PBS Has An Egg On Its Face

[ethics]

INITIAL BROADCAST: "FUNDED BY A WEALTHY REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN DONOR, THE GROUP SMEARED KERRY’S MILITARY RECORD, AND POSSIBLY COST HIM THE ELECTION."

They made the change (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/14/%E2%80%98history-detective%E2%80%99-defaces-history/)after people started writing about their "History Detective" episode on elections. Here's the corrected statement:

REPLACEMENT LINE: "THE GROUP QUESTIONED KERRY’S MILITARY RECORD, AND ACCORDING TO SOME ACCOUNTS, HELPED CONTRIBUTE TO HIS DEFEAT IN 2004."

[joseftu]

They should have replaced it with a much more truthful and accurate line:
"FUNDED BY DISHONEST SMEAR ARTISTS, THE GROUP SPREAD LIES ABOUT KERRY, WHICH WERE (AND STILL ARE) WIDELY BELIEVED. ALTHOUGH KERRY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE LOST ANYWAY, THE "SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH" ACCOMPLISHED ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL BIG LIE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGNS IN MODERN HISTORY."

You're right--PBS should be ashamed.

[ethics]

Oh, blow me!

[joseftu]

Gotcha!
;)
(Crapped on your thread, didn't I?)

[cdw]

This is getting scary. First you're going to take one of Joe's classes, now you want a blow job.
This is really outta hand. :)

And Joe, go blow yourself. :rofl:

[ethics]

Nah, you make a valid point but I don't think your statement would have been objective either. Remember this is supposed to be objective reporting, historic analysis. No spin, nada.

[joseftu]

If you want to make it serious (and I was mostly joking), I think this is a perfect example of a principle I've argued before.

The original statement is not objective. Neither is the replacement. (Of course, neither is my replacement).

If you're going to refer to the SBVFT folks at all (and I think you have to, if you're going to talk about the 2004 election), you're going to have to make some judgment about the truth of their allegations. If you call them "allegations" or "questions" you're going to anger their supporters, because you're implying that they're unsubstantiated. If you call them "challenges" or "criticisms" you're going to anger the people who think (as I do) that they were blatant lies.

If you give the SBVT any credibility at all, you're taking a stand, you're arguing for a position...you're spinning! If you call them liars, of course, you're doing the same thing.

Looking back, I don't really even see what's questionable about the first statement.

Were they funded by a wealthy Republican donor? Yes, absolutely. That's well-established. Did they smear Kerry's record? Of course they did. Nobody would really argue about that--just about whether the smear was justified or not, and I don't think the word "smear" in itself really implies that it's justified or that it's not justified. Did they possibly cost Kerry the election? Possibly. I don't think it was them all on their own, but that's possible. You couldn't really prove it either way.

"Smeared" is no more biased than "questioned."

But maybe I'm being too loose in my definition of "smear."

Like I said, anyway, I was mostly joking. :)

[ethics]

I know, I hope you know my response was as well. :P

But you are right. All three are biased.

If you give the SBVT any credibility at all, you're taking a stand, you're arguing for a position...you're spinning! If you call them liars, of course, you're doing the same thing.Best way to approach SBVT would be as to who they are, not who donated to them.

Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBVT) has it dead on as to what type of wording should have been used:

formerly known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), is a political group (527 group) of American Swift boat veterans and former prisoners of war of the Vietnam War, formed during the 2004 presidential election campaign for the purpose of opposing John Kerry's candidacy for the presidency.

[joseftu]

But isn't it relevant who funded them? Isn't omitting that info a kind of cover-up, hence spin?

The wikipedia article does cover their funding:
SBVT characterized itself as a non-partisan group both in the legal sense and in spirit, yet several prominent individuals who assisted SBVT also have had close ties to the Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party). According to information released by the IRS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS) on February 22, 2005, more than half of the group's reported contributions came from just three sources, all prominent Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_J._Perry), a longtime supporter of George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons' Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens%2C_Jr.) donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Lindner%2C_Jr.) ($300,000), Robert Lindner ($260,000), GOP contributor Aubrey McClendon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_McClendon) ($250,000), George Matthews Jr. ($250,000), and Crow Holdings ($100,000).<sup class="reference" id="_ref-opensecrets_0">[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBVT#_note-opensecrets)</sup><sup class="reference" id="_ref-chronoctcontrib_0">[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBVT#_note-chronoctcontrib)</sup><sup class="reference" id="_ref-tpjfactsheet_0">[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBVT#_note-tpjfactsheet)</sup>(and more).

It's a tricky zone, when you try to seek objectivity...because you always have to leave something out, you always have to frame the question somehow.

But I don't want to open that can of worms, go around that mulberry bush, step into that hot-jello-wrestling ring, or whatever you want to call it, yet again!
:)
<sup id="_ref-tpjfactsheet_0" class="reference"></sup>

[Coot]

If you must hand out credit, I funded them. My first and only donation to a PAC. :)

[Arc]

Don't know much about who paid for what to who. All I know is the Swift Boat guys told the truth. Thank goodness! So Kerry "The Great Exaggerator" and later a seditious liar about the war after his early discharge and lying about his exploits, (Ah, Christmas in Cambodia), and topping it off by lying and slandering the vets he ran out on while pretending to throw away his medals.

:thumdown: Thumbs down on Kerry, way down. The most dishonorable presidential candidate of the past 34 years. He should just stick to marrying heiresses and get out of politics.

Every body had a chance to have their say and the public knew the truth when they saw and heard it and they knew when Kerry tried to hide it. They demonstrated it at the polls.

[ShinyTop]

Joe, as with the NYT, the stores were not dismissed out of hand because Kerry had been caught in several lies that were well documented. His stories and participation in various groups through the years were so blatantly aimed at political office rather than beliefs the stories sounded true.

Were the stories lies? I don't know with abosolute certainty, but anybody who would get the honorable Purple Heart and use such minor scratches to his benefit would certainly lie to glorify himself.

As Arc so well pointed out.

[Stiofán]

But isn't it relevant who funded them? Isn't omitting that info a kind of cover-up, hence spin?



Why? Do we hear who funds Moveon.org everytime they do something, such as the full page NYT Petraeus/Betrayus ad, or during the 2004 election? Of course not. From now on around here, everytime we mention them, let's say "the George Soros/Peter Lewis funded Moveon.org (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer)". You'll agree that's overkill.

[joseftu]

Why? Do we hear who funds Moveon.org everytime they do something,
No, not every time they do something--but certainly every time they're discussed in a historical documentary (or an encyclopedia article!).

See the difference? I think you do.

[joseftu]

but anybody who would get the honorable Purple Heart and use such minor scratches.
See where the problem is? That's a lie right there (not on your part, Shiny--I know you didn't originate it)--but it becomes accepted, believed, and then it's used as the foundation for the continuing false belief.

It is exactly like the NYT, you're right. Stories like "they gave MoveOn a false discount" get spread, believed, and then when the next false story comes out, people say, "well, maybe this one is false, but that MoveOn story was true, so why should we believe anything the Times says."

That's how the big lie and propaganda work. You throw enough nonsense out there, and even though it's all false, some of it sticks, and that lets you build a structure on that false foundation.

[ShinyTop]

Joe, those "lies" came from military records and those that treated him. And it is no lie that he requested reassignment due to three Purple Hearts.

[Arc]

Joe, those "lies" came from military records and those that treated him. And it is no lie that he requested reassignment due to three Purple Hearts.

From the Boston globe committing on Kerry's official military records--just one of part of the many faceted stories of Kerry:

"For example, Kerry received his first Purple Heart for action on Dec. 2, 1968. Kerry told historian Douglas Brinkley that ''I never saw where the piece of shrapnel had come from." Kerry's critics have questioned whether the wound came from enemy fire, and his former commanding officer said the wound resembled a ''scratch." The file includes a previously reported reference to Kerry being treated for the wound and that he was awarded the Purple Heart, but it does not address the details of the combat that night. No after-action report for the incident has been found."

The man may have redeemed himself since his lies of Vietnam, running out, pretending to throw away his medals in protest when in fact they weren't his medals, lying about and slandering his combat vets and "friends" still fighting in Vietnam while falsely accusing them from the safety of he sidelines about atrocities they never committed and he never saw.

Hey times change. But I prefer to believe he is what he has always been and that is very obvious.

[ravital]

PBS has not just an egg, but an entire omelette on their faces. And it appears that they are not the only ones.

[Kangaroo]

You see Joe, one of the reasons liberals cannot win is they really believe that the MSM is still the only outlet for news and the MSM can continue to cover for their lies through their inimitable combination of incompetence and bias. This is no longer the case and liberals can no longer get away with flights of fancy and historical fiction.

[joseftu]

Thanks, Arc. Boston Globe story proves my point. The SBVT folks lied, and that quote gives an excellent example of how their lies (totally unsubstantiated) got elevated to the undeserved status of "questions" and "critics"--and then accepted as truth. Even by people who really should know better.

[Biker]

Oh really... The SBVT folks brought up VERY valid points. To this day, we still have not seen the full file on Kerry's records. Oh sure, we saw the ones he got from the Navy, but we didn't see the full file from the Archives in St Louis. THOSE are the records that will have every scrap of info that will put everything to rest.

You do not get discharged and then 10 years later, miraculously get awarded medals. I still say he got the Big Chicken Dinner and later had his records amended. He's a collaborator and has absolutely no business being in politics.

[ethics]

Oh sure, we saw the ones he got from the Navy, but we didn't see the full file from the Archives in St Louis. THOSE are the records that will have every scrap of info that will put everything to rest.

Wow, is that still true? I remember that he promised and stated he will release those records and he STILL hasn't?

What's more appalling is that people who are blindly defending him should know this, probably do know this, and don't care?

Let's not forget the Sandy Berger affair.

If anything, PBS did the right thing here, I am more than convinced.

[Biker]

The "records" he released were obtained from the Navy, not the National Archives in St. Louis.

[tke711]

Correct. Kerry never did put this to bed like he said he would. Which alone should be enough to make it obvious that there is something to hide.

[Arc]

Thanks, Arc. Boston Globe story proves my point. The SBVT folks lied, and that quote gives an excellent example of how their lies (totally unsubstantiated) got elevated to the undeserved status of "questions" and "critics"--and then accepted as truth. Even by people who really should know better.

The Boston Globe, among other staunch left wing newspapers also wrote a series of other stories about the lies of John Kerry and his character, none of which the Swift Boat Vets, (thats Vets as in plural) were part of or contributed to. The additional facts alleged by the Globe were independently corroborated by them using a variety of sources as well other facts through different sources and all corroborated.

And ethics regarding, the records, aside from the facts and opinions about their release or non-release as well as their completeness, lets not forget that many of the negative acts and words attributed to Kerry would not be part of the military record, especially those that happen after he ran away, trashed the troops, lied about atrocities he never saw and never happened made his butt kissing trip to North Vietnam where he was welcomed as a hero.

[ShinyTop]

If you knew something that a candidate had lied about, how would you get that word out? If you know him/her to be a liar and a bad choice for president would you not go to the opposition to help his defeat?

Would you go to his campaign manager, his media outlets and ask them to publish it?


If you are a member of the opposition would you not help somebody to expose a lie?

Cannot see the Swifties financial support as cut and dried evidence they lied.

[joseftu]

made his butt kissing trip to North Vietnam where he was welcomed as a hero.
See what I mean about big lies, which then get believed, accepted, and passed around? Kerry never made any such trip. Along with the rest of the accusations you make, and don't substantiate, Archangel, it's just plain not true. Your Boston Globe quote (without specific citation), does nothing at all to prove or demonstrate any of your claims!

[Steve]

The single action which would bury this issue, one way or the other and with finality is the same action Kerry promised to undertake, the one which Biker refers to.

Kerry did not follow through and that alone is reason enough for me dismiss him from consideration as an idiot because only an idiot would let these allegations continue to besmirch his reputation if he had the means to stop them cold.

[ethics]

Ditto. You may argue about everything else but I wasn't even aware he never disclosed THOSE records.

What a schmuck that Kerry is.

[joseftu]

What a schmuck that Kerry is.
No argument there! None whatsoever!

[Arc]

See what I mean about big lies, which then get believed, accepted, and passed around? Kerry never made any such trip. Along with the rest of the accusations you make, and don't substantiate, Archangel, it's just plain not true. Your Boston Globe quote (without specific citation), does nothing at all to prove or demonstrate any of your claims!

It really hurts doesn't it Joe, the truth about who Kerry is. The Globe wrote a lot of negative stories about him. Don't want to believe it find. Besides whether they did or not you demonstrate your suspension of reality by criticizing the Globe on the part I quoted by saying they were just repeating the lies of the Swift Boat Veterans. Were the Globe folks just fools who were printing gossip or were or are they a cover for the Clintonoia wag the dog right wing conspiracy?

However, I must admit and going back and re-reading my post I did make an inadvertent mistake in my previous post about Kerry due to my emotions overriding my cognitive functions and being affected by "ethics dyslexia. :) Kerry did not travel to North Vietnam and kiss their asses where he was welcomed as a hero. He traveled on his own to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese, (the enemy), in violation of the law, to kiss their asses and he was welcomed as a hero. All the while our guys were still fighting and dying and he was continuing to lie about them and their crimes. Way to go Kerry. A true American rat.

And he even lied about his meeting with them at one point. Initially he claimed he met with them just once in 1970. A lie. When the FBI produced the evidence he then amended his story, (amending his story a John Kerry signature trademark), and he then admitted he met a second time with them on a second trip.

If it makes you feel any better he was also politely but less enthusiastically welcomed by the American peace delegation in Paris.