So what should the press have done with those assertions by the Swift Boat Veterans that were shown to be true?
Regards,
Shodan
Given that your own source acknowledges that Kerry was close enough to Cambodia at times to see the country across the river, whether he actually crossed any boundaries or not seems a moot point to me, and to, well, almost everyone. We’re not talking the Rubicon here.
Heavens to Betsy. Kerry thought he was in Cambodia but he wasn’t. His spokesmen say he now believes his memory was incorrect. How on earth could we ever trust a man that forgot the geographic location of is boat 40 years ago? Why, he could have had the location wrong by who knows, 100 yards or more! If this isn’t proof of his unfitness, I don’t know what is. So he wasn’t facing enemy fire in Cambodia, he faced it in Vietnam. Far better we trust the nation to a coke-snorting draft-dodging liar than let someone like Kerry become president.
Just what that slavering, liberal rag The Washington Post did, print it. That’s how we, and you learned of it isn’t it?
Yeah, how could we trust anything he said about John Kerry. You were referring to the fact that Swiftie leader John O’Nill made the same mistake about claiming to be in Cambodia in his swift boat too, right?
Not that we want to rehash all of the he said-they lied of the Swifties…
And what if an attempt at pleading a double standard doesn’t work?
Regards,
Shodan
Hentor, David: Is there any significant political issue that you changed your stance on because you originally got “duped” by shoddy press coverage? For instnance, did you flip on your position about who to vote for for president, whether you favored the Iraq war, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, whether you think racial profiling is OK or not, whether you think welfare should be increased or decreased, etc.? How has the press failed either of you guys personally in determining your political views?
That isn’t the important point. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people out there that get nearly all their news from the television networks. Their votes can be swayed by what the corporate conservative media choose to put on the evening news. Do you recall massive media coverage of the Downing Street Memo? I don’t.
That just sounds like a variation on the meme that people would vote like you if only they were better informed. The Downing Street memo simply wasn’t compelling news. It was second hand information about what someone thought was going on, not what could objectively be said to have actually happened.
Where do you get all this bullshit, John? The memo was the minutes of a UK Cabinet-officials meeting, written by someone who was there. If evidence that we were lied into a predecided war isn’t “compelling” to you, then it just isn’t worth trying to discuss it, or anything much for that matter, with you.
Actually, I want to thank Shodan for demonstrating how this “he said/she said” crap can go on and on, long after it has lost any worth as an argument. As John Mace said, it’s a controversy, because Shodan disagrees … no matter on what grounds he disagrees.
So all of us flat earthers are still engaged in a controversy, too! Not to mention us ID advocates. Any position is equal to any other position, so long as someone disagrees with it.
Roll out the rolleyes …
I don’t know if these fit your bill or not, but based on the media presentation and before reading non-mainstream sources:
I used to buy that the Reagan years were great for the economy. I believed that welfare made up a significant amount of federal expenditures. I initially believed that Bush had some sort of economic plan that made sense. I initially believed, during the 2000 campaign, that Gore was a dissembler. I believed that all the ballots had been counted. I believed that the Democrats had been the first to go to the courts. I believed that the outgoing administration had engaged in significant vandalism. I believed, or at least gave credence to, the first few “we found some WMD” stories. I’m sure there are many, many more examples, particularly from sometime earlier than 2000, but I’m not going to bore you or myself with further efforts to dig them all up.
An honest change that has occurred for me is that I now believe that anything reoprted to be said by Republicans or about Democrats is either an outright lie or a deceptive misstatement. I used to adopt a “believe it until told otherwise” philosophy. I now have a “disbelieve it until it is clearly documented to be true” philosophy.
Maybe, from one point of view.
Jesus Christ! Now I’m embarrassed to have even given an honest attempt to answer your question. Your drone is becoming "If it doesn’t fit my argument, I’ll cry ‘Objectivity! Empiricism! Cannot be known with certainty!’ "
Sure, some official made notes about the meeting. But they were only his or her opinion about what happened. We can never know objectively what happened, so we must assume that nothing happened! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
No, it was a controversy because at least one of the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans were shown to be true.
So dismissing everything they said as false would be wrong, just as accepting everything they said at face value would have been.
Regards,
Shodan
Ah, the irony of using a he-said opinion piece to determine the truth and thus draw a conclusion that he-said/she-said reporting is legitimate is just too wonderful. Thanks, friend.
So one, small, equivocal detail is enough to completely balance the scales for you, huh? To say that the Swifties were telling partly the truth and partly a lie, and so was Kerry, so they must be equally bad, even if the basis for that statement is pretty shaky?
Behold the power of rationalization.
Well, the key part of the text of that memo is (emphasis added):
Yes, that is someone’s opinion. And someone who was not in all the meetings held inside the US on the matter. And it’s not the conclusion of the bipartisan Congressional invstigation of that issue, either. What exactly is a “perceptible shift in attitude”? Perceptible by whom and by what manner? Do you think that a memo written by a US official at the same meeting would have come to the same conclusion? If not, which one do we believe-- whichever reinforces our preconceived ideas about the war?
Frankly, the thoughts expressed in that memo are pretty close to my own. But lets be serious-- by the time that memo broke, the idea that Bush was predisposed to go to war with Iraq was yesterday’s news. Do you not remember the massive news coverage that Richard Clark got when his book came out? He was everywhere, saying exaclty the same thing. And it’s not like the Downing Street memo was surpressed. I first learned about it by reading my local paper and hearing about it on the news on TV.
But even if we were to both agree that the coverage of the Downing Street Memo was insufficient, does this really represent some new failure of the so-called Fourth Estate? When was this golden age of news consupmtion when Americans were true internationalists in their outook on the news? Haven’t Americans always been rather parochial in that respect?
You’re welcome.
Compared with the amusement value of see someone trying so desperately to derail an argument that is trending against him, my irony is nothing.
Regards,
Shodan
They were, on the whole. Do you mean the effect of the large defecits? If so, may I humbly suggest that this is not because of lack of news coverage of said item.
Based on News Coverage, of on what politicians said? Of course, if you include Social Security and Medicare/Medicade as part of welfare (which I think is a fair assessment), then it does make up the largest chunk of the federal budget, and the fastest growing chunk, too.
What was that plan? AFAIK, it consisted of cutting taxes and not cutting spending. That never made sense to me…
Not sure I see the value in continuing with the other items.
If you are so incredibly partisan that you can make a statement like that with a straight face, then I don’t see how your assessment of the state of the news media can be taken with any seriousness at all.
A wise attitude to take, but no more wise than it would have been 20, 40 or 60 years ago. The myth of the pure Fourth Estate is simply that-- a myth. News has always been a business in the US and if you think newspapers are biased today, pick up one from 50 years ago. If anything, you’ll find it to be worse.
Well, I first thought that the Gulf of Tonkin incident justified expanding our role in Vietnam. I’m not sure that qualifies as shoddy press coverage but it does seem that they were mostly just reprinting DOD press releases about the matter. I must say that I’m not sure what else they could have done at that time.
This isn’t political but I believed the press reports about how great Patton was. Then I read more about him and found that he was personally a glory grabber who constantly belittled the other generals to his staff. His unrestranined mouth was a constant source of problems for his superiors. He had many weaknesses as an army (as in 3rd Army) commander and Bradley wrote in A General’s Story that he and Eisenhower would have replaced Patton with Lucian Truscott if Truscot had been available.
The press reports about the internment of the Japanese made it seem like the only thing to do. I came to the conclusion that it was a terrible mistake long ago, shortly after WWII ended. I’m glad the government came to the same conclusion and made some amends. This has since made me deeply suspicious of all accounts of how horrible X is whenever it looks as if it we want X gone. I don’t have any power to stop the demonization of X but I always just sit back and wait for the full story to come out, if it does. And it the story never comes out, at least I’m not one of those who is after X’s hide.
I’ve always been somewhat skeptical of press reports. In cases that I personally knew what happened, the press reports contained exaggerations or misstatements. I worked for a newspaper and having seen the way the news is often gathered by one person, written up by another and edited by a third with all of them working under a time deadline, I’m a little surprised that they do as well as they do.