Posted on 08/24/2004 6:31:01 AM PDT by viewfromafar
NEW YORK As the John Kerry swift boat controversy navigates itself from the shoreline of the 2004 presidential campaign into the mainstream, newspapers face a dilemma of how to report on the attacks against the Democratic nominee without giving them undue credibility or blowing the issue out of proportion.
Alison Mitchell, deputy national editor for The New York Times (Click for QuikCap), points to the changing media landscape and its impact on what newspapers choose to cover. "I'm not sure that in an era of no-cable television we would even have looked into it," she said.
But Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. said newspapers can still drive their own agenda. "I don't think we are lessening at all our judgment of the news," he told E&P. "There is much more media, but we still judge for ourselves which facts we report in The Washington Post."
In the past week, Page One stories have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today and other dailies both scrutinizing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and its accusations against Kerry, while also reporting on the effect the group's advertising is having on the Democrat's strategy.
Since Kerry chose to alter his policy and approach the group's criticism head-on, editors contend that made the story ripe for front-page coverage. But some of the coverage has lapsed into the "he said, she said" variety.
"Kerry has made his Vietnam service a centerpiece of the Democratic National Convention and the Swift Boat Veterans came out right after that," said Lee Horwich, politics editor at USA Today, which ran a story about the veterans group, and inconsistencies in its accounts, on Aug. 16. "There has been doubt cast on some of their charges and we have reported it. I think scrutiny of the accuracy of the charges has been the thrust of the coverage."
James O'Shea, managing editor of the Chicago Tribune, agreed. But he said the critical approach may have been a bit late, considering that the Swift Boat Veterans ads came out two weeks ago. "I don't think there has been enough scrutiny until now," he said. "Prior to this, we weren't giving it enough attention."
But O'Shea also pointed out that giving the anti-Kerry veterans too much attention, in an attempt to hold them accountable, creates a situation of ignoring other issues. He said this may be an instance of a growing problem for newspapers in the expanding media world -- being forced to follow a story they might not consider worthwhile because other news outlets (in this case, Fox News and talk radio) have made it an issue.
"There are too many places for people to get information," O'Shea said. "I don't think newspapers can be the gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why."
Downie said he believes the Swift Boat Veterans coverage had been fair and properly scrutinizing. "We have printed the facts and some of those facts have undermined Kerry's opponents," he said. "We are not judging the credibility of Kerry or the (Swift Boat) Veterans, we just print the facts."
He defended a lengthy Post story that ran Sunday which appeared to give equal credibility to both Kerry's version of the events in Vietnam (which is supported by his crewmates and largely backed up by a paper trail) and the Swift Boat Veterans, despite the fact that previous stories in the Post and the New York Times had debunked many of the group's accounts.
On Monday, Michael Tomaskey, writing for The American Prospect's Web site, took issue with Downie's decision: "The Washington Post should not even be running such a story ... in the first place. Len Downie and the paper's other editors would undoubtedly argue that the story represents the Post's tenacity for getting to the truth, without fear or favor. But what the story actually proves is that a bunch of liars who have in the past contradicted their own current statements can, if their lies are outrageous enough and if they have enough money, control the media agenda and get even the most respected media outlets in the country to focus on picayune 'truths' while missing the larger story."
The swift boat controversy and its coverage have also provided fodder for ombudsmen during the past few days. Paul Moore at The Sun in Baltimore cited the need for reporting to include all aspects of the veterans group's activities. "News stories about this group are legitimate, but because the group's televised ads have been paid for by supporters of President Bush, the partisan nature of the material is unmistakable," he wrote.
Dennis Ryerson, editor of The Indianapolis Star, also weighed in with a column about the challenges of the story. "The media are caught in the middle," he opined. "We are often criticized for covering the noise rather than the light, the political infighting as opposed to the substance of major issues. I think we need to cover both."
Finally, Sherrie Mazingo of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis wrote that readers were getting overwhelmed by some of the coverage. "The claims and counter-claims ... have become a significant distraction," she said.
Translation, how in the hell do we cover kerry's ass, but still make it look like we are giving the Swiftee's a fair vetting.
So, without Fox NEws (notice his "no-cable" news comment???) they'ed would have ignored the Swift vets?
Of course!
ABCCNBCBS is ignoring them now!
For the 40 years that I have been following politics, this is (almost) a great enough spectacle to make the continuous propaganda enema worth it: seeing the media in its final meltdown as the truth becomes more important than their ability to suppress it.
Funny, they didn't have to grapple too much with how to cover Bush's service. They actually researched the allegations that he was a deserter, etc.
Alison Mitchell, deputy national editor for The New York Times, points to the changing media landscape and its impact on what newspapers choose to cover. "I'm not sure that in an era of no-cable television we would even have looked into it," she said.
Not one person in this piece asks how to get Kerry to answer his own contradictions.
Look, the Swifties are not perfect. They need to be scrutinized by journalists.
But, by golly, Kerry has changed his positions so much on this that his own contradictions are ripe for examination. The fact that not one of these folks understand this is disturbing.
Blame, utter, comtimpable bias.
And THEY are ones showing HOW they planned their bias!
No chance of them saying, "This is interesting and we're looking into it."
Newspapers must just hate it that they can't suppress the news anymore.
"when in doubt, tell the truth" Mark Twain
Give me a break! No issue has been blown out of proportion more than Bush's service in the National Guard.
-" I think scrutiny of the accuracy of the charges has been the thrust of the coverage."-
The problem is they also decide which "facts" to scrutinize. Apparently they're willing to scrutinize all Cash-and-Kerry opposition, but where are their demands for a realease of his military records, so they can also be scrutinized? Parasites.
Here's an absolutely fearless prediction, based upon nothing but intuition and common sense..The Kerry camp is desparate to stop the bleeding caused by the Swifites..they are trotting out new vets to corroborate Kerry's stories.. anyone wanna bet that because of the haste with which these folks are being pushed forward, they aren't being vetted, and that one of those who newly claims to have been there will turn out have spend his tour stateside, or worse..
It would give them the advantage of surprise.
"There are too many places for people to get information," O'Shea said. "I don't think newspapers can be the gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why."
IOW, we've been outflanked, it's time to lie.
Gosh, where does one begin with this blatant admission of bias and picking & choosing which "facts" get reported?
Oh my goodness. Just when you thought you'd seen the height of cynicism and hypocrisy in the world, there's this.
In a related story from The American Prospect: War Is Peace, Slavery Is Freedom, Ignorance Is Strength.
"On Monday, Michael Tomaskey, writing for The American Prospect's Web site, took issue with Downie's decision: "The Washington Post should not even be running such a story ... in the first place. Len Downie and the paper's other editors would undoubtedly argue that the story represents the Post's tenacity for getting to the truth, without fear or favor. But what the story actually proves is that a bunch of liars who have in the past contradicted their own current statements can, if their lies are outrageous enough and if they have enough money, control the media agenda and get even the most respected media outlets in the country to focus on picayune 'truths' while missing the larger story."
From the American Prospect:
Cowards All Around
The media should take a step back and remind us what Bush and Cheney were up to in 1969.
By Michael Tomasky
Web Exclusive: 08.23.04
Print Friendly | Email Article
At first blush, the treatment given to Michael Dobbs' page-one swift-boat article in Sunday's Washington Post seems at least vaguely reassuring. There's the neutral headline "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete," but below that, a deck-headline informing readers that "Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode." The banner treatment, running across three-fourths of the front page above the fold, places the onus of proof where it belongs -- on the accusers, not on Kerry, a point that Bob Novak and others have chosen to ignore, obscure, or even refute; and in announcing that the proof isn't there, it seems to be a plus for Kerry.
This is the kind of crap the Democrats are espousing. During the Nixon investigation, Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post used to call this the 'non denial denial.' Their talking points on all of the shows I have watched are to just take the James Carville approach: don't answer any questions, just shout down the host/guest and repeat the same mantra over and over. I wish that some of the hosts had balls enough to tell them to shut up!
With "looked into it" meaning reported it.
In today's world they have to acknowledge the story because everyone who's paying attention already knows it's out there. So they have to spin it or JF'nK will be hurt even worse
There are too many places for people to get information," O'Shea said. "I don't think newspapers can be the gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong (bad for Kerry)and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong (bad for Kerry) and here is why (so we've got to spin it)."
Their biggest problem is that they're trying to suppress something that is TRUE - which is always a loosing proposition
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.