with the sketchy details of George W.'s Vietnam-dodging sashay through the Texas Air National Guard") and such headlines as --

Seeking Memories of Bush At an Alabama Air Base (Feb. 13, 2004)

Move to Screen Bush File in 90's Is Reported (Feb. 12, 2004)

...

When conservatives complain about the press' single-minded focus on Republican scandals, they counter by piously informing us that they are compelled to investigate any and all allegations until they've discovered the truth.

Isn't it terribly odd how that requirement vanishes into the ether when there's a liberal scandal?

MSNBC actually deigned to lower itself to report, obliquely, on the Kerry allegations.

The headline?

Military records counter a Kerry critic

Which of course suggests that new information has rubbished a charge.

But the facts say nothing of the sort. The "military records" which "counter" the Kerry critic are simply the official Naval records, which the critic has acknowledged as being the official records -- his charge has been all along that Kerry falsified his reports to get those medals, so the official naval account, taken largely from Kerry's self-reporting, do little to prove the actual historical record one way or another.

After promising, in the headline, that "records counter" the charges, the lib/reporter allows that the facts remain undetermined:

Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events.

For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow's boat, as Kerry's boat had sped down the river after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.

Gee-- how on earth did it come to be that the most-read part of the article states that "records counter" the Kerry allegation, when an actual account of the record, buried deep into the article, admits that there's "no convincing documentary evidence" to disprove or prove the main charge (i.e., that Kerry falsified the account)?

I wonder. I really do.

At any rate, this is the sort of grudging, "Records Disprove Kerry Charges (actually, maybe they don't)" coverage is the very best we can expect from our supremely objective media.

The good news, however, is that they are being forced against their will to cover the allegations at all.

There was never any proof for the Bush AWOL allegations, either-- in fact, quite a lot of evidence disproving those allegations. And yet those allegations stuck in the public's mind to a large degree.

Welcome to the party, pal.

posted by Ace at 01:36 AM

Comments

Yeah, I agree this is biased as hell. But what about that Rassman guy that Kerry fished out of the river? He "vividly" remembers getting shot at from both banks of the river. Meanwhile there are those two other guys on record in this story as saying there was no firing.

I don't think one group simply didn't hear it, or that the other group just imagined it. It's people shooting at you, and I doubt the VC were using silencers. You notice that sort of thing if it happens. Gets your attention. There was gunfire, or there wasn't.

So: At least two people are lying about the gunfire. Kerry has a lot to gain by lying, but I don't see what Rassman has to gain. Unless he's just grateful to Kerry for pulling him out of the drink. The other two vets--not as much to gain, and a whole lot to lose by taking this story public. Maybe they wanted to smear an anti-war hippie...that's what I would say if I were trying to defend Kerry.

Proves nothing, of course. Except that someone's not just mistaken, but lying.

Posted by: see-dubya on August 19, 2004 01:59 AM

Far be it from me to question a fellow vet, (yeah, right) but if more people say there was no gunfire than say there was, then the veracity of Rassman comes into question.

Makes me wonder what kind of a sweetheart deal Kerry is offering Rassman for his loyalty.

Band of Brothers my fat ass.

Posted by: Mr. Bowen on August 19, 2004 02:41 AM

and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument

Not even if they use the Michael Moore definition of 'documentary'?

Posted by: Jim on August 19, 2004 06:23 AM

It is a puzzlement, why a guy would try to hook up a billionaire with a big powerful job. Let me go think on this for a while and maybe I can figure out why a guy would want to lie for a billionaire.

Posted by: spongeworthy on August 19, 2004 09:13 AM

Rassman supposedly claims he was under water for the overwhelming majority of this time, so his account is hardly entirely trustworthy.

Posted by: HH on August 19, 2004 10:20 AM

If you're in a free-fire zone - and Rassmann was - and one of the boats has hit a mine - which it did - and you're in the water, how likely are you to think you're either being shot at, or about to be shot at?

And later, after you've gotten picked up, and the guy who came back and picked you up writes the report, stating that you were being shot at - how likely are you to "remember" being shot at?

Were there any bullet holes in any of the boats? Did anybody have to patch up any holes, or sustain any wounds (aside from Kerry smacking his shoulder on something when his boat lurched - the source of his third Purple Heart)?

Just askin', y'know...

Posted by: JB on August 19, 2004 11:16 AM

I suggest people write letters to the Washington Post ombudsman.

Michael Getler is the ombudsman for The Washington Post. Before taking on this position in November 2000, he served as executive editor of the International Herald Tribune from 1996 until 2000. He can be reached at (202) 334-7582 or by e-mail at ombudsman@washpost.com, or c/o The Washington Post, 1150 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20071

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/ombudsman/

Posted by: R Warfield on August 19, 2004 12:44 PM

The whole point is that the press WILL follow any story if it exposes new 'facts.' The only question then is "Why are there never any facts involved in allegations made by R's?" Answer: R's are (according to the MSM) stupid and can offer nothing to our progression toward a better society. And I'll bet they believe it too, which is what makes 'em dangerous.

Posted by: Birkel on August 19, 2004 02:19 PM

Check out the Daily Howler archives re: 2000 election. There's an opportunity here for an intrepid researcher to tie together the media's behavior then and now; to expose the soul of the media, as it were, and establish a pattern beyond a single issue and a single campaign. I wonder if the media has an instinct for payback if it feels it has been used. I know, I know. George Bush is pure as driven snow, but the media may think otherwise and that may be what's at the bottom of this.

Posted by: MSM Man on August 19, 2004 04:23 PM