August 31, 2004

Swift Boats, "Liars" and Blogs
Posted by McQ

In the Atlanta Journal Consititution today, Jim Wooten was discussing why Kerry's post Vietnam activites were fair game. I think we've covered that fairly well here.

But at the end of the article he made a pretty good point about the controversy with the Swift Boat Vets, the mainstream media and the "internet" which is a euhphemism for blogs:

The Kerry camp has treated the swift-boat veterans as an adjunct of the Bush campaign and dismissed them as liars, one and all. That's the story framed for the mass media.

On a parallel information track, primarily the Internet, a different story emerged. Rather than focus on whether the swift-boat veterans were Bush pawns, a community of fact-checkers and military experts assembled to examine the evidence. The result was that veterans who knew the history of the brown-water Navy in Vietnam, who understood tactics and missions, and who had firsthand experience, studied the Kerry claims.

The mainstream media never quite got past the "liar-liar" feed. I have not heard anybody on either side of the Kerry claims who I thought lied. Different vantage points and memories, perhaps. But no liars.

I'm not sure I'm in agreement wtih the "no liars" bit, but I do agree very much with his assessment of what has happened with the Swift Boat controversy and how it has essentially ended the monopoly of the so-called main stream media.

Watching the "internet", aka blogs, dig into this story has been fascinating. Meeting in a virtual room over many weeks, fact-checkers and former (and present) military did indeed sift and compare the evidence at hand, as noted by Wooten. And their conclusions were much different than the MSM who's approach was to focus on the politics and connections and ignore the substance.

As we all know, that's not something new for them.

Its interesting to watch this examination and assessment of the new state of the media going on. Its also fun to be a part of the change that's taking place. I like the fact that it is now possible to address the slant, factual inaccuracies and opinions in some other way than a 'letter to the editor" or an email to the ombudsman and hope they get noticed or published.

Its freedom of speech in the most democratic way .... and it appears to scare the big-boys to death.

TrackBack

Comments

McQ, they are blinded by their glasses. In their inability to look at the Swiftees, the Holders of the Medal of Honor, the majority of the POWs and other well known veterans, as well as the unknown, unheroic veterans like me through any but a political view, they'll never understand. They can't cover this because they can't see it. Worse, they refuse to even consider that it's something that isn't about politics, it just took an election to bring it to the surface.
They don't understand, they can't understand and they won't let themselves understand.

Posted by: Peter at August 31, 2004 01:00 PM

FWIW, the AJC takes great pride in mimicking the NYT, even down to having an exec editor just as laughably knee-jerk as Howell Raines. This is a little surprising since AJC generally does an excellent job at suppressing anything except Dem talking points, although I believe Wooten has spoken before in measured support of SBVFT. What would truly be astounding is if this is not just an anomaly, but the beginning of AJC denial of Kerry. But I'll beleive it when I see it.

Posted by: Jumbo at August 31, 2004 02:33 PM

And I think the conclusion in the blogworld among those who have the understanding to sift through the claims and counterclaims are as follows:

First, Whatever else may be said of John F Kerry, While in public office and while running for President, he allowed his supporters to puff up his 4 month service in Vietnam over 30 years ago to create the illusion that he is now qualified to lead our armed forces in time of war.

Second, since he was in college over thirty years ago, he has consistently advocated a world view that demonstrates he is not fit to lead our armed forces in time of war.

I hope the message continues to spread.

Posted by: vnjagvet at August 31, 2004 02:40 PM

Jumbo: Actually, since the merger of the Journal and the Constitution, I think they do a much better job of striving to give both sides, at least in their editorial coverage. I've been reading the Journal and now the Journal-Constitution for 30 years and this is the closest they've come.

That's not to say, as you point out, they won't spike a story just like the NYT. But editorially they're better. As I recall this is Wooten's second or third Swift Boat article. I've yet to read an in depth look at the controversy anywhere in the AJC since its broken.

Posted by: McQ at August 31, 2004 03:16 PM