Replies

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.

As to quantity, that has mostly come after the citation by Hume, and that has come mostly as a result of Kerry's response.

The link: You're welcome. MRC is a national treasure. The Bozelle family has been in the fight for half a century. No web browser is complete without this in the Faves.

"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."

I have to jump in here. The "Bush was AWOL" deal first surfaced in 1994, IIRC, when he ran for governor of Texas. The Dems and the media used it against him--didn't work. Then they tried it again in 2000--didn't work. They've tried it again now in 2004--hasn't worked.

The "AWOL vs SVFT" coverage comparison is, as far as I know, limited to 2004 coverage. Rest assured that there are far more than 70+ stories about Bush's supposed AWOL status. Add a zero or two.