Patterico fisks the LA Times Swift Vets article. Emphasis is his. I sent this to Stephen Braun, the Times reporter, with the comment, "You have been well fisked." :>)
Christmas in Cambodia Story Hits the L.A. Times
The L.A. Times has finally broken its silence on the "Christmas in Cambodia" aspect of the Swift Boat Vets' story, in an article titled Veterans Battle Over the Truth. The article also contains what purports to be a comprehensive analysis of the factual basis for the allegations of the Swift Boat Vets.
The article is pro-Kerry spin, pure and simple. The strategy of the article is apparent: before actually setting forth a single detail of the Swift Boat Vets' allegations, the article carefully lays the groundwork to prepare the reader to be skeptical. The article accomplishes this in multiple misleading ways.
First, the allegations are described early on as "staples of conservative talk shows and Internet sites" -- code language telling readers that the allegations need not be taken seriously.
The story then uses several misleading turns of phrase to suggest that the veterans really don't know what they're talking about, and that Kerry has been forthright about the entire episode:
"What military documentation exists and has been made public generally supports the view put forth by Kerry and most of his crewmates — that he acted courageously and came by his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts honestly. This view of Kerry as war hero is supported by all but one of the surviving veterans who served with him on the two boats he commanded."
The article doesn't say that "[w]hat military documentation exists and has been made public" is only what John Kerry has chosen to make public. In fact, John Kerry persistently refuses to release his complete military records. Yet, far from acknowledging this fact, the story falsely suggests that Kerry has released all of his records:
"The Kerry campaign has launched a vociferous defense, denying the charges raised in the ad. It also denounced the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as a Republican-backed effort. His staff has directed critics to the Massachusetts senator's military records, which have been posted on his website."
This creates an entirely false impression. Unless a dramatic change has occurred in the last few hours, Kerry's complete military records are not on his site. This is highly misleading.
The article continues:
"None of the critics quoted in the ad actually served on the boats with Kerry."
This phrasing is highly misleading, as the bolded language refers only to the two boats that Kerry actually commanded -- not to the several boats nearby. The article thus falsely suggests that none of the veterans quoted in the ad were in a position to witness Kerry's actions on the swift boats.
This impression is reinforced by a quote from Kerry's campaign manager, which falsely states -- without immediate correction by the Times -- that none of the men quoted in the ad served with Kerry:
"The Swift boat ad is full of lies. Thirteen men who never served with John Kerry lie about knowing him and viciously attack his record," said Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill in an e-mail to supporters last week. "It is a new low for the Republicans."
You have to read much further down in the story to learn that:
The ad indeed quotes at least one percipient eyewitness from a nearby boat;
"Several other members of the group in fact did serve on nearby boats, and dispute Kerry's version of events in several respects -- including his claim that he braved hostile gunfire to save another boatman's life;"
and
"One member of the Swift Boat Vets organization served on a boat with Kerry and disputes significant aspects of Kerry's account of his Vietnam experience -- including the claim that Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968."
But these facts do not emerge early in the story. Rather, the early portions of the article are devoted to tidbits such as the fact that a prominent Republican has funded much of the initial ad buy, as well as a warning that some of the Swift Boat Vets have "have given contradictory accounts and offered conflicting recollections."
When the story later mentions (as it must) that Kerry himself has also given contradictory accounts, we are told that Kerry's contradictions have varied only "subtly." We are (again) reminded that his critics have provided conflicting recollections, and the whole set of contradictions is blamed on the fog of war:
"War is by definition chaotic, and people are not taking notes in battle," said Jeffrey Berry, a political science professor at Tufts University in Medford, Mass. "In terms of the type of evidence that might be ideal for making a convincing case, there probably are some holes. They give an opening for people who want to say Kerry was embellishing."
So, at the outset of the article, the reader has been told that the allegations are staples of conservative talk shows and the internet, made in an ad funded by Republicans, and leveled by people who weren't even percipient witnesses, and can't keep their stories straight. Meanwhile, Kerry has released all of his military records, and if he flubbed a minor detail or two, that's the nature of war.
Much of this is not true. And it all comes before the paper provides a single shred of detail regarding what the allegations actually are.
I'll leave it to others to parse the details of the paper's treatment of the actual allegations. There's plenty of spin there as well, much of it easily refuted. The paper strains to find contradictions in the accounts of people like Kerry's commanding officer Grant Hibbard, where no real contradiction exists. Meanwhile, we read almost nothing of the not-so-subtle contradictions in Kerry's accounts of Vietnam, which have been discussed by so very many commentators in recent days.
But what does any of this matter? The details of the allegations will mean little to most readers, who have just been told at great length why they needn't take the Swift Boat Vets' allegations seriously in any event.
patterico.com |
