The news media overlooked how the full release of John Kerry's military records show the claims made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 election were not "truth" at all, but baseless smear tactics.
According to Media Matters for America:

In separate June 7 articles, The Boston Globe reported that it had obtained Kerry's complete military file, including medical and education records. The Globe emphasized Kerry's mediocre grades over the report that his full military records provided no new information about his service, even though the latter revelation definitively proved that smears by the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the presidential campaign were baseless.

The media made Kerry's college grades the big story which protected O'Neill and the Swifties from the humiliation due to them.  Very sad indeed.

More info:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506100008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506090006
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506070004

The news media overlooked how the full release of John Kerry's military records show the claims made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 election were not "truth" at all, but baseless smear tactics.
According to Media Matters for America:

In separate June 7 articles, The Boston Globe reported that it had obtained Kerry's complete military file, including medical and education records. The Globe emphasized Kerry's mediocre grades over the report that his full military records provided no new information about his service, even though the latter revelation definitively proved that smears by the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the presidential campaign were baseless.

The media made Kerry's college grades the big story which protected O'Neill and the Swifties from the humiliation due to them.  Very sad indeed.

More info:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506100008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506090006
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506070004


I dont think that type of smearing is right from either side.  The Kerry thing as well as the Bush/Abandoning Duty thing were wrong in my opinion.  But I don't really think it made a lot of difference in the election.  I think the majority of the US had such strong views on the war (either strongly supported or strongly opposed) that most of the campaign tactics on both sides were a complete waste of time & money.  My guess would be that 90% of voters cast their votes solely on the candidate that shared their views on terrorism, and paid little to no attention to any of the other crap.

I didnt agree with the swift boat veterans for truth, but I feel that this needs to be said....the website where you are getting your information is an openly left-biased website determined to counteract the right

here's the "about us" page where they are very open about their motives:

http://mediamatters.org/etc/about.html


please use more non-partisan sources (or at least include one non-partisan) if you want an article to be taken serriously.  i dont reference the National Revue and only the National Revue when Im talking about the truth relating to a political issue.  And if I did youd say the exact same thing

I didnt agree with the swift boat veterans for truth, but I feel that this needs to be said....the website where you are getting your information is an openly left-biased website determined to counteract the right

here's the "about us" page where they are very open about their motives:

http://mediamatters.org/etc/about.html


please use more non-partisan sources (or at least include one non-partisan) if you want an article to be taken serriously.  i dont reference the National Revue and only the National Revue when Im talking about the truth relating to a political issue.  And if I did youd say the exact same thing

Th National Revue ?
Sounds like the same old song and dance, eh?

I refer to mediamatters.org in full knowledge of Mr. David Brock's political persuasion.  The question is whether or not you are able to impeach integrity of the news analysis on the site.  Brock started Media Matters for America in response to the biases found in mainstream commercial media.  FOX News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, and other Republican shills are the worst offenders, but a right-wing slant exists in news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.  I have found this to be the case in my observations independent of Mr. Brock and MMFA.  The findings of media observers such as Brock and myself withstand constant inveighing to the contrary by right-wing pundits and conservative "think tanks."
Prior to MMFA appearing on the scene last year, right-wing liars such as Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center had free run of media criticism.  Now progressives are giving the Right a taste of their own medicine, and the Right, being the big babies they are, can't take it.
Of course, there is a difference, progressives don't have to distort the world-view through a lens reactionary psychosis and religious zealotry in order to make their points salient.
Billy, I couldn't care less if you take me seriously or not if you drink the right-wing "fair and balanced" Kool-Aid rather than inquiring into objective truth.

Th National Revue ?
Sounds like the same old song and dance, eh?

I refer to mediamatters.org in full knowledge of Mr. David Brock's political persuasion.  The question is whether or not you are able to impeach integrity of the news analysis on the site.  Brock started Media Matters for America in response to the biases found in mainstream commercial media.  FOX News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, and other Republican shills are the worst offenders, but a right-wing slant exists in news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.  I have found this to be the case in my observations independent of Mr. Brock and MMFA.  The findings of media observers such as Brock and myself withstand constant inveighing to the contrary by right-wing pundits and conservative "think tanks."
Prior to MMFA appearing on the scene last year, right-wing liars such as Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center had free run of media criticism.  Now progressives are giving the Right a taste of their own medicine, and the Right, being the big babies they are, can't take it.
Of course, there is a difference, progressives don't have to distort the world-view through a lens reactionary psychosis and religious zealotry in order to make their points salient.
Billy, I couldn't care less if you take me seriously or not if you drink the right-wing "fair and balanced" Kool-Aid rather than inquiring into objective truth.



Im not sure why I wrote National Revue lol...National Review.......


anyway, the fact is still that you need complete scrutiny of any "news" from a obvious partisan source.  You dont believe everything Bush says, so I dont think you should be believing everything an organization whose principles are to discredit the right says. 

Do want the news media to be more centralized or more liberal-sided?  Id prefer non-partisan centralized thank you. 

Im not sure why I wrote National Revue lol...National Review.......


anyway, the fact is still that you need complete scrutiny of any "news" from a obvious partisan source.  You dont believe everything Bush says, so I dont think you should be believing everything an organization whose principles are to discredit the right says. 

Do want the news media to be more centralized or more liberal-sided?  Id prefer non-partisan centralized thank you. 

Whomever shall claim to be objective, shall be called biased by those who disagree with the conclusions. 

Media Matters IS staffed by liberals, but who else is gonna call the Bushies and their media lapdogs on their stupid crap? 

One organization I can think of that tries to bust both sides equally is spinsanity.org.  I haven't checked out Spinsanity in a while, but here's their link:
http://www.spinsanity.org/

I still insist it is the task of the objector to disprove the claim, rather than dismiss the claimant because of his political stance.

The news media overlooked how the full release of John Kerry's military records show the claims made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 election were not "truth" at all, but baseless smear tactics.





Well, A DUH!!!!




Cat

I didnt agree with the swift boat veterans for truth, but I feel that this needs to be said....the website where you are getting your information is an openly left-biased website determined to counteract the right

here's the "about us" page where they are very open about their motives:

http://mediamatters.org/etc/about.html


please use more non-partisan sources (or at least include one non-partisan) if you want an article to be taken serriously.  i dont reference the National Revue and only the National Revue when Im talking about the truth relating to a political issue.  And if I did youd say the exact same thing


"Counteract" false innuendos, out of context and therefore distorted facts, and the outright lies of the right (you might want to check out the thread on Bill O'Reiley).  Doing so may be motivated by "left bias",  but it not in itself biased.  In this case the issue was the emphasis the media placed on the facts, which diverted attention for the lies of the Swifties to Kerry's grades. 

Since vertually every media outlet has an editorial position, there is no such thing as a "non-partisan" source, so we can expect every news report to be somewhat slanted.  That's what editors do, and reporters quickly learn to tailor their reports to the line of the journal they work for by selecting the facts to emphasise.  The line, however, is when that selection process moves from emphasis to distortion. 

"Counteract" false innuendos, out of context and therefore distorted facts, and the outright lies of the right (you might want to check out the thread on Bill O'Reiley).  Doing so may be motivated by "left bias",  but it not in itself biased.  In this case the issue was the emphasis the media placed on the facts, which diverted attention for the lies of the Swifties to Kerry's grades. 

Since vertually every media outlet has an editorial position, there is no such thing as a "non-partisan" source, so we can expect every news report to be somewhat slanted.  That's what editors do, and reporters quickly learn to tailor their reports to the line of the journal they work for by selecting the facts to emphasise.  The line, however, is when that selection process moves from emphasis to distortion. 

And not even Air America has the canine loyalty to the Democratic party that FOX, Limbaugh, et al., has to the Republican party.  The only bona-fide partisanship in the media is on the Right for the Republicans.