Myth of media bias? Compare coverage of "AWOL" and Swift Vet stories

I don't recall ever seeing such clear evidence of liberal media bias--I had occasionally wondered if we (the Right) exaggerated it. I know now that it is rampant. Let's take a walk down memory lane . . . . .

Kerry demands Bush condemn the Swift Vets, though he poured fuel on the "AWOL" story in February . . . Far from condemning the attacks on the President, Kerry specifically pushed the story forward:

"The issue here is . . . was he present and active in Alabama at the time he was supposed to be? I don't have the answer to that question and just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question." SEN. JOHN KERRY, D-Mass., in Richmond, Va., commenting on Bush's statement.

Bush's Guard Service In Question Democrats Say President Shirked His Duty in 1972 By Lois Romano Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, February 3, 2004; Page A08

Kerry said yesterday that he had not decided whether to make Bush's service an issue in the general election.

Kerry questions Bush tour in Guard By Jill Zuckman and Jeff Zeleny Tribune national correspondents Published April 27, 2004

CANONSBURG, Pa. -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry scolded the White House for criticizing his protest of the Vietnam War and said Monday that President Bush "owes America an explanation" about whether he lived up to his own wartime obligations a generation ago. "I've fought for my country. I know what it means to defend my nation," Kerry said in a television interview here, directly challenging Bush's service for the first time. "This president can't even prove he actually showed up for duty in the National Guard."

Kerry also went out of his way to spit on the service of all National Guardsmen during the Vietnam era:

Kerry said: ''I've said since the day I came back from Vietnam that it was not an issue to me if somebody chose to go to Canada or to go to jail or to be a conscientious objector or to serve in the National Guard or elsewhere," he said. ''I honor that service, but that's not the issue here," he said. Republicans have suggested that any criticism of Bush is a slight against the National Guard. Kerry objected to that notion. ''Today's Guard is a very different Guard from the one that existed in 1968, '67 and '69. Anybody who lived in those periods of time will tell you that there were many people who chose to go to the Guard because the odds of being called up and going to Vietnam were very low. And that's just the truth,'' Kerry said. Kerry said it was OK to choose service in the Guard over service in Vietnam, ''but when you make your choice, people have an obligation to at least live out the choice they make.''

Bush specifically addressed AWOL charges on Meet the Press--he didn't hide behind advisors and biased media outlets--where is Kerry?

Russert: And we are back in the Oval Office talking to the President of the United States.

Mr. President, this campaign is fully engaged. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terence McAuliffe, said this last week: "I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard. He didn't show up when he should have showed up…"

President Bush: Political season is here. I was — I served in the National Guard. I flew F-102 aircraft. I got an honorable discharge. I've heard this — I've heard this ever since I started running for office. I — I put in my time, proudly so.

I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard. It's fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do. I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard, though, and the reason I wouldn't, is because there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq.

Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of the records and said there’s no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.

President Bush: Yeah, they’re — they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.

Russert: You did — were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Was there a reason?

President Bush: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.

Russert: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?

President Bush: Yeah. Listen, these files — I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for governor. And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well. Probably you were. And — absolutely. I mean, I —

Russert: But you would allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?

President Bush: Yeah. If we still have them, but I — you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records.

And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I'm used to it. What I don't like is when people say serving in the Guard is — is — may not be a true service.

President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.

President Bush: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and provided a service to our country. In those days we had what was called "air defense command," and it was a part of the air defense command system.

The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me as I look back was it was a political war. We had politicians making military decisions, and it is lessons that any president must learn, and that is to the set the goal and the objective and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective. And those are essential lessons to be learned from the Vietnam War.

There is also a lot of great stuff over at Media Research Center http://www.mrc.org/ concerning the "AWOL" bias . . .

When a liberal Democrat faces a personal charge, the national media find ways to avoid discussing it in public. Is there proof of wrongdoing, or merely suspicion? Is it relevant to their public role? Does everybody do it? Do voters even care? When they want to, the media can usually find an excuse to spike an uncomfortable story before the feeding frenzy ever begins.

Reporters could not justify pursuing the Bush “AWOL” story by citing any actual proof of wrongdoing, any relevance to Bush’s role as President, any sign that his conduct in 1972-73 was especially uncommon, or any clamoring from voters to get to the bottom of the story. The only impetus was DNC boss Terry McAuliffe’s wish to contrast “John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals” with “George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard.”

The networks followed McAuliffe’s agenda. From Feb. 1-16, ABC, CBS and NBC aired 63 National Guard stories or interview segments on their morning and evening news programs. That’s far more coverage than Bill Clinton’s draft-dodging scandal received in 1992. Back then, the three evening newscasts offered 10 stories on Clinton’s complete evasion of service; this year, those same broadcasts pumped out 25 stories on whether Bush’s acknowledged service was fully documented.

Despite the fact that no Democrat had substantiated their AWOL claims, the networks put the burden on Bush to prove his innocence. After the White House released documents on February 10 showing Bush had satisfied the Guard’s requirements and received an honorable discharge, reporters wanted more evidence (see box). The records showed Bush was never “AWOL,” exposing the baselessness of the Democrats’ original charge, yet none of the networks framed their stories around questionable Democratic tactics. Instead, they kept the onus on Bush: “The issue is not going to go away,” ABC’s Terry Moran promised. Other lowlights:

• On February 12, the CBS Evening News promoted a conspiracy theory floated by retired National Guard officer Bill Burkett, who claimed he overheard a 1997 order to purge Bush’s records. The Boston Globe reported the next day that Burkett’s back-up, George Conn, totally disagreed with his friend’s version of what happened, but the Evening News never told viewers about that crucial detail.

• Early on, John Kerry tried to egg on the media. “Was he present and active, on duty in Alabama, at the times he was supposed to be?” he challenged on February 8. “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question.” Given Kerry’s defense of the draft-dodging Clinton twelve years ago (“We do not need now to divide America over who served and how”), unbiased reporters would have pounded the candidate for his hypocrisy in at least not repudiating the other Democratic “dividers,” but ABC, CBS and NBC concealed the Kerry flip-flop and kept him above the fray.

• Last Thursday, Peter Jennings refused to report the finding of ABC’s polling unit that two-thirds of the public, including 58 percent of Democrats, thought the Bush story was “not a legitimate issue.” Instead, Jennings highlighted how Bush’s “rating for honesty and trustworthiness is at a new low” — as if the networks’ biased promotion of phony charges had nothing to do with that.

The media obsession with advancing the liberal Democratic campaign quest, to make President Bush’s National Guard record an issue, continued on Wednesday morning. Just as occurred on Tuesday night, instead of castigating those leveling unsubstantiated “AWOL” charges, and demanding that the accusers provide proof, the network morning shows presumed Bush is guilty until proven innocent.

ABC’s Good Morning America, for instance, devoted half of its first half hour -- a news story and three (!) interview segments all totaling a bit more than ten minutes of air time -- to the subject as co-host Charges Gibson adopted Terry McAuliffe’s spin. With “Was He AWOL?” plastered on screen over video of present day Bush next to a black-and-white still shot of Bush in uniform during his National Guard days, Gibson asserted: “President Bush still in the hot seat after releasing his military records. Was he AWOL as his critics charge?” And showing no self-awareness of how it is the media which are making it a story, Gibson claimed: “The questions about the President's National Guard service just won't stop.”

NBC’s Tim Russert threatened more coverage: “I think we're gonna have to do a lot more study of the Guard back then. What was it like, what were the rules? Become much more familiar with the protocols, if you will, in order to continue to report this story and in a fair and accurate way."

But wouldn’t “fair and accurate” coverage mean ceasing to push a baseless storyline which advances the agenda of partisan activists? In other words, just dropping the story?

ABC ran a story by Claire Shipman, followed by interview sessions on the topic with Boston Globe reporter Walter Robinson, who wrote about it in 2000, Condoleezza Rice and George Stephanopoulos.

On CBS’s Early Show, the MRC’s Brian Boyd noticed, Bill Plante concluded that the White House didn’t come up with enough proof: "The problem for the White House is that these documents don't actually prove Mr. Bush showed up on the dates for which he was paid. And so far no one has come forward to say that they served with him, leaving the President on the defensive."

Interviewing Rice about President Bush’s upcoming speech on nuclear proliferation, Harry Smith asked her: "As a member of the administration are you satisfied that the president has accounted for his apparent missing time while serving in the National Guard?"

Over on NBC’s Today, while interviewing Rice, Couric actually suggested that Bush’s speech on nuclear proliferation was just arranged to distract attention from his Guard duty. The MRC’s Geoff Dickens noticed that Couric told Rice: "How do you respond to critics, Dr. Rice, who suggest this is an effort by the White House to deflect attention away from the President's National Guard service?"

Couric followed up by arguing: "Dr. Rice as you know the White House yesterday released pay records that, that it claims supported the President's assertion that he, in fact, fulfilled his duties in the Air National Guard. Yet to quote, Norah O'Donnell's piece that aired earlier, 'There is a six-month gap where there is no record of service or payroll stubs. He was also suspended from flying for failing to report for a medical exam. And the new records create a contradiction. If he showed up at times for duty why did his two Texas commanders report, 'Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit?'"

Indeed, in the earlier story, O’Donnell maintained that “the White House had hoped to end this controversy but may have re-ignited more questions."

Couric also raised the subject with Tim Russert: "Quick question about President Bush and his service in the National Guard. He, the White House released pay stubs but there's still that six-month gap where no supervising officers reported having seen George W. Bush report for duty. How do you see this shaking out in the future and what's gonna happen?" Russert: "Well the White House has released every record they said they can find. The President said he would release everything. There may be more to come, we just don't know." Couric: "Do they need to find an individual who can vouch for him?" Russert promised greater efforts to give the topic even more coverage: "Well that'd be helpful. And the campaign of Bush in 2000 said they would. In fact there was a, there was a reward offered, $250,000, to someone who was in the unit to come forward. No one has come forward yet. I think it is important for the White House to put this issue to rest because it keeps, continues to play out. I think we're gonna have to do a lot more study of the Guard back then. What was it like, what were the rules? Become much more familiar with the protocols, if you will, in order to continue to report this story and in a fair and accurate way."

More now on GMA’s February 11 coverage as tracked by the MRC’s Jessica Anderson:

Charles Gibson set up ten minutes of coverage: "We're going to start now with President Bush's military record. It's a subject that seems to be consuming Washington these days. The questions about the President's National Guard service just won't stop and ABC's Claire Shipman is in Washington this morning. Claire."

Shipman ran through the details, emphasizing supposed gaps in the payroll records. Shipman complained: “The problem is there continue to be no records that show Bush reported for duty in Alabama and at least two of his commanding officers have said they don't remember seeing him at the base. General William Turnipseed, deputy commander of the 187th squadron, told ABC News by phone, 'I don't know if he showed up in Alabama or not.' Now, the newly-released pay stubs show that Bush was paid during the periods when commanding officers don't remember seeing him. Is that proof he reported for duty? Bush insists he did serve during the period in question....And despite the fact that this issue was raised four years ago, nobody who served with the President during that period has come forth to talk about it.” Shipman concluded: "So the new records show that he earned money and points for his service, but in a hot political season, the questions just won't stop. Did he miss some of his duty? Did he get any special treatment? Many of the superiors involved who could clear this up are now dead. Furthermore, many have pointed out that given the way the Guard worked 30 years ago, it was probably possible to miss some duty, still get paid and be honorably discharged."

Next, Gibson interviewed Boston Globe reporter Walter Robinson who had explored the subject in some 2000 news stories. Gibson prompted his unimpressed reaction to the document release and then quizzed him on shortcomings in the record: "Is it possible he was paid and didn't show up because these commanding officers, both in Texas and Alabama, the two units to which he was assigned at different times, say they don't remember seeing him?" Robinson: "Well, it is possible. There were episodes of that happening at the time. Whether it happened in his case, we don't know. What we do know is that both in Alabama and in Texas, as you pointed out, his commanding officers say that they didn't see him at all." Gibson: "But the President says, 'Look, I was paid, I got an honorable discharge, I remember being there.' 'Why doesn't that end the matter?" Robinson: "Well, I think it's a question, as all good issues in politics are, it's a question of credibility. Now we have a President who calls himself a wartime President, and there are questions about his service. Four years ago, national security was not a major issue and this issue went virtually unnoticed, and now all of a sudden it's right in front of us." Gibson: "The commanding officers say they don't remember seeing him in either Alabama or in Texas, but as the White House Press Secretary said yesterday, look, we're talking about something more than 30 years ago. How can you expect people to remember someone who was in the National Guard 30 years back?" Robinson: "That's a fair point. What's surprising is that over the last four years, nobody in either Alabama or Texas has been able to come forward and say, yes, I served with this man. Remember, he got into the Guard through family connections. He was well-known in his unit, and in fact, his commanding officer in Houston, who eventually let him out early, was a friend of his, according to Bush's own autobiography." Gibson: "Is this really such an issue, Walter, something that happened 32 years ago?" Robinson: "Well, I think I'd leave that for the pundits. I mean, I think there's some evidence that the Democratic Party, to use a phrase, has been test marketing this for the last couple weeks to see if it has resonance, and I think we have to wait and see on that."

Diane Sawyer sat down with George Stephanopoulos, who admired the Democratic technique, but expressed the view that the burden of proof now shifts to the accusers. But isn’t that where it always should have been?

Sawyer asked: "So, let me pose it to you, pundit person. Thirty-two years ago, does this resonate with voters?" Stephanopoulos: "Not yet, not yet. You know, Walter Robinson talked about test marketing, I'll use a different metaphor. Basically, what the Democrats did a couple weeks ago is throw a brushback pitch in the first inning of the World Series, and this was about showing they were tough enough. If Republicans are going to come at them on national security, come at John Kerry on national security, they're going to be willing to push back, but I think when the White House released these records yesterday, they effectively shifted the burden of proof. Now unless Democrats or reporters can prove that President Bush didn't show up in Alabama, rather than raising questions about it, or can prove that strings were pulled to get him paid or to get him a cushy assignment, I think this is likely to recede as an issue, but they're always going to be able to bring it back if the Republicans go after the Democrats."

Sawyer then played an except of a taped interview with Rice in which Sawyer inquired about “how the documents came to surface now?" Sawyer also wanted to know if Rice thought it is “a legitimate question of whether he fulfilled his Guard service in the same way other members of the Guard did?"

The Dems don't know how to field a candidate that really can stand on their own.

Lieberman was their best chance at giving Bush a run for the White House on the issues.

So the press has to pick up the slack of the Dem's candidates and make them good enough for at least half of the public. The news agencies employ the liberal journalists because it suits them now, and if ever it were the conservatives needing a leg up from the depths of bad polls... I bet news agencies will start emphasizing their conservative journalists. Oh, it won't happen right away... But it would happen eventually.

Like I said, a close race is good for ratings, and ratings are good for selling air time. And sales are good for profits, which would benefit the conservative owners of the big media.

Always assume someone else is going to watch their wallet before they'll help you watch yours... And if someone is watching your wallet, watch them closely.

This AWOL thing has been a load of crap from the beginning. When I was on active duty I was "AWOL" on two separate occasions. Both times it was due to a paperwork foul up. One outfit thought I was supposed to be in one place while in fact I had been sent to another. I'm sure if Bush were in fact AWOL someone would have made note of it and he wouldn't have gotten an honorable discharge. PERIOD!!

CBS is a 527.

NBC is a 527.

ABC is a 527.

Time Magazine is a 527.

The NY Times is a 527.

The Washington Post is a 527.

Newsweek is a 527.

CNN us a 527.

* * *

John McCain is a 527.

Or should be 527'ed.

Really. Michael Moore, Hollywood docudramatist who can't even manage to splice ACTUAL footage together to make his point (and that's the KINDEST thing anyone would say about this scumbag), should be viewed in the same light as decorated veterans who not only have NO PROFIT motive but EVERYTHING to lose. If you find these two entities comparable, I'd ("personally") have to say you don't deserve the right to vote.

If you find these two entities comparable, I'd ("personally") have to say you don't deserve the right to vote.

They're both advocates making charges of their own accord using popular media as campaign ads.

If you *can't* see the comparison between these two entities, I'd have to say you're so partisan it's possible you may not deserve the right to vote.

I *agree* with Swiftees charges and disagree with Moore's, don't misunderstand. But these are two sides of the same coin.

In fact, the single greatest proof of "media bias" I've ever seen now is this reaction to the Swiftee book v. the reaction to Moore's movie.

There was not one single sound of outrage when Moore did it, in fact all the praise in the media and the coverage of the release of the movie as if it were NEWS was astounding and unprecedented.

But now that the same technique is being used against a D . . . there's outrage in the (media) streets and calls to censorship!

Let me put this as reasonably as I can. I know you're leaning the right way and that it's not your fault ethics played no part in any political science, history, or literature courses you've taken in the last--oh--40 years which, by the way, is part of the Kerry legacy.

1. If you believe the Swifts are partisan or run by the GOP, you haven't been paying attention; but you can rectify that by looking back over the posts here on the subject.

2. There's a huge difference between calumny and slander. The Dems have committed both--officially and 527-wise. The Swifts, so far as the media have been able to PROVE, have committed NEITHER. The moment, the SECOND, the Swifts ARE caught in ANY lie or damaging truth, don't you believe that Kerry MIGHT sic his Heinz-paid lawyers on them? Do you think he hasn't because he wants to play nice? No--he realizes that if he LOSES the suit (which would include defamation--the successful defense of which is TRUTH), he does a lot more than just pay the damages and the legal fees. If he loses, he's possibly in prison (not because of the suit per se, but because of the volume of TRUTH that would have to come out). So he can't be TOO sure about suing them--regardless of the best law money can buy.

3. And I made this point before (I think), what, precisely, is it the Swifts have to gain in all this--media pukes interrupting their suppers, $influence placed on their employers or clients, private detectives uncovering unrelated but damaging events in their past lives, etc., etc.)? Do you suppose that ANY ONE of them will be able even to accept an invite to the Inaugural Ball if Bush wins--much less any PAYING job?

4. Do you think the POWs involved in this are lying, too--that they don't really feel as strongly as they say about young master Kerry? Think they're being paid off by the GOP NOW after they took torture 35 years ago because they wouldn't sign a confession Kerry already made for them? Even if it meant finally getting HOME?

Please use your head on this; it's obvious you've got one. Try not to rely on the "critical thinking" skills some lib prof claims he/she taught you. Truth is identifiable and CONSTANT.

Try not to rely on the "critical thinking" skills some lib prof claims he/she taught you.

I'm gonna guess you just like to argue, and insult people to try and make yourself feel better.

I'm 40 years old, and feel the R party is too liberal for me, hence I'm not a partisan R.

The Swiftees have gotten some details wrong, but as far as I know, it was nothing that has to do with the specific details of their core case: Kerry got 3 purple hearts in 4 months without a single serious injury. This, I believe, seriously damages Kerry, and rightly so.

There is a difference between the Swiftees and the Moore mockumentary -- the Swiftees appear to be right and Moore was wrong.

But I'll repeat, if you can't see the similarity in their tactics and can't see how they are alike, then I'd guess you're more partisan than is healthy. It is *NOT* a good thing to always say, "R good, D bad". That is not critical thinking.

Bottom line is, you misunderstood what I was saying and launched rude, insulting personal attacks on me without ever bothering to try to understand.

You attacked someone who is on your side politically (altho I am *not* an R party partisan, and never will be), just because they saw the "big picture" better than you do.

Nice, real nice. You're doing a good imitation of the kind of R that allows the media to paint Rs as intolerant. Heck, you aren't even tolerant of people who agree with you. Now *that* is intolerant.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.