Posted on 09/30/2004 5:26:46 AM PDT by FlyLow
Sen. John Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic candidate for president after racking up primary wins February 3. The next day, in a foreshadowing of campaign controversies to come, New York Times reporters Elisabeth Bumiller and David Halbfinger compared Kerry and Bush on their Vietnam service.
From the very first line, the Times found in favor of Kerry: "The contrast could not be more striking. In March 1969, John Kerry, a 25-year-old Navy lieutenant, reached down from the boat he was piloting in Vietnam's treacherous Bay Hap River and in a spray of enemy fire pulled a soldier out of the water to safety. For his valor, Mr. Kerry won the Bronze Star with a combat 'V' and his third Purple Heart. That very same month, George W. Bush was on far-safer ground in Valdosta, Ga., learning to fly fighter planes for the Texas National Guard, a coveted post that greatly reduced any risk that he would be sent to Vietnam -- and one that he might not have obtained had his father not been a member of Congress."
When the Times reporters insisted "the contrast could not be more striking," they could also have been describing the paper's starkly slanted coverage of Bush and Kerry's respective Vietnam controversies.
Throughout the presidential campaign, the paper faithfully pursued Democratic charges that Bush failed to fulfill his National Guard obligations during the Vietnam War, forwarding unsubstantiated Democratic allegations without questioning the source or motivation behind the charges and without characterizing their merit. When Democratic Party boss Terry McAuliffe accused Bush on the February 1 This Week with George Stephanopoulos of being "AWOL" from the National Guard during Vietnam, the partisan origins of the story didn't stop the Times from eagerly pursuing the charge.
Yet when it came to Vietnam-era controversies involving Kerry, the combat boot was on the other foot. When Kerry's purported strong point (Vietnam) came under surprising fire over the summer by a group of veterans who served with Kerry, the Times at first ignored, then dismissed as partisan and "unsubstantiated" the allegations from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The barest hint of Republican ties by the group gave the Times an excuse to ignore the substance of the charges from the 200-plus veterans. Instead, the Times scoured for links between the Swift Boat vets and the Republican Party, even publishing a chart alleging "ties" between the Swift Boat vets and the G.O.P.
After mentioning the group in passing May 4 and covering the group's initial press conference the next day, mentions of the controversy were sparse and sporadic until July 27, when the group's name popped up on the news pages in a pro-Kerry story by David Halbfinger, "In Battle of Patriotic Symbols, Veterans Muster in Kerry Camp."
Throughout the life of the story, the Times tarred the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth veterans group and focused its journalistic resources on discrediting the group rather than investigating the charges it was making. This occurred even while at least one accusation -- that Kerry was not on a secret mission to Cambodia as he'd long claimed -- was proven correct.
When it finally began focusing on the Swift Boat vets, the paper's tone was wall-to-wall hostile, sticking the warning label of "unsubstantiated" on the group's allegations no less than 20 times. By contrast, not once did the Times describe even the wildest "Bush-was-AWOL" charges as "unsubstantiated" (regarding the AWOL smear, one story suggested mildly that it "appears to be exaggerated based on the balance of evidence available to date.").
In addition to showing a stark double standard in condemning the Swift vets while leaping on unsubstantiated stories about Bush, the New York Times:
-- Demanded Bush denounce the Swift Boat vets.
-- Glossed over the partisan and unreliable history of Bush accuser Bill Burkett.
-- Placed the National Guard story on its front page even after CBS's memo meltdown.
-- Editorialized how Bush had made his National Guard service "fair game," yet later condemned media outlets that reported the anti-Kerry Swift Boat charges.
END of Excerpt
For the TimesWatch.org report in full: http://www.timeswatch.org/reports/04/report0904.asp
That isn't a double standard.......it's a single, LIBERAL standard.......Gray Lady Down!......PING!
buy the NYPost, call the Times' advertisers.
It's also striking that all the Bush NG stories get play in major news headlines every day. But I have NEVER seen a mainstream news story (in print at least, since I don't usually watch the nightly news) about any of the charges against Kerry over his traitorous activity after he returned from Vietnam. The bias is extraordinary.
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the Gray Whore behaves this way!
JohnFKerry's heart pounding furiously...as his adrenaline coursed through his blue blooded veins blam..blam blam blam...blam blam blam blam...the staccato hail of typewriter keys rang out in the ward room...racing against the clock..."full speed ahead to destiny and glory" he cried out as he birthed the document forged in the heat of battle ...greed & ambition.
It's mind-bending to imagine the lead President Bush would have if the MSM were not so totally, sickeningly biased!
For daily news in NYC I read the New York Post, The (exceptional) New York Sun, The Wall Street Journal, and if they are hawking it at the subway - NY Metro. I always amazed at how many people - friends, co-workers - aren't even aware that NY Metro's counterpart, AM New York, is a Left Leaning paper.
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.