http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/08/22/smear_by_veterans_may_hurt_bush/Tom Oliphant's Op-Ed in the Boston Globe, linked above, says the best what I've been thinking during the past week or so.
The big difference between what did and did not happen in 1971 and what is happening today involves the press. With no evidence that could withstand a laugh test, there was no point 33 years ago in spreading a smear. Today, thanks to the emergence of cable TV and a decline in standards, it is much easier to put muck in play, which is what has happened with Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace's 2004 counterpart, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Discerning voters will notice that the more reputable organs of the national press have not cast doubt on Kerry's Vietnam service. That is because political attacks on it don't pass the smell test. We are influenced by eyewitnesses, not by people whose stories keep changing or are contradicted by official records. We are used to arguments over things like war records, but the burden of proof is with the accuser and Kerry's accusers cannot shoulder it with the credible evidence required of credible stories.
But there's another way in now. Raise some Bush buddy Texas money, create a TV ad, hire a right-wing loony to put together a smear book, and cable TV producers desperate for shouting matches are happy to oblige. The result then gets recycled into the serious press because "questions" have been raised about Kerry's record that couldn't survive a minute under traditional standards.
(snip)
As happened to O'Neill in 1971, the best counter to him today is the serious press attention that his group fears most. (End Oliphant excerpt.)
When formation of SBVFTT was announced, with John O'Neill pulled out of his sarcophagus to be the front man, we all knew this was coming. When the first ad came out I braced myself. But then it became clear there wasn't much substance to this, just some guys either paid off by shrubco or who hated JK for his VVAW activities, or both. Okay, this should be okay, I thought.
What was printed in reputable newspapers about the Swifties was pretty fair and rapidly exposed their connections and motives. So far so good I thought.
But then a funny thing happened. DAY after DAY, for what seemed like two solid weeks, these guys got a media platform, were interviewed, even appeared on some of the same shows MULTIPLE TIMES. I don't watch much TV, my TV time has been replaced by web time. I get my info on the TV coverage mostly as it is reflected here on DU. It didn't surprise me to have Hannity and company having the Swifties over for a beer on his show every day. But I kept on hearing about these guys being on network and cable TV, over and over! I understood that no matter how baseless and scurrilous the charges, the emergence of this group was newsworthy and merited at least some coverage. If nothing else, to expose how baseless the charges are and the origins and motivations of the members. But without any kind of proof, documentation, photos, and with contradictory statements, these guys are allowed to appear day after day for free publicity! With only the exception of maybe Chris Matthews and Olberman challenging and pointing out the lack of foundation to the smear.
I personally think this might be what was behind Kerry campaign's slow response: that they maybe didn't expect the national BROADCAST media (not the print) to give these guys such a huge megaphone to blast their filth (it could also be to gather good, reliable info on them as other DUers have posted).
What are the reasons for the media giving an attack so lacking in substance such a prolonged and widespread hearing?
The most nefarious possible motive, ascribed to the media by many DUers, is active promotion of a Bush election and active support of the Republican Party. Certainly I think this is true in the case of FOX, and it increasingly appears that it might be the case with CNN, but the others I'm not so sure.
A second, somewhat less nefarious motive, is the desire of an active, photo finish, horse race in NOV to promote interest in media coverage and improve profits. "Kerry wins by 10-15% and 80% of electoral votes because the results of the incumbent referendum is that Bush is a miserable failure" I guess just doesn't seem a compelling story likely to sell soap. This one seems perhaps a bit more plausible to me.
But to me, the simplest, and most plausible explanation for much of this is what Oliphant points out in the article above. Simple laziness and lack of standards. Rove, from the shadows, shoves O'Neill into your studio, and says "these guys are news!" And you sit them down and give them a mike? Over and over and over? I really think because of both the transmogrification of TV news into more of a "show biz" entity from an actual journalistic one, coupled with the rise of shouting talk show punditry which many Americans confuse with actual news, and such a thing becomes possible where it was not in 1971 when O'Neill first appeared on the scene to do battle with Kerry.
But what can be done about this? Journalistic ethics and standards can't exactly be legislated, or can they? If any organization, I don't care whether it's MSNBC, CNN, one of the networks, even FOX for heaven's sake, showed a clear commitment to rigorous journalistic standards, such that I had confidence that I was much more likely to see the truth, and have lies exposed on their network, compared with the others, I would watch and support that network. Maybe MSNBC is trying to "break out of the pack" in this sense by continuing to have Olberman, and Matthews doing a better job now than in the past? We shall see.
Perhaps it's time for entirely new news organs or entities to arise that are separate from the current mold, with a mission statement of a rededication to truth rather than only profits. I don't know what can be done. My only power as a consumer of news is my choice of what to view and patronize.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
