No it's not bad. The press is supposed to be skeptical, and that's OK. The problem is, they haven't been equally skeptical of Kerry's sea stories. That's actually OK, too. You can't expect any fairness from them. Every time one of the SVBT's appears on camera, though, ordinary people--many not conservative--who do want to honor a war hero get to see a real one. Only the most lefty partisans will compare Kerry favorably.
The fact that it's the top story every night means that at least the media isn't suppressing the story. Indeed, it has received more coverage than accusations that Bush skipped over a long line to get in the National Guard and then went to work on a campaign for a year.
Unfortunately, this isn't even close to being true. Last Thursday Brit Hume announced the results on a Nexus search of SBVT stories vs. "Bush AWOL" stories. The result: 75 Bush stories, 9 SBVT stories. And nerely all of the SBVT stories were covered only on FoxNews. When Kerry had to finally put out some of these fires late last week, the MSM outlets were forced to air their candidate commenting on a story none of them had even covered!
I'm just saying that, in the simpleton world of the media, these are both basically he said / she said situations, and the media has covered the Kerry story more -- which is a good thing, I think.
They haven't covered it more, and they haven't covered it fairly. The NYT article was a hit piece very nearly devoid of any news at all--ON PAGE ONE! My friend you need to be disabused. Only Brent Bozell III can save you from such egregious generousity toward the MSM. Please take a look here. Consider also this when you consider the question of fairness: The SBVT stories are aired by a group independent of the Bush campaign, and yet from Bush an apology is demanded. The Bush AWOL stories, by contrast, were floated by none other than Terry McAwful, head of the DNC. Think anybody's going to ask for an apology from him? Think John Kerry is ever going to apologize to Bush and praise his service? That's a demand I'd like to see MSM pundits and reporters make. Then we can talk about how even the treatment is.
I think you've got me a little wrong, which is partly my fault for writing sloppily. I didn't say the coverage of SBVT was fair; on the whole, I don't think it has been.
Now on the issue of QUANTITY of coverage, you note Brit Hume's Nexis search. Consider that Bush's AWOL/line-jump story has been out since 2000 (or was it 1999?) while the SBVT story has only been out for a couple of weeks. Also, I have read well over nine stories about SBVT in the past couple weeks, so I'm not sure how useful that number is. Even on MSNBC, this has been the top story just about every day on Hardball and Countdown. Yes, Matthews is infuriating sometimes and Olberman is about as snide a liberal as there is in the mainstream media. But that goes back to fairness of coverage, which I already conceded left much to be desired. And remember: if a story is repeated over and over again on TV, it starts to have an impact, even if those presenting it are biased. Surely, it has more of an impact than if those stories weren't reported at all, as I feared would happen.
Thanks for the link, by the way.