The media STILL doesn't understand what Swiftboating is

[beachmom]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,181397...

Swift-boat is shorthand for the brilliant, despicable Republican campaign strategy in 2004 that turned John Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam into a negative factor in his campaign. The phrase has become more broadly the term for a particular category of campaign tactics and has even become a verb. To "swift-boat" somebody is to use these tactics against him or her. If you remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign and don't see anything wrong with it--or if you believe it was the work of "independent" operatives unconnected to George W. Bush's campaign--I'm not going to waste precious space on the back page of a national newsmagazine arguing with you.

We might more usefully argue about the definition of swift-boating. There have, of course, been dirty politics and outrageous infamies since the beginning of the Republic. Swift-boating is not about that. Nor is it merely negative campaigning. There's nothing wrong with criticizing your opponent if the criticism is accurate and important. Swift-boating's essence is a particular kind of dishonesty, or rather a particular combination of shadowy dishonesties. It usually involves a complex web of facts, many of which may even be true. It exploits its own complexity and the reluctance of the media to adjudicate factual disputes. No matter how thoroughly a charge may be discredited, enough taint remains to support an argument. The fundamental dishonesty is the suggestion that the issue, whatever it is, really matters. This is how swift-boating differs from its cousin McCarthyism, which deals in totally baseless charges that would be deeply serious if true. Swift-boating is McCarthyism lite. There is usually a little something to the accusation but not enough to make it legitimately matter.

The raw material for swift-boating this year is already apparent. There is Obama's loony pastor, his friendship with a former radical, his dealings with a convicted financial sleaze. McCain's friendship with a woman lobbyist is an issue the New York Times fumbled, but it could resurface. McCain was one of the Keating Five, tied to a financial and influence scandal from the early '90s that could be brought down from the attic. And there is his alleged bad temper, a potentially legitimate issue that could be blended with his age in unsavory ways.

To swift-boat or not to swift-boat? What'll it be? Both candidates have publicly sworn off the practice, and McCain was admirably loud in denouncing the Swift Boat campaign in 2004. Of course, that was when he was still a maverick. I've been shocked by how many Democrats, in an informal poll, take the position that whatever it takes to win is justified. They say, first, that the Republicans will do anything to win, and it would be naive to attempt a higher standard. Second, they say, the stakes in this election are so high that an excess of scruples in trying to win it would be morality misplaced. Many Republicans agree at least with this second point. The belief of some Democrats that only scruples are stopping them from swift-boating as effectively as Republicans is almost touching.

If these junior Machiavellis are right, there is no hope for a civilized campaign.

No, swiftboating is LYING, and I love the way the idiot lets the media off the hook:

It exploits its own complexity and the reluctance of the media to adjudicate factual disputes.

So still no apology from the media for their collusion with the SBVT. They STILL don't get it. If you level a very serious charge against someone, you better have proof of it. They did not. Therefore, it did not deserve ANY airtime or print, save the National Enquirer. It was immoral what the media allowed that summer, and extremely disappointing that not one of them has any regret for their complicity.

I also think the Obama & McCain examples are NOT swiftboating; not only that, the Keating Five is a legitimate issue, while Obama was never "friends" with Ayers; he merely sat on the same charity board as him. We've also done the "looney minister" to death; that story has run its course.

[ProSense]

1. First of all,

"brilliant, despicable"



Are they boasting about their friggin complicity in helping the Swift Liars accomplish their goal?

Reads like an article (the media believe they can dupe the public at will) setting up any criticism of McCain for his Keating Five connection as swiftboating. In other words, they're setting the stage for their next act of complicity.

[karynnj]

4. Good points

Also his temper and links to lobbyists - including the rumored affair.

Worse is the implications that there was something to the charges that were completely unsupported by the Navy's records, the Nixon tapes, and Brinkley's biography. These people have no consciences. This article is itself swiftboating Kerry - while suggesting REAL problems of Mccain are swiftboating.

[sandnsea]

2. A little something to the accusation??

Holy criminy. There was as much to the McCarthy, have you ever talked to a communist, accusations as there were to the charges against Kerry. What is wrong with these people.

I think Obama handled it just right. If you've got the evidence, bring it. Otherwise you're not being a journalist by repeating rumors.

[karynnj]

3. They don't understand McCarthyism either

They say, "This is how swift-boating differs from its cousin McCarthyism, which deals in totally baseless charges that would be deeply serious if true. Swift-boating is McCarthyism lite."

In reality the charges against Kerry's service were completely and provably untrue - and the media had the official Navy record. It was not Kerry's story vs the SBVT, it was the Navy's official record vs the SBVT. It was also more than the unwillingness of the media to judge the accuracy - they failed to ask for any proof for charges that disputed the official record. (Not to mention, they FAVORED the SBVT with airtime that they didn't give to Kerry refuting it.

You are right they absolutely are neither apologizing or admitting their role in a character assassination. Nice payback to a 25 year old kid who risked his life. In fact, this article is ITSELF swiftboating by implying there could have been some truth. (Especially when equating it to McCain being one of the Keating 5 - he was! and he DOES have a bad temper. Kerry did not give himself medals. the Navy did.

As to McCarthyism - the accusations often were totally true. Many people had been members of the Communist party or friends of people who were. It was the inference that was wrong. Swiftboating was if anything worse. It could be defined as a party and the media allowing completely unproven damaging lies to be repeated while suppressing the truth.