Media failed to find facts behind Bush's service record

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | February 11, 2004 | Thomas Lipscomb

[Hon]

The media lies.

[Hon]

Tom Lipscomb is slated to be on Fox News with John Gibson today to talk about this article and the way the media has misrepresented the story in general.

[Doomonyou]

Media failed to find facts behind Bush's service record

As if they bothered to look.

[joyce11111]

bump

[Hon]

John Gibson's show, BTW, is called "The Big Story"--and it is on the Fox News Channel at 5pm EST.

[TheGeezer]

Liberofascist lies. Journalists suck.

[KellyAdmirer]

The liberals and the liberal media have overplayed their hand on this badly. Pure and simple, there is no legitimate issue here. Now President Bush actually gets a sympathy wave from being attacked so viciously over a non-issue.

Just more poor judgment from the liberals - do we really want them deciding issues of war and peace? I sure don't.

[Tacis]

Still, the media did a much better job this time than it ever did on examining Willie's 63 days of indoctrination training in Moscow, how much he received of Saddam's oil voucher money, or the real amount he received for Rich's pardon. After so many years of the media accepting as absolute fact what they were told by the White House, it is good to see that they are finally asking questions. Maybe, they will one day get it right.

[ClearCase_guy]

Well, yeah, but let's keep digging until we uncover the facts, okay? [/sarcasm]

[RebelBanker]

The media lies.

"No s**t, Sherlock!"
- Capt. Bart Mancuso, USS Dallas

[Always Right]

There was already an exhaustive look at Bush's National Guard records published and available on the Internet to any reporter who has written on this in the last week. None of whom bothered to look it up. It's title? "The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, But Not AWOL, Either." It was "the first full chronology" and concludes "he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge."

And BTW, the source of that article was none of the JFK Jr's George Magazine.

[Hon]

"As if they bothered to look."

I imagine that it's hard to come up with the best title for something like this and still get it published in the media.

But when you read the article you will see that a few braves souls in the media, such as the reporters at George Magazine did bother to look and they did discover the truth--three and a half years ago.

The others didn't bother to find out, or they didn't want to know. Walter Robinson, for instance, didn't want to know.

He only began to backpedal YESTERDAY, when it was clear that he was going to be caught lying for three and a half years. (But what do you expect of a libeler?)

[hobson]

They are blinded by hatred that will eventually destroy them.

[Republic Rocker]

I can't believe CNN {BUSTED} NYTIMES { BUSTED} and now BBC {BUSTED} can keep up an assault although all have had themselves outted this past year....

I guess they will keep up the mudslinging exaggerations and misleads all campaign long...

[Williams]

In addition to the media's bias, an unreported story of our time is that they are completely ineffectual. As they got gobbled up by comglomerates, they shut down their news gathering capability to save money. It was many years ago that small stories started mentioning this or that network/newspaper closing another bureau.

The news media today truly are just news readers. They talk about "issues" as handed to them by other reporters, politicians, etc. They do not gather facts.

Am I the only one to notice the horrendous practice on every single news show, of interviewing reporters as if they are newsmakers? Rather than get to the real facts and guests, they fill air time asking for each other's opinions!

[Hon]

"The liberals and the liberal media have overplayed their hand on this badly. Pure and simple, there is no legitimate issue here. Now President Bush actually gets a sympathy wave from being attacked so viciously over a non-issue."

60 Minutes was the first media to bring this question up, back during the primaries in 2000. They contacted the Alabama National Guard unit commander ret. Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed. He told them what he has told everyone else since--that the story was no big deal. That "there was no story." 60 Minutes agreed and didn't do a story.

Walter Robinson (who Turnipseed calls a "Bush hater" made it into a story, even though it wasn't one.

This is pure agit-prop. It is not reporting. Robinson should lose his job over it.

[SaveTheChief]

It has never been about what the media can find, or prove.

The goal has always been to talk, and talk, and talk so much that it begins to sway public opinion. Remember the Clintons and the mantra his cronies had in the days of the Cigargate scandal?

The media is no different. Very little of the major news media is about reporting news anymore, but it is primarily concerned with editorializing to the point that people will believe whatever they tell them.

[princess leah]

It's time Merdoch got FOX news on the same line as ABC, NBC, and CBS instead of just cable...Then he should hire a big name like Mel Gibson to come in once a week and do special reports (I love Mel's speaking voice and he's so good looking too!)

[Conspiracy Guy]

There may be nothing to this but a friend of mine knows a guy who served with Kerry in Viet Nam. The guy my friend knows, says that Kerry frequently shot farm animals belonging to innocent villagers. He also said that Kerry ran away like a scalded dog any time enemy fire was encountered.

This story is more believable than the "Bush was AWOL" story. I wonder if the media will research this or tout it as fact.

CG

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - VNVAJK