Canada.com on the Vietnam mess

[MKSheppard]

Here

Media bushwhacks the President
National Post
September 10, 2004

Media coverage of the current American presidential election may have plumbed new depths of bias. The most recent example is the attempt this week by major American news outlets to rekindle controversy over President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam era. This might appear as quid pro quo or needed balance after a month in which the war record of John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, came under intense scrutiny. Throughout August, the American political debate was dominated by claims from more than 200 Vietnam veterans -- the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth --who served alongside Mr. Kerry, that he had at best exaggerated his service record and, at worst, outright falsified major portions of it. It might not seem particularly biased, then, for the American media to turn its gaze on Mr. Bush's service record.

But it is.

The difference between the two is who is driving the story. In the case of Mr. Kerry's record, the media were mostly observers. The Swift Vets were doing all the digging, hunting up the actual mission reports that earned the Senator his five medals and tracking down eyewitnesses who could contradict Mr. Kerry's version of events. Major broadcasters and newspapers in the United States largely contented themselves with finding veterans who would dispute the "Swiftees" contention that Mr. Kerry was unfit to be commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces as a result of his behaviour during four-and-a-half months of duty in Vietnam and as a radical anti-war protester after his return. The only digging most journalists did was in search of connections between individual anti-Kerry vets and the Republican party that might tend to discredit the former sailors, thereby preserving Mr. Kerry's reputation.

In the case of Mr. Bush's wartime service stateside, in the Guard, nearly all the dredging has been done by journalists. And despite the fact that no truly new revelations have been uncovered since last February when Mr. Bush ordered all his military records made public, the American media seem determined to keep raising the story as a shocking scoop every time a new document surfaces, even if it only confirms what has been long known.

After threatening the U.S. government with a lawsuit unless it could prove no further Bush service records existed, The Associated Press (AP) was rewarded on Tuesday with the delivery of a file thought destroyed 18 years ago. The file contained no new insights -- it merely confirmed that President Bush, although technically attached to the Alabama Air National Guard for his last year of duty, failed to show up for training or exercises for nearly 12 months --but AP ran with it as though it were proof of Bush campaign duplicity.

Curiously, though, the news service has launched no similar suit in an attempt to retrieve Mr. Kerry's missing records. Nor has AP or any other major U.S. media organization chosen to make a big issue of the fact that Mr. Kerry himself is impeding access to more than 95% of his official service accounts, claiming time and again that he just hasn't had time to sign the necessary release forms.

The disparity is glaring. When Mr. Bush is the target, members of the media will spare no expense or effort. They are determined to act, as National Post columnist David Frum once wrote, "as detectives and prosecuting attorneys, both," while when Mr. Kerry's past is at issue, editors and reporters set themselves up as judges, refusing to search for any evidence themselves or even to hear a case until a smoking gun is found.

It is true that many of the veterans who have attacked Mr. Kerry (though far from all) have deep Republican connections. It is fair for media covering their claims to point this out and permit viewers and readers to decide if the information is germane. But why are only Republican connections worthy of suspicion? This week CBS will air an interview with Ben Barnes, the Vietnam-era lieutenant-governor of Texas who helped jump George Bush to the head of the National Guard recruiting line. Mr. Barnes will now claim his actions were a terrible mistake since they aided Mr. Bush in avoiding active duty in southeast Asia.

We hope that CBS will see fit to mention that Mr. Barnes is a lifelong Democrat who worked to defeat Mr. Bush when the latter was governor of Texas, and that he is currently a major fundraiser for John Kerry.

We hope -- but remain skeptical.

[Darth Wong]

Now that's some quality spin-doctoring. So let me get this straight: it's OK for 527s who share staffers with the President's campaign to fling this kind of mud, but if the media does some digging on its own and does something like this against the President, it's the downfall of society, right?

PS. I like the bit about the file containing no new insights. It does show that contrary to the previous cover story about him not showing up because his unit was never called, his unit was called, albeit for a mere one-day exercise, and he didn't show.

[Elfdart]

They did mention that Barnes is a Dem and a Kerry supporter.

The difference is that the allegations made by the Shit Boaters are all proven lies, with every credible witness and every document backing Kerry. Every credible witness and every document released about Numbnuts proves that he's a liar, a coward and a deserter.

Apples and oranges, Sheepshagger.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I knew there were Canadians I liked.

[White Cat]

Well, it's true that if the media just passively waits for dirt on Kerry to show up, but actively goes out looking for dirt on Bush, that would be strong evidence of anti-Bush bias.

Of course, picking exactly one example from each side is an awfully long way from proving such a thing...