The conservative media's handling of the Swift boat dispute is a case study in bias. The liberal media's non-handling of the Swift boat dispute is a case study in bias.
Posted on 08/24/2004 7:07:57 AM PDT by Pikamax
You Can Report, but We Will Decide The conservative media's handling of the Swift boat dispute is a case study in bias. By Ben Wasserstein Ben Wasserstein is a writer in New York.
August 24, 2004
Last Thursday, the Washington Post reported that the military records of Larry Thurlow, one of John Kerry's major accusers among the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, contradicted Thurlow's version of events and confirmed Kerry's. At the very least, this cast severe doubt on the charge that Kerry fabricated the events that earned him one of his Vietnam War medals.
The conservative media had been pushing the fabrication story energetically. How did it deal with this new evidence undermining it? As it turns out, at almost every turn it soft-pedaled the new evidence or outright ignored it, showing its bias throughout.
On March 13, 1969, Kerry commanded one of five Navy Swift boats in a raid up the Bay Hap River and won a Bronze Star for actions under enemy fire. Thurlow commanded one of the other boats, and he has claimed in constant media rounds that there was no enemy fire. But, as the Post reported, Thurlow also won a Bronze Star that day, and the citation that accompanied it referred to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The conservative media's handling of the Swift boat dispute is a case study in bias. The liberal media's non-handling of the Swift boat dispute is a case study in bias.
There is conservative media??? WHERE???
They publish arguably the MOST BIASED paper in the country.
Just ask Riordan or Scwartzenegger. LOL
If it's all lies Don't just say it...PROVE IT
Yeah, & Fahrenheit 9/11 was just good reporting?
LA TIMES : We distort -- you comply.
Wasserstein blows it right from the very beginning. It's elementary logic that, if Thurlow is saying, "(yes, the records support Kerry, but) Kerry lied about what happened to the people that create the records in the first place," then it's no kind of rejoinder to say AHA! But the records support Kerry, so this "casts severe doubt" on THurlow!
Ben Wasserstein is as usual full of BS. The after action report filed by Kerry claims they were fired-on. It was part of the paperwork filed in Thurlow's medal application, which he never saw until he got the medal. Thurlow is telling you that they weren't fired-on, and of course the official report, which Kerry wrote, is in conflict with Thurlow's statements. That's the goddam point, Kerry falsified the report, but Benny Boy is too stupid to get it.
Bwaaaahaha. Thanks for the article. I needed a good laugh.
So who IS Ben Wasserstein? Googling tells me there are two, one "based in NY" and one "based in LA." Byline.com lists only one Ben Wasserstein and they say his total output is on slate.com.
Unfortunately, both the LA Times and, apparently quite recently, the Houston Chronicle require registration. But both printed this article in the last dew days on the editorial page. According to Parrerico.com it's an LA Times "Op-Ed," and both papers simply say "a writer based in NY." As far as I can tell, the Houston paper doesn't credit the LA Times.
Professorbainbridge.com calls Ben Wasserstein an "LA Times columnist" He is not listed on the LA Times website as a columnist, but there are two or three of his recent political articles/letters that pop up in a search of the LA Times website.
Who is he? Why are there so many different descriptions of him?
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.