The Swift Boat story
Has the news media betrayed its core purpose in its coverage of the Swift Boat veterans story?
"Just how dishonest must a smear campaign be for American journalists to say so plainly or, better yet, to ignore altogether?" asks The New Republic Online. After outlining what the media has done with the story - primarily fumbling it - they add: "The effect was to spread lies rather than scrutinize them, in a precise perversion of journalism's supposed purpose."
Other sites, notably the Columbia Journalism Review , raise similar questions.
Essentially, this story was driven first by cable news in search of copy to fill the 24/7 maw, then followed by network news, afraid to be found wanting. Most newspapers tracked the story, reporting the he-said, she-said nature of the argument, but it took some digging and some time to get to the military records of both Kerry and his critics. Many major newspapers wrote long pieces this week detailing the holes in the Swift Boats Veterans stories.
So where was the News & Record? Until Sunday, we hadn't done all that much with the Swift Boat vets, but that's not entirely because of the lack of corroborating evidence supporting their claims. Our coverage has mainly consisted of short stories inside the paper.
A friend of mine asked me if we were intimidated by the conservative lobby that doesn't hesitate to call and e-mail when it perceives we have crossed their "fair and balanced" line in the sand. And when we published a first-person story on A2 by a Swift Boat captain who fought alongside Kerry that confirmed Kerry's account, I got several calls complaining about our omission of "the other side."
I told my friends that, no, we haven't been intimidated. We try to be fair, objective and truthful. The chips fall where they may. Specifically, the story hasn't bannered the front page because we're emphasizing local news over national news, particularly national news that is all over television. By definition, news is something you didn't know before. So, when a story gets blanket coverage by other media, particularly when it's a story that has little local connection or import, we don't feel the need to give it huge play.
Now, the Guilford school system's bus hub, that's another matter.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
John,
Readers might find it of interest if you would compare your coverage of the DNC's charges about Bush's military service with your coverage of the Swift Boat Veteran's about Kerry's, and explain the differences if there are any.
Posted on August 27, 2004 3:00 PM
Great suggestion. Even though the two stories are quite different -- one involves military records that have gaps and the other involves people challenging the veracity of the military records -- we have displayed them similarly.
If I'm searching our archives correctly, on both Kerry and Bush, we've published one story each on the front page. The rest of the coverage on both has consisted of smaller stories inside the newspaper, although we've run many more about the Kerry-Swift Boat business. That's because the developments on that story have broken on a daily basis for a longer period of time. Thanks for asking.
Posted on August 28, 2004 4:29 PM
I, for one, would be most pleased if both stories would simply fall by the wayside. Both Kerry and Bush served, what more should I ask of them?
The details of their service is not the least bit important to me. Neither moved to Canada.
However, if either of them actually did move to Canada or otherwise attempted to evade military service, even that would not disqualify them for serving as President in my opinion. Such a stance was both popular and (as we now know) somewhat justified at the time.
Now - to the real business at hand. I challenge the N&R's readership to explain the differences between the two candidates' positions on health care...
Posted on August 29, 2004 8:35 AM
John, your posting reads to me like you have assumed/concluded the Swift Boat Vets points are all smear and nothing but smear. Kerry and his surrogates have smooshed around on their counter points to the Vets to the point one cannot but conclude there is more than smoke to this story. Come on how can you, the media, a protector of the public weal, honestly accept Kerry making one "statement of fact" in his book and different statements of fact in the Congressional Record?
Posted on August 29, 2004 10:40 PM
I make no such assumption. I simply haven't read any evidence by people who were actually engaged at the scene of the incidents that suggests Kerry trumped up his role. I also haven't read anything that supports the critics, other than their own stories, which, in some cases, have changed over time.
Posted on August 30, 2004 6:47 AM
I think it's been proven in sufficent detail that the Swift Boat group is mostly smear. Kerry's military records don't support the group's story. Kerry's crew members don't support the group or their story, and several of the Swift Boat vets whose name appear on the ads don't support the group or their story..
Couple that with the fact that one of Bush's campaign lawyers was advising the group and I think it becomes obvious the purpose the group was intended to serve.
Posted on September 3, 2004 11:35 AM