pageok
pageok
pageok
Bloggers: Left/Right agree that Internet helps journalism. Disagree on whether the press is helping Obama:

In this week's National Journal blogger poll, the first question was "On balance, has journalism been helped more or hurt more by the rise of news consumption on the internet?" Eighty-nine percent of the Left and 65% of the Right said "helped more." I was among the minority who voted the other way. My comment: "News consumers have been helped, especially for national and international issues. Professional journalists have been hurt, since the number of jobs in New Media journalism is much smaller than the number of Old Media jobs which are disappearing."

Question two was "What do you think of the coverage of Barack Obama so far this year?" On the Right, 93% said "too easy," a position shared by only 17% on the Left. I voted "too easy," and added this comment: "Almost no accountability for Obama's flagrant breaking of his campaign promises about ethics and transparency. Very little coverage of his administration's endless string of diplomatic gaffes."

ruuffles (mail) (www):

Very little coverage of his administration's endless string of diplomatic gaffes.

Yes we know, when two women share a friendly embrace, the world is going to end. But when a man gives a woman an uninvited massage, its a-ok!
4.10.2009 11:22am
ruuffles (mail) (www):

Almost no accountability for Obama's flagrant breaking of his campaign promises about ethics and transparency.

Also, you forget to mention that Senate Republicans are holding two of his DOJ nominees hostage in order to stop him from releasing more Bush DOJ memos.
4.10.2009 11:27am
Malvolio:
On the Right, 93% said "too easy," a position shared by only 17% on the Left.
Wow. I don't regard myself as particularly right-wing, but I'd like to know what planet 83% of the self-identified Left is living on.

If George Bush had ever admitted he doesn't speak "Austrian", would we have ever heard the end of it? If the Bush White House had given the British PM a stack of (unreadable Region 1!) DVD, wouldn't there have been calls for resignations? If Condoleezza Rice had given one foreign dignitary a gag gift with a gross mistranslation and another a plaque with his own name misspelled, wouldn't the press have savaged her, instead of covering it up?

And what about Sean Delonas, the cartoonist who implied that Timothy Geithner wasn't as smart as a chimp? His career is effectively over, because Geithner's boss's father was an African and a chimpanzee looks something like a monkey and 50 years ago, "monkey" was a slur for Africans. Of course, the many cartoonists who actually drew Bush as a chimp, or as Hitler or as a handicapped child, apparently to the press, they were lions of dissent.

Now, I like Obama. He's still on his honeymoon with me. But to imaging the media aren't actually like doting maiden aunts is just -- that's just a hallucination.
4.10.2009 11:50am
Hans Bader (mail) (www):
The gaffe Dave Kopel is alluding to may be a huge by Vice President Biden, that most of the press chose not to report, in which Vice President Biden thanked Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero for his support in Iraq -- even though Zapatero is anti-American and not only pulled Spain's troops out of Iraq, but called on other European leaders assisting the U.S. to stop doing so.

With the U.S. government unable to even remember who its friends are, it's perhaps not surprising that Somali pirates have been emboldened to kidnap American seamen and seize our ships in the crucial shipping lanes leading to the Suez Canal. (CEI's Eli Lehrer has come up with a creative solution for the pirate problem).

The Obama Administration has broken campaign promises repeatedly and lied about a Supreme Court case that it made a big campaign issue.

Now, as Charles Krauthammer notes in the Washington Post, Obama is going through Europe, badmouthing the U.S. to try and curry favor with the European public. European leaders have responded by stiffing Obama and giving him none of what he asked for (like assistance in Afghanistan). Obama said there must consequences, not just empty words, against North Korea for shooting a missile over Japan, even as he voiced only empty words ("Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something," he said). The only concrete defense proposal Obama made is to cut the U.S.'s stockpile of nukes and eliminate Alaskan missile defense systems that might be useful against North Korean missiles. As Obama explains, only the U.S. has ever used nuclear weapons.
4.10.2009 12:02pm
Constantin:
I understand the basics psychology of why these polls you post every week show such divergent responses. But this one's baffling. It takes something like absolute self-delusion to think the press has been anything but a mouthpiece for the new president.
4.10.2009 12:03pm
Hans Bader (mail) (www):
Vice President Joe Biden committed a huge gaffe that most of the press chose not to report: Biden thanked Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero for his support in Iraq -- even though Zapatero is anti-American and not only pulled Spain's troops out of Iraq, but called on other European leaders assisting the U.S. to stop doing so.

With the U.S. government unable to even remember who its friends are, it's perhaps not surprising that Somali pirates have been emboldened to kidnap American seamen and seize our ships in the crucial shipping lanes leading to the Suez Canal. CEI's Eli Lehrer has come up with a creative solution for the pirate problem.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently visited Cuba and licked Casto's boots, calling him an "inspiring" visionary and an "amazing human being." (Never mind that racism against people of African heritage is far more pervasive in Cuba than here. Much of Cuba's population is black. But how many Communist Party leaders are black? Almost none. It's no accident.)

The Obama Administration has broken campaign promises repeatedly and lied about a Supreme Court case that it made a big campaign issue.

Now, as Charles Krauthammer notes in the Washington Post, Obama is going through Europe, badmouthing the U.S. to try and curry favor with the European public. European leaders have responded by stiffing Obama and giving him none of what he asked for (like assistance in Afghanistan). Obama said there must consequences, not just empty words, against North Korea for shooting a missile over Japan, even as he voiced only empty words ("Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something," he said). The only concrete defense proposal Obama made is to cut the U.S.'s stockpile of nukes and eliminate planned Alaskan missile defense systems that might be useful against North Korean missiles. As Obama explains, only the U.S. has ever used nuclear weapons.
4.10.2009 12:05pm
Sarcastro (www):
Hey, did anyone else here Biden made a huge gaffe?

Also, some liberals stupidly love Castro. Conservatives, on the other hand, hate ll dictators, including Franco and Pinochet.

Obama said the US and Europe need to act better with each-other. That's Diplomacy, and it's not something I like to see in my America!

Lilly Ledbetter was treated fairly and anyone who disagrees with my objective position is an idiot!

Finally, if Obama doesn't fix intractable problems like North Korea, he's a total failure.

And the press doesn't yet sound like right-wing blogs. BIAS! BIAAASSS!
4.10.2009 12:34pm
Sarcastro (www):

It takes something like absolute self-delusion to think the press has been anything but a mouthpiece for the new president.


Yes, it is self-delusion, just as offering no facts other than the other side is crazy is an argument.
4.10.2009 12:41pm
gab:
Hans Bader says:


"Now, as Charles Krauthammer notes in the Washington Post, Obama is going through Europe, badmouthing the U.S. to try and curry favor with the European public."


So Hans, let me guess. You believe the press has been "too easy" on the President?
4.10.2009 12:55pm
Sarah K. (mail):
Maybe it's the press coverage or maybe these things are in the eye of the beholder, but I have no idea what "endless string of diplomatic gaffes" we are talking about.

In any case, I'd rather have the press focus on things of more substance than social blunders.
4.10.2009 1:36pm
RPT (mail):
"HB:

With the U.S. government unable to even remember who its friends are, it's perhaps not surprising that Somali pirates have been emboldened to kidnap American seamen and seize our ships in the crucial shipping lanes leading to the Suez Canal."

Well, that was a quick response to attribute blame. Did Somali piracy begin on 1.21.09, or is it that the prior administration did nothing to address this problem? They are now "emboldened" because of what? They got a memo that defense spending was going to be "cut" to the tune of a 4% increase? And CEI agrees with its own "solution"? I think that letters of marque should be immediately issued to tough guys John Bolton, Eric Prince, Jonah Goldberg &William Kristol to allow them to bring "free market" justice to the high seas. HB, you've got to do better than this silliness.
4.10.2009 1:38pm
Al (mail):

Also, some liberals stupidly love Castro. Conservatives, on the other hand, hate ll dictators, including Franco and Pinochet.


Sarcastro, I must have missed all of the conservatives volunteering to go down to Chile to work in the copper mines in support of the revolution. Saying something nice about Chile's retirement system, or simply pointing out that Pinochet voluntarily gave up power, pales somewhat in comparison with the adulation that Castro has received over the last 50 years or so, wouldn't you agree?
4.10.2009 1:40pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
Sarah K. (mail):
Maybe it's the press coverage or maybe these things are in the eye of the beholder, but I have no idea what "endless string of diplomatic gaffes" we are talking about.


Mostly silly stuff like the DVDs and the reset button, which are damaging Obama so much that he's extremely popular overseas. When critics can't find substantial stuff to criticize, they harp on trivia.
4.10.2009 5:21pm
Sarcastro (www):

Viva Pinochet!

As far as I'm concerned, the man was a hero of the highest caliber.



etc. etc. etc.

Course, those people aren't real conservatives, just crazy people. Like that Milton guy.

Unlike the Left, where the Real Liberals are the crazy ones!
4.10.2009 5:34pm
John Moore (mail) (www):
Anyone who pays critical attention to the mainstream media can't help but notice the medias obsession with reporting every Republican blunder (started not with Bush but Reagan), and their total lack of interest in even substantive issues about Democrats.

In 2004 I participated in a national Vietnam Vets effort against John Kerry - starting BEFORE he had secured the nomination. We worked in tandem with the Swift Boat vets. Interacting with the press during that time, and observing the radical bias in reporting, was bind boggling (and vomit )!

If you think we should ignore the stupid button or Obama not speaking "Austrian," what do you say about the media's obsession with "Bushisms" or going farther back, their insistence on tarring Dan Quayle for his spelling of "potato?" How about the heavy blame for Bush on Katrina, while there was almost no reporting on the much more sigificant failure of N.O.'s mayor and LA's governor, who have blood on their hands for sure?

I can only conclude that those who do not see this bias are ignoring other sources of information, so they are not aware of all the Democrat stuff that is ignored - either that or they are in denial.
4.10.2009 6:04pm
Sarcastro (www):
[People who accuse the media of not giving the whole picture are guilty of the same thing. Sample bias makes you sure the media was all about Bush hate and not negative enough about Obama.

Sure, the media has narratives, and Bush's being dumb narrative fit nicely with his gaffes. Obama's narrative seems to be that he's an empty suit, where it's not gaffes but lack of progress and wrongheaded policies that the media talks about.

Examples: The defense "cuts" that aren't, his throwing the Korea ball to the UN, Geitner, the whole Tax Evasion of so many of his nominees.

Not that that would be enough for you, not that it matters that this is the first 100 days, when the media and public opinion is traditionally easy on a President. You want the media to feel like you do about Obama, or it's biased. But chances are you are not at the center, politically or otherwise. And you know this. Yet, you still yell about bias.

Sorry, but things even out. For every MSNBC there is a FOX. For every liberal editor, there is a conservative publisher.

Not that the media is perfect; the lack of yelling about Obama's continuing to stonewall re: Gitmo and Torture and domestic spying should be reported on. But the media took quite a while to cotton to it back in the day as well, I recall.]
4.10.2009 6:42pm
Constantin:
Sarcastro:

"Yes, it is self-delusion, just as offering no facts other than the other side is crazy is an argument."

Getting lectured about the merits of substantive argument by a guy who has developed a second-rate Jon Stewart routine of snarky one-liners for an online legal website. How charming.
4.10.2009 7:55pm
Sarcastro (www):
Constantin:

[Ad hominem, however flattering, does not count as an argument.]
4.10.2009 8:20pm
John Moore (www):

Sorry, but things even out. For every MSNBC there is a FOX. For every liberal editor, there is a conservative publisher.



An assertion without basis, which is in fact false.

The main newspapers are all liberal (name a conservative one of any size other than NY Post). Broadcast TV is uniformly liberal, including government subsidized NPR. Cable TV has one conservative stronghold - FOX News - which, not surprisingly, is highly rated since conservativs have noplace else to go for visual news.

Talk radio, which is sold as entertainment, is conservative - again because conservatives are looking for someone, anyone who isn't putting out news from the other side.

A Boston Globe guy once quipped that the newspaper bias was worth 15% of the vote, and then quickly shut up when he realized what he was really saying.
4.10.2009 9:08pm
Sarcastro (www):
[John Moore

An assertion without basis, which is in fact false.


Followed by a number of bare assertions. Which I will promptly follow up with my own, as that is the custom of these here internets.

You kind of remind me of Media Matters yelling about the conservative bias of MSNBC. It seems to me quite likely that you see the MSM as liberal because YOU are to the right of center, and wish the media to parrot your ideology. But it doesn't. Therefore, it is liberal.

You protest that liberals are all over newspapers and Broadcast TV, but brush off Cable TV and radio. Even assuming your diagnosis is true, that hardly seems unbalanced, especially considering how anemic newspapers are these days.

But your diagnosis of who is liberal is wrong as well. I'll give you that the staff is liberal in many of the places you complain about (though that may be as much about the middle-class white-color demographics of journalists than anything else), but the leftism of the output is debatable.

Again, see the defense "cuts" that aren't, criticism of Obama's treatment of the stock market, of his policies about North Korea, Daschile. It's clear the media are not all about boosting Obama. Somehow criticism of Obama comes out of his mouthpiece! He must hate himself.]
4.10.2009 9:20pm
John Moore (www):

You kind of remind me of Media Matters yelling about the conservative bias of MSNBC. It seems to me quite likely that you see the MSM as liberal because YOU are to the right of center, and wish the media to parrot your ideology. But it doesn't. Therefore, it is liberal.

Actually, I've had nice discussions with Media Matters folks.

It's very easy for you to take the "well, you just claim bias because they don't say what you want approach." It's a simple argument, requires no factual backing, and causes you to appear neutral.

In fact, it's a tactic the press uses frequently.

However, when you are deep in events, know that happened, know how it was reported, know how the reporting was decided (in one case), know closeted conservative insiders, and have a sense of proportion and history, you cannot fail to come to the conclusion that, on most issues, the US media falls to the left of center.

I was in that position in 2004 as a national level activist with Vietnam vets against Kerrey. I worked with our own group and the Swift Boat vets - remember them? As a result, we were deeply involved in investigating Kerry's claims, and knew the facts about the swifties, even as the press mischaracterized them in editorials disguised as reporting.

Let me give you a simple example. Imagine a candidate for the presidential nomination whose primary narrative is his Vietnam veteran hero status and the implied expertise for waging the war on terror. A group of veterans with whom he served during his four months in Vietnam, including every one in his chain of command at all of his postings in 'Nam (with the exception of two who were silent), hold a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington. Representatives of all the major news media are there. One at a time, each of these individuals states, in his own words, that he considers the candidate unfit to be the commander-in-chief and explains why. This is military combat veterans from enlisted up through flag rank (including a spokesman for the Commander In Chief, Pacific - the co-commander of the entire Vietnam War).

Do you think this is a newsworthy event? How should it be reported?

Now, do you even remember the reporting of the actual event?

Also, consider that it was reported uncritically by the media, starting with the Boston Globe, that the candidate, Kerry, received an early honorable discharge from the Navy in 1970 (this before his records were released). Then when his records were partially released, his discharged turns out to have been in 1978, with no explanation for how it was extended from the appropriate date (1972). The media NEVER investigated that discrepancy (they were looking for a dentist in Alabama). For that matter, how much emphasis did the media put on Kerry's refusal (to this day) to release the full extent of his military records, even as Bush released every single bit?

The discharge date may sound unimportant, especially if you are not a veteran of the time. But in fact it is critical for two reasons: (1) Kerry was an officer of the military during his anti-war efforts - efforts which included meeting with enemy representatives, and (2) Kerry should have been discharged in 1972. Why was his discharge not until the Carter amnesty years?

Sound like something the "investigative" media should at least look into?
How much of this did you hear during that campaign?

That candidate made the centerpiece of his convention performance the appearance of his crew-mates from his boat - but the media never mentioned they only served a few days with him (others served longer - they weren't present - one was a member of the Swift Boat opposition).

Next, consider that in my discussions with media leaders and educators, I was told that the purpose of reporting is not to give the objective facts (which was reported to not be possible), but to "advance social justice." Do you know the meaning of that phrase?

Then we consider the other candidate - also a veteran from the same period. He served courageously flying a dangerous armed aircraft, but did not participate in combat (although he volunteered for it). The reporting about him focuses on whether he dodged his duty (he did to some extent, as was routine in the reserves), with reporters even trying to track down a dentist to see if he was present on a given day at a given base. As an aside, let me mention that I lost a crew of my squadron, including a good friend, in a training accident, and my very best friend was killed doing exactly what Bush did - flying a dangerous fighter in the reserves. This was not trivial duty.

Yet look at how Bush's service was characterized.

Even more tellingly, note that this came up in 2004, when the Democratic candidate was campaigning on his war hero status. In 2000, when the Democrat candidate was also a reservist, the issue never came up. Odd, eh? Or for that matter, when in 1992, the Republican candidate was an extraordinary combat veteran and the Democratic candidate was a draft dodger, we didn't hear much about that either.

I could list hundreds of other issues, but these are important ones where the facts are readily available (other than Kerry's full military record).


You protest that liberals are all over newspapers and Broadcast TV, but brush off Cable TV and radio. Even assuming your diagnosis is true, that hardly seems unbalanced, especially considering how anemic newspapers are these days.


Nice try. Where do most people get their news? Hint: not Fox news or conservative talk radio. Shall we mention NPR, which might as well be "National Peoples Radio" from its far left slant? Or just the regular networks, which simply read from the wires (AP and Reuters) - which have the same bias as the rest of the main stream media and usually take their lead from the New York Times or the Washington Post.

BTW... It's not like this is some sort of plot. It's the natural result of the far-left tilt of liberal arts academics (including Journo professors), the liberal idealism that often causes folks to go into journalism (especially post-Watergate), and the powerful echo chamber and ego/status reward system of the profession.


I'll give you that the staff is liberal in many of the places you complain about (though that may be as much about the middle-class white-color demographics of journalists than anything else), but the leftism of the output is debatable.


Of course it's debatable. But one side of the debate is right - on both senses.
4.10.2009 10:19pm
Sarcastro (www):
[A few points, and then bed. Busy day tomorrow.

First, I am taking the easy argument. But it is what I believe, so I'll have to swallow hard and take the easy rout.

NPR is liberal, but far left? Puh-leas. Listen to a little bit of "Democracy Now" if you want a socialist take on things. Course FAR left is the Commies, but you don't see too many of those around.

And as for the main body of your post, it seemed like you were arguing that because the MSM didn't pick up on the Swift Boat stuff fast enough, it was biased. I'm not going to go into the Swift Boat stuff, but it's pretty right-wing stuff. No, I don't think you'd have had a better time if the tables were turned, despite Rather being fooled by those forged documents.]
4.10.2009 10:37pm
John Moore (www):
Okay, far left only applies to some NPR stuff. Most of it is genteel liberal.

This is the sort of argument that can go around and around. I thought I could contribute somewhat unique due to my insider experience - hence the Kerry stuff.

The Swift Boat movement was not only not
"pretty right-wing," but many of the guys were apolitical. They held that press conference when they did to derail Kerry while the Democrats still had a chance to nominate someone else (hardly a right wing move).

My example of the press conference was just one of a whole lot I could have given from that year. The press conference is striking because it was truly a historical event, and was either ignored, or reported in a strikingly slanted way (Rather smeared the Swifties in the only national TV repor ton it). It is hardly my whole case.

The Swift Boat movement started when the original commander (Admiral Hoffman) found out about the medals Kerry received while under his command. He was, to put it mildy, really upset about that, since he alaready despised Kerry and hadn't authorized those medals. He and John O'Neil (whom he immediately called) then started contacting other swifties, and the movement formed around them. Their original goal: get this despised character to stop using their service as part of his campaign. They also had another big beef: Kerry publicly claimed to have participated in atrocities while in Vietnam (as part of his smear campaign against all of us who served), and since his short combat services was all on Swift Boats, it naturally slandered the swifties.

The media also kept repeating Democrat charges that this was a Karl Rove operation - something they knew wasn't possible due to McCain-Feingold.

BTW, if you want to hear the inside story on the whole thing, check out this. O'Neil is pretty amusing in addition to laying out the whole thing. I did this interview a few years ago.
4.10.2009 10:54pm
vigilant user (mail):
Take away the MSM MEGAPHONE.
Cancel all print and cable media until the 2010 election is over. Now is a great time to hurt them - they are already wounded financially.

HOLD A TEA PARTY!
Picket your local news station along with the Statehouse. Take pictures of them ignoring you. POST YOUR pics on a blog. We have a voice on the net and we WILL use it to SAVE AMERICA.

Contact Young Republicans at a local university to help set up a TEA PARTY.

Contact YOUR local office of AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY for help, including inviting local politicians to attend and perhaps even speak. AFP website is: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/
4.11.2009 6:26am
flyerhawk:
It seems very strange to me that you using the swift boats as an example of left wing media bias. Has a 527 group EVER had more notoriety than that group?

As for your claim only the New York Post of major newspapers is conservative is, well, surreal. How bout the Wall Street Journal? How bout the Chicago Tribune which endorsed a Democrat last year for the first time in over a 100 years? Philly News? Boston Herald? Pittsburgh Gazette?

The whole media bias thing is based on the New York Times and Washington Post being perceived as hard core lefty and maybe the L.A. Times being sprinkled in.

In the heavily liberal Northeast cities there are a major conservative newspaper competing with the dominant lefty papers.

Comparing 8 years of Bush with 100 days of Obama also is utterly ridiculous. Who the heck knows what trivial crap the media will harp on once the honeymoon is over. They have already shown a willingess to engage in it already.

Just because the Times doesn't read like Powerline or Redstate does NOT mean that the media has been notably lenient on Obama compared to past Presidents.
4.11.2009 5:29pm
geokstr:

Sarcastro:
Course FAR left is the Commies, but you don't see too many of those around.

True, because we don't call them "commies" anymore. Now the term of art is "Marxist professors", some of whom were actually sought out by a former candidate for the presidency, according to his own books.
4.11.2009 7:19pm
John Moore (www):

It seems very strange to me that you using the swift boats as an example of left wing media bias. Has a 527 group EVER had more notoriety than that group?


That's one of the reasons I chose them - the inappropriate notoriety this band of American combat veterans gained. The other reason is because I worked with them and knew them and hence know exactly how biased the reporting was. Would you care to debate specifics about them? For example, why do you consider them "notorious?"

The newspaper bias is most important with NYT and WAPO, but don't forget Reuters, AP, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR - all of whom live in the same echo chamber whose values and narratives are indeed dominated by NYT and WAPO.

Comparing 8 years of Bush with 100 days of Obama also is utterly ridiculous.


How about Quayle? Then there was Clinton, whose scandalous background and draft dodging were either covered up by the press or whitewashed. As for Obama, have you forgotten about last year, the tingling of the leg, the worshipful coverage, the failure to cover anything substantive about him, the whitewashing of Rev Wright, the trashing of Sarah Palin?

Remember also that in Bush's first 100 days, the big stories were about how he had stolen the whole election.
4.12.2009 1:03am
flyerhawk:
Once you conflate your own biases with objective reporting.

I have no desire to engage in a battle of the Swiftvets. Regardless of your views of them, they WERE a political attack group and treated as such.

Dan Quayle? Really? You want to bring up someone from 20 years ago?

Clinton's scandalous background was covered up or whitewashed? Are you serious? Finding past women was the preferred past time of Beltway reporters.

How does Obama's campaign against Clinton show a liberal bias?

I don't ever recall someone's pastor having as much influence as Obama's yet you feel that there wasn't ENOUGH coverage of the guy.

Sarah Palin has no one to blame but herself.

It seems to me that you just don't like negative coverage of Republicans and feel that the media need to pummel every attack on Democrats. You certainly haven't shown much evidence of objectivity.
4.12.2009 11:23am
Anonymous66 (mail):

"For every MSNBC there is a FOX. For every liberal editor, there is a conservative publisher."


Let's get away from the 'bare assertions' and do a comparison using the PEJ's study in the last election cycle:
http://www.journalism.org/node/13442

Obama positive/negative stories overall:
35.8%/29.2%
McCain positive/negative stories overall:
14.2%/57.3%
Obama positive/negative in newspapers:
45.1%/27.5%
McCain positive/negative in newspapers:
6.1%/69.4%
Obama positive/negative network (ABC; NBC; CBS) totals:
48.6%/27.0%; 43.2%/20.5%; 20.5%/27.3%
McCain positive/negative network (ABC; NBC; CBS) totals:
14.7%/55.9%; 16.7%/53.7%; 8.2%/57.1%
Obama positive/negative CNN; MSNBC:
36.1%/38.7%; 43.2%/13.5%
McCain positive/negative CNN; MSNBC:
12.6%/61.3%; 9.9%/72.8%

What do we see here? The media generally and by specific outlet was much more positive towards Obama than McCain and much more negative towards McCain than Obama.

And now we will add FOX into the specific mix:
Obama positive/negative FOX:
25.2%/40.0%
McCain positive/negative FOX:
22.2%/39.8%

FOX compared to the other outlets was actually (gasp) balanced in their coverage.

So for every biased MSNBC+CNN+ABC+CBS+NBC+Newspapers generally there is a balanced FOX.

Oh, and the majority of the campaign donations from major media executives (not just editors) goes to Democrats.
4.12.2009 11:46am
flyerhawk:
From the same study...

One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions. Obama's coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obama's numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain's numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.



Generally when you always up in the polls you are going to have more favorable news coverage if only because horse race stories will much more likely be positive for you.
4.12.2009 12:06pm
Anonymous66 (mail):

McCain's numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.

They did not do a complete breakdown eight years ago.
But lets compare:
Obama positive/negative stories overall:
35.8%/29.2%
McCain positive/negative stories overall:
14.2%/57.3%

Bush v. Gore
Bush positive/negative overall:
24%/49%
Gore positive/negative overall:
13%/56%


McCain/Gore about the same.
Obama/Bush clearly favouring Obama.
(Bush/Gore favouring Bush but much closer in negative coverage while and the difference in positive is clearly in Bush's favour re Gore, the positive is 10 points difference rather than the 20 for either Kerry or Obama).

Bush v. Kerry
Bush positive/negative overall:
14%/59%
Kerry positive/negative overall:
34%/25%
And again both Obama and Kerry clearly favoured over Bush.
4.12.2009 1:17pm
Hans Bader:
The press immediately investigated Joe the Plumber after he asked Obama a skeptical question.

But they turned a blind eye to the lies of Lilly Ledbetter, who was used in campaign ads by Obama and was the subject of countless mailers by state democratic parties.

Obama lied about the Ledbetter case repeatedly, but virtually none in the press reported it.

The press also ignored Joe Biden's recent embarrassing gaffe in Spain, where he confused the position on Iraq of Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero, thanking him for helping us in Iraq when Zapatero was not only a vocal critic of the U.S. and its intervention in Iraq, and campaigned on pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq, but encouraged other European leaders to likewise not help the U.S.
4.12.2009 4:01pm
flyerhawk:
No, Hans. They didn't immediately start investigating Joe the Plumber. He was a nobody until John McCain decided to reference a dozen times in the next Presidential debate.

As general rule, a person's credibility and objectivity is inversely proportional to their use of word lie.
4.12.2009 4:47pm
John Moore (www):
flyerhawk

I have no desire to engage in a battle of the Swiftvets. Regardless of your views of them, they WERE a political attack group and treated as such.

No, they were a political attack group and were treated like a hyperpartisan attack group - and smeared. I'm not surprised you're afraid to debate this issue with someone who was involved enough to know the facts.


Dan Quayle? Really? You want to bring up someone from 20 years ago?

Do you think the leftward tilt of the main stream media is a recent phenomenon?


Clinton's scandalous background was covered up or whitewashed? Are you serious? Finding past women was the preferred past time of Beltway reporters.

Only after he was safely elected. Meanwhile, The American Spectator, a right wing publication that is fun to read but a bit dodgy on accuracy, dug up things that accurately predicted Clinton's future problems - and they published them in 1992 while the main stream media looked the other way.
4.12.2009 8:52pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
moore:

they were a political attack group and were treated like a hyperpartisan attack group - and smeared


No, they weren't "smeared." They were correctly condemned as being "dishonest and dishonorable." Then again, maybe you want to claim that the person who described them that way is a liar himself.

And speaking of dishonest, maybe you can explain why O'Neil said "I was never in Cambodia," even though he personally told Nixon "I was in Cambodia" (video).
4.12.2009 10:24pm
John Moore (www):
They were smeared. The fact that you can grab a statement from John McCain, who would do anything rather than feel involved with an attack ad (because of his deeply ingrained sense of honor), is meaningless.

O'Neil was never in Cambodia. However, the media matters smear clip is a really good example of how to tell a lie by cherry picking. Do you really believe, after watching the clip you provide, that O'Neil is a liar?

How much do you actually know about John O'Neil? Do you know who he wanted to win the presidency in 2004?

But back to the media and their smear job... they consistently reported that SBVT was a "Karl Rove" operation. Can you support that assertion?

For that matter, can you explain the treatment of veteran journalist Carlton Sherwood after he made a movie of former Vietnam POWs condemning Kerry? Can you explain why the highest ranking POW from the war condemned Kerry as a traitor (using the Constitutional language but not the word) on the floor of the Senate? Are all these guys partisan liars? Are those POWs right wing operatives? Why did the media participate in the successful attempt to suppress this documentary, rather than supporting a fellow journalist whose work was being suppressed by the Kerry campaign? Why did they report this former long time board member of the Washington Press Club as a "fringe journalist?"

Are you aware that a several baseless (SLAP) lawsuits were filed against Vietnam Vets and POWs over this, after the election, and that these also went mostly unreported?
4.12.2009 11:57pm
flyerhawk:
John moore,

How can you possibly say that Clinton's shenanigans were only brought up after he was elected? Gennifer Flowers was certainly before he was elected.

As for the swiftvets, you are willing to concede that they were a political attack group but choose to use the nebulous term hyperpartisan to suggest that they were somehow unfairly attacked. Colorful adjectives don't change the facts.
4.12.2009 11:58pm
John Moore (www):
flyerhawk,

I am not "conceding" they are a political attack group, because there is nothing to concede, unless you conclude that this automatically makes them to be liarss. They were a political attack group in the sense that they strongly objected to one of the candidates for president. This is wrong?

The attacks against them were in fact highly slanted. The media, from before the end of the first press conference (we had a guy sitting in their midst) had decided that these guys couldn't possibly be right (the media had no evidence of that, but they decided), and every article after that was chosen to discredit them. Obviously it worked, from what some on this board have been brainwashed to believe.

For example, on of the members chose to modify his affidavit (yes, all allegations at the first press conference were from sworn affidavits). The modification was minor and technical, and the affidavit (which I had a copy of) explicitly stated that the modifications were technical and not material to the primary meaning.

The press uniformly reported this as "swift boat critic of Kerry recants."

Is it un-american to criticize a candidate? Or just to criticize the annointed Democrat candidate?
4.13.2009 12:26am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
moore:

O'Neil was never in Cambodia.


This is what he said to Nixon: "I was in Cambodia" (video). He later wrote "no one could cross the border." If you're having a conversation with the president of the United States, do you think it's appropriate to claim that you crossed the border, even though you didn't? I guess your point must be that "in Cambodia" means one thing when Kerry says it, and something else when O'Neil says it.

The fact that you can grab a statement from John McCain, who would do anything rather than feel involved with an attack ad (because of his deeply ingrained sense of honor), is meaningless.


McCain didn't just say he didn't want to be "involved with an attack ad." And he didn't just say it was dishonorable. He said it was "dishonest." Simple question: was the ad dishonest, or not? And if you're claiming McCain is wrong, then you should tell us what you know about Vietnam that he doesn't.

O'Neil and his gang made many false claims. A scrupulously documented reference that thoroughly dismantles the SBVT nonsense is here.

The fundamental dishonesty of SBVT is that they opposed Kerry because of what he did after he left Vietnam. But instead of just criticizing him on that basis, they made up stories about prior events. In particular, they contradicted the statements they themselves had made, at the time. George Elliot, one of the main SBVT members, said years ago that Kerry was "highly courageous in the face of enemy fire," and "exhibited all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment."

The press uniformly reported this as "swift boat critic of Kerry recants."


Elliot did recant. He said he had made "a terrible mistake." And in a 2004 interview, he said "This was an exemplary action. There's no question about it."

Maybe your claim is that like McCain, Elliot is inclined to say things that are "meaningless." Because he seems to have a hard time sticking with one story.
4.13.2009 7:52am
John Moore (www):

This is what he said to Nixon: "I was in Cambodia" (video). He later wrote "no one could cross the border."

This may fool people who didn't follow your link, but it is an utterly dishonest representation of the conversation.


O'Neil and his gang made many false claims. A scrupulously documented reference that thoroughly dismantles the SBVT nonsense is here.

O'Neil responded to that with a book. Have you read it.

Of all the claims the SBVT made, there were a couple that could not be substantiated. That, of course, caused people like you and the media to claim that they were thoroughly discredited. Nonsense. You are aware, of course, that libel torts brought against O'Neil on that basis failed. Right?


The fundamental dishonesty of SBVT is that they opposed Kerry because of what he did after he left Vietnam. But instead of just criticizing him on that basis, they made up stories about prior events. In particular, they contradicted the statements they themselves had made, at the time. George Elliot, one of the main SBVT members, said years ago that Kerry was "highly courageous in the face of enemy fire," and "exhibited all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment."


In 1996, Kerry was criticized by a political opponent for taking part in atrocities in Vietnam. A number of later SBVT members defended him from those charges, since they knew that (contrary to Kerry's own words), the Swift Boats were not involved in atrocities.


Elliot did recant. He said he had made "a terrible mistake." And in a 2004 interview, he said "This was an exemplary action. There's no question about it."

Read your own link about what Elliot wrote in his first and second affidavit. You are twisting the truth.

Furthermore, by saying he had no "first hand" knowledge, he means he wasn't present at the event. Others who were present supported SBVT's report. Rassman himself was in no position to affirm or deny the report, as he was under water most of the time. He reported there was heavy fire after he was in the water, and there was - swift boats hosing down the area around the mine detonation. However, there was no evidence of return fire. In fact, the Swift Boats, made of thin aluminum, had no bullet hits (which would have been inevitable in the "storm of fire") - as documented by the repair logs.

Furthermore, the "Navy records" were often based on reports by Kerry himself, who volunteered to write far more than his share of after action reports (now we know why)

The fundamental dishonesty of SBVT is that they opposed Kerry because of what he did after he left Vietnam. But instead of just criticizing him on that basis, they made up stories about prior events.
4.13.2009 12:48pm
John Moore (www):
The fundamental dishonesty of SBVT is that they opposed Kerry because of what he did after he left Vietnam. But instead of just criticizing him on that basis, they made up stories about prior events.
4.13.2009 12:49pm
John Moore (www):

The fundamental dishonesty of SBVT is that they opposed Kerry because of what he did after he left Vietnam. But instead of just criticizing him on that basis, they made up stories about prior events.


Kerry was also despised in Vietnam. His purple hearts for trivial wounds, from the very start, made him unpopular. His fellow officers were taken aback by his re-enacting battle scenes with crewmen taking videos of him (with a camera he had brought along) as if it were combat. His last commander hinted that he approved the last purpose heart in order to get Kerry out of his command (3 purple hearts meant a ticket home).

Also, the SBVT went after Kerry's war record because they were offended at his running as a hero on their service. It was distasteful, dishonest and deeply offensive to them.

Consider how many people he served with, and how much there was in it for them to support him (his "crew members" got glory and goodies). Don't you find it surprising that only a few guys, who served with him a few days, turned up publicly to support him?

In the case of the mine incident, the other boat commanders affirmed that Kerry fled the area immediately, leaving Rassman in the water. Kerry reported he was under heavy fire for kilometers in the event, which is interesting since there were no bullet holes in his boat. When Kerry returned and picked up Rassman, another of the boats (which had stayed with the damaged boat and its severely wounded crewmen, as per combat doctrine) was about to pick up Rassman himself.

So who has a better idea of what happened - an army guy who was in the water, staying under as much as he could because he believed he was under fire, (there were three boats firing dual '50s and single M-60's on full auto through the incident, filling the water with casings and making a racket), or the boat captains, who had a good view of events and were responsible for the inter-boat tactics and coordination?

BTW, Kerry got a purple heart for that mission - for a bruise and minor cut he got. He claimed it was from a second mine going off, but nobody else reported that mine; nor was the tactical disposition of the boats appropriate for Kerry's boat having hit a mine.

SBVT went after Kerry for claiming to be a hero when they didn't consider him so. They went after him for obtaining medals they would have rejected in disgust, and for obtaining fraudulently based on after action reports that he wrote or that he provided all the information for. They went after him for accusing them (and all of us) of war crimes, and for colluding with the enemy after the war. They went after him for his cowardice. He volunteered for the swift boats when they were only involved in the low risk Operation Market-Time, which did not go up the rivers. His first assignment up-river, he avoided any action, and his commander assigned his boat to simply patrol up and down the middle of the Mekong until he could be reassigned to a different command.

The press, as you have done, picked at small pieces of a large body of evidence, only publicizing that which supported their narrative: that the SBVT were a Republican operation, created by Karl Rove, to dishonestly discredit Kerry.

Nothing you have said supports that allegation.
4.13.2009 1:33pm
John Moore (www):
Oh, one more thing. "Who knows more about Vietnam, McCain or..."

McCain was in a prison camp the entire four months of Kerry's service (and a whole lot longer). He had no knowledge of Kerry's service. He was defending a fellow senator, and reacting to political activity he disagrees with: ordinary citizens criticizing politicians. After all, McCain-Feingold is all about restricting that activity. McCain's credibility on SBVT was zero.

Finally, you ignore the POWs who joined SBVT in attacking Kerry, but then, so did the press. The POWs, of course, were only interested in Kerry's post-service behavior. But they had a very strong interest and a compelling story to tell, about how Kerry's activities directly affected them in their captivity. That, too, was buried by the press (especially the Sherwood documentary, which was prevented from being shown by threats of lawsuits from wealthy Kerry backers).
4.13.2009 1:36pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
it is an utterly dishonest representation of the conversation.


There is nothing elsewhere in the conversation which changes the meaning of the simple words "in Cambodia." In O'Neil wasn't "in Cambodia," why did he tell Nixon he was "in Cambodia?" There are only two possibilities: either O'Neil was near Cambodia, or he was in Cambodia. Those two things are not the same. What O'Neil said is the latter.

Please note that SBVT made a very big deal about Kerry using those exact words: "in Cambodia." It's nice to know that the exact same words are supposed to have a different meaning when O'Neil utters them.

O'Neil responded to that with a book.


You're claiming that O'neil's book responded to the facts presented here. Really? That's fascinating. Unfit for Command was published on 8/25/04. The web site was first created on 8/21/04 (and most of it was written later). The book was written in four days? O'Neil has mastered the art of time travel? I had no idea.

The problems described here are not addressed in O'Neil's book, or anywhere else. Likewise for the problems described here.

Of all the claims the SBVT made, there were a couple that could not be substantiated.


The problem goes beyond claims that "could not be substantiated." Many claims were proven to be false. That's why McCain called them "dishonest." Ten specific falsehoods are documented here (pdf).

libel torts brought against O'Neil on that basis failed


A libel suit was filed against O'Neil? I didn't know. Please tell us about it.

he wasn't present at the event


If Elliott "wasn't present at the event," then you should explain why he said "This was an exemplary action. There's no question about it." And you should explain why he said that Kerry was "highly courageous in the face of enemy fire," and "exhibited all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment."

You're telling us that when O'Neil and Kerry say the same words, those words don't have the same meaning. You're also telling us that we should take Elliot seriously when he condemns Kerry, but not when he praises Kerry. Makes perfect sense.
4.13.2009 1:41pm
geokstr:

John Moore:

Do you think the leftward tilt of the main stream media is a recent phenomenon?

You must not have been listening to the left very carefully.

They insist there is no leftward tilt, despite pretty much every reasonably objective survey over the last several decades of the actual content of the "news", and the party affiliation, voting patterns, political donations, and self-identified ideologies of its inhabitants overhwelmingly confirming the tilt. Heck, I recall voter surveys last year by respected pollsters where a majority of even Democrats agreed that the media wanted Obama to win and were actively pulling for him.

But hey, how could anybody who agrees with liberals be biased?

Near the end of the campaign last year, there was actually a thread on this very site where commenters were claiming that the media is a right-wing phenomenon and that even the NY Times was a conservative shill.

Sheesh.
4.13.2009 1:56pm
John Moore (www):

You're claiming that O'neil's book responded to the facts presented here. Really? That's fascinating. Unfit for Command was published on 8/25/04. The web site was first created on 8/21/04 (and most of it was written later). The book was written in four days? O'Neil has mastered the art of time travel? I had no idea.


Oh, that book? No, you must not have kept up on things. O'Neil published another book to refute all the crap thrown at the Swifties. Check it out.
4.13.2009 2:46pm
John Moore (www):

Please note that SBVT made a very big deal about Kerry using those exact words: "in Cambodia." It's nice to know that the exact same words are supposed to have a different meaning when O'Neil utters them.

The meaning of O'Neil's words are obvious if you just look at the entire cite you gave.

Kerry, on the other hand, told tails about his Cambodia adventure, and his "lucky hat" for years.

Other than that, I'm not going to rehash old ground. You have your cherry picked lefty sources - the same one the media gave absolutely uncritical validity to. This thread has moved way away from that.

A libel suit was filed against O'Neil? I didn't know. Please tell us about it.


Why don't you check out the mainstream media. I'm sure they gave it full coverage - both of the suit and its demise. Check out the suit filed against individual prisoners of war, while you're at it.

The left can't leave a hero untouched if he criticizes on of their own.
4.13.2009 2:49pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
O'Neil published another book


Really? Did he share it with anyone other than you? Because Amazon seems to know nothing about it. Likewise for B&N. And likewise for Borders. And likewise for the folks who published Unfit for Command (I guess he must have found another publisher). And likewise for the people who wrote his official bio at his current law firm.

you must not have kept up on things


If you mean that I don't know about the secret publishing company that O'Neill used to publish his secret book, which can only be found in secret bookstores, then you're absolutely right. But hopefully you'll let us know about the special code that one must know in order to find this particular book.

You have your cherry picked lefty sources


Yup, the ten servicemen who documented ten SBVT falsehoods (pdf) are definitely "lefty sources." I realize you define "lefty sources" as 'anyone who disagrees with me.' We're still waiting for you to tell us where their facts are contradicted. Maybe in O'Neill's imaginary book?

I'm sure they gave it full coverage - both of the suit and its demise


As usual, you're full of it. No libel suit was filed against O'Neill. Except for the one you read about in his book. I mean the book that no one has seen other than you.

By the way, some more of O'Neill's lies are documented here.
4.13.2009 3:15pm
Anonymous66 (mail):
Like PEJ, CMPA has also done comparisons. Until 2004 (when they added FOX), they only (unlike PEJ) analyzed the networks, but did so more continuously and over a longer period of time than CMPA.
The findings:
1988 Positive Press (partisan and non-partisan sources):
Bush 32%
Dukakis 29%

1992 Positive Press (partisan and non-partisan sources):
Bush 31%
Clinton 37%
Perot 46%

1996 Positive Press (non-partisan sources only):
Clinton 50%
Dole 33%

2000 Positive (non-partisan sources only):
Bush 37%
Gore 40%

2004 Positive (non-partisan sources only):
Bush 37%
Kerry 59%

2008 Positive (non-partisan sources only):
Obama 68%
McCain 33%

http://www.cmpa.com/studies_election_pre.htm

See individual PDFs at site for other breakdowns and definitions (ie 'non-partisan only' means journalists commentators etc, and does not include campaign officials etc).
4.13.2009 9:00pm
John Moore (www):
Sorry, not O'Neil, but Swett is the book I'm referring to:
To Set The Record Straight.

As for the Silver Star incident, there are people on both sides. You present a statement by just about every single veteran who can be scraped up to testify for Kerry: 10. I present a book attested to by around 100 who served with him, of which the silver star incident is one small part.

Why don't you explain why Kerry never released his military records to the public, even after all this time?

Why don't you deal with the press improperly reporting his discharge date, a critical issue related to his credibility?
4.13.2009 11:25pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Swett is the book I'm referring to


You're joking, right? You suggest that I shouldn't cite factcheck.org because they are (according to you) a "lefty" source, and then you shamelessly cite Scott Swett? Your irony impairment is severe. Scott Swett, the "chairman" of "The Free Republic Network?" Scott Swett, who posts there as "Interesting Times," and who has accused Clinton of rape? Where is the proof that Clinton is guilty of rape, and what kind of person makes an accusation of rape without proof?

And speaking of bogus claims, Swett also said this:

Obama launched his first political campaign, for the Illinois State Senate, at Ayers and Dohrn's home in Hyde Park.


Really?

Let us know if you can think of any reason I should think of Swett as a credible source, despite his multiple bogus statements.

And let us know where in Swett's book he explains why the words "in Cambodia" mean one thing when Kerry says them, and something else when O'Neill does. And you can also let us know where in Swett's book he explains why we should ignore Elliot when he praises Kerry, and only take him seriously when he condemns Kerry.

You present a statement by just about every single veteran who can be scraped up to testify for Kerry: 10


It's not just a "statement." They present facts backed by evidence (pdf). And we're still waiting for you show us where that evidence is contradicted.

I present a book attested to by around 100 who served with him.


There you go, repeating one of the SBVT lies. "Served with" implies being there at the same place at the same time. But most SBVT members were not with Kerry at the same place at the same time. They were on swift boats, but at different places and/or at different times ("most did not serve at the same time or in the same place as Kerry;" link). This is one of the reasons McCain said the first ad was dishonest.

Why don't you explain why Kerry never released his military records to the public, even after all this time?


Why are you implying that he didn't release his records, even though he did?

And if you think releasing military records is so important, why did McCain never sign SF-180, "even after all this time?" And can you find a single example of any so-called liberal reporter pointing out that he should? McCain ran on his war record as least as much as Kerry did. Why is Kerry's SF-180 more important than McCain's?
4.14.2009 8:28am
John Moore (www):

You're joking, right? You suggest that I shouldn't cite factcheck.org because they are (according to you) a "lefty" source, and then you shamelessly cite Scott Swett? Your irony impairment is severe. Scott Swett, the "chairman" of "The Free Republic Network?"


There you go again, arguing ad hominem. Yes, I cite Scott because he was the webmaster of SBVT and knew the inner workings well, and because I know him and have discussed some of these issue with him.

There you go, repeating one of the SBVT lies. "Served with" implies being there at the same place at the same time. But most SBVT members were not with Kerry at the same place at the same time.


Which is why I said 100 instead of 260.

You might also find the picture here interesting. It was originally released by the Kerry campaign and shows those officers of his rank who served with him on the boats. Click on it and you'll see how many supported his claims. It is enlightening, since these are the people most familiar with his actual service.

You also didn't mention that one member of SBVT was the person who served longest with Kerry on his boat - his machine gunner.

Why are you implying that he didn't release his records, even though he did?


Read more carefully. He did not release them to the public. He released them only to a few selected reporters of the very media I am charging with bias. Why didn't he release them to the public as Bush did./

Also, the ones he released to the public led to some interesting, unreported activities. His web site biographies changed rather suddenly when pressure forced the release of those records. I watched as the biographies from different pages changed at different times. It was amusing to watch a press release go out with the old, more wrong biography even as the web site had the more correct one.

Most interesting was the biography on the page oriented towards veterans made fewer claims than the one oriented towards those who had never served.

BTW, you still have failed to address the issue of Kerry's discharge date, just like the press completely ignored it (even when it changed on Kerry's website!).

Ironically, the article you cite claiming the Kerry had released all of his records is by the same reporter (Kranish) who misreported the discharge date repeatedly, even after I contacted him.


And if you think releasing military records is so important, why did McCain never sign SF-180, "even after all this time?"

What does McCain have to do with the media bias covering Kerry? Also, there is no controversy I am aware of over McCain's many years of service and captivity, unlike that over Kerry's 4 months that formed the basis of his campaign.
4.14.2009 12:42pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
There you go again, arguing ad hominem.


Earlier you said this:

You have your cherry picked lefty sources


What was that, if not "arguing ad hominem?" And unlike what you did, I didn't merely assert that Swett wasn't credible. I proved it.

I cite Scott because he was the webmaster of SBVT and knew the inner workings well


Yes, I'm sure he knows plenty about "the inner workings" of SBVT. So what? Who cares? Has he ever served, in Vietnam, or elsewhere? I don't think so. Has he ever addressed the issues I raised (O'Neill and Elliot contradicting themselves)? I don't think so.

Which is why I said 100 instead of 260.


Where is your proof that 100 SBVT members served with Kerry (meaning in the same place, at the same time)? The records of who served where and when are here. Who are the 100 who "served with" Kerry? 11 of the 12 who actually served with Kerry (on his boat) support him.

And not everyone signed the letter for the same reason. Lonsdale signed the letter even though he believed Kerry "earned his medals."

And why should anyone think the list of names is authentic? "Several people whose names appear on the anti-Kerry letter from SBV have stepped forward to state that they never approved the use of their name in that letter and that they do not support SBV. One of them suggests up to 25% of the names on SBV's letter may have been fictitiously included." Link.

You also didn't mention that one member of SBVT was the person who served longest with Kerry on his boat - his machine gunner.


You also didn't mention that Gardner admitted "he was not on the boat with Kerry during the incidents for which Kerry got his medals." In other words, this many SBVT members were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the relevant incidents (when he won his medals): zero.

Why didn't he release them to the public as Bush did.


There you go again, inventing your own facts. What is "them?" Bush never signed SF-180. He released records selectively. And many of the relevant records mysteriously disappeared.

you still have failed to address the issue of Kerry's discharge date


I have cited multiple lists of SBVT falsehoods (link, link, link, pdf) that you, Swett and O'Neill have "still have failed to address."

What does McCain have to do with the media bias covering Kerry?


McCain is relevant because of the double standard. The people who demanded that Kerry sign SF-180 never made that demand on McCain. Or Bush, for that matter.

there is no controversy I am aware of over McCain's many years of service and captivity


Maybe your belief that "there is no controversy" has something to do with the fact that most of the press gave him a free pass regarding his remarkable record of avoidable plane crashes. Like knocking down power lines in what he admitted was "daredevil clowning." That darn liberal media. They sure worked hard to make sure his war record got a complete examination. After all, it's not as if there were lots of other indications that McCain has a problem with impulse control.
4.15.2009 9:35am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.