"All the news that is fit for Liberals."
NY Times Ombudsman on Cambodia Story
NE Republican
A reader of mine sent a letter to the New York Times Ombudsman to complain about the paper's lack of coverage concerning Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia stories. Here is the letter my reader sent followed by the reply he received back. I'll comment after the letters.
Mr Okrent,
With all due respect, I must urge you and all of your colleagues at the NY Times to treat Mr Kerry in the same manner that you do Pres Bush. I am not one to routinely cry "media bias" but I really don't understand how anyone can say, with a straight face, that Kerry is being treated differently than Mr Bush in the media.
Specifically, I am referring to the recent flap about John Kerry's old and more recent statements, in press and on the floor of the Senate, in which he said that he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 (going so far as to say that he was 5 miles into Cambodia, that the memory of it was "seared" into his mind, that it was a sentinel event in his life where he realized that his government would lie to the world, thus shaping his views on any number of issues - the Contras, etc). Last week, the Kerry campaign had to admit that this was not true, even in a press statement.
And in the NY Times, there were ZERO stories about this. Or if there were, I must have missed it.
Honestly, can you look yourself in the mirror and say that if the story were about Bush and not Kerry that the coverage wouldn't be frontpage, above the fold?
Oh wait, we do have precedent for this. Not 6 months ago, Bush was accused (by McAuliffe and Michael Moore - how's that for objective), of being AWOL from his NG duties in Alabama. Remember, this was not a NEW story. It had been looked at many times by the media, in 2000 and at other times. No one was willing to come forward and say that he didn't serve. There were people who said that they remember him being there. The conclusion was that there was nothing to the story. Yet it gets rehashed and was in the headlines for 2 weeks. The Bush camp released the pay stubs proving he was on duty when he said he had been.
After the release of the pay stubs, a press conference with Scott McClellan was held. For 37 minutes, the press peppered him with contempt filled questions/statements. Here's the link. Go back and read the questions.
whitehouse.gov
A couple of gems for questions from the press:
Q Scott, when Senator Kerry goes around campaigning, there's frequently what they call "a band of brothers," a bunch of soldiers who served with him, who come forward and give testimonials for him. I see, in looking at our files in the campaign of 2000, it said that you were looking for people who served with him to verify his account of service in the National Guard. Has the White House been able to find, like Senator Kerry, "a band of brothers" or others who can testify about the President's service?
(speaking of band of brothers who are willing to testify about Kerry!!!!)
and
MR. McCLELLAN: - these documents make it very clear that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties --
Q Well, that's subject to interpretation.
WHERE ARE THE PRESS NOW? You have a candidate running for office with his service in Vietnam front and center shown to have lied on multiple occasions, even admitting last week that what he had said was false. And the particular lie was supposedly one of those "sentinel" events in Kerry's life where he decided his govt couldn't be trusted, something he had used to justify his votes on many things (Contras, for example). And nary a word from the mainstream press. In the WashPost, the day after the Kerry camp admitted that Kerry hadn't been truthful, the editorial read "Swift Boat Smears" which impugned the integrity of the vets making the allegations against Kerry, suggesting they were "smearing" Kerry. You'd have thought that the editorial would have mentioned that Kerry had admitted the day before that the Vets were right when they alleged that Kerry lied about having been in Cambodia in Dec 1968. But that'd be too much to expect.
Bush releases his records (Kerry has selectively released his records) and gets hammered in the press. There was NO ONE who asserted that Bush was actually AWOL, just a story run up the flagpole by Terry McAuliffe, Michael Moore and maybe even Wesley Clark. In contrast, there are dozens of people (actually war heroes, every bit as much so as Kerry, who are willing to go on record in sworn affidavits) questioning Kerry's versions of events. One of their allegations has been shown to be true - Kerry wasn't in Cambodia when he claims to have been. And yet the press remains silent. If the claims of the Swift boat vets aren't true, then tell me why they're not true (meaning LOOK at the evidence, ask some tough questions, do some investigating). But if the Kerry camp admits the Swift Boat vets claims are true, you'd think that that would be a story. You'd think.
Respectfully,
(name removed)
Here is the letter he received back (emphasis added):
Dear (name removed),
I raised your concern with senior editors at The Times who explained that the staff is working hard on this issue, and when there's anything reliable to say, as opposed to rumors and suspicions, they intend to report it fully.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
Even the Kerry campaign admits he was never in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, but to the NY Times it is still only "rumors and suspicions". I highly doubt they would see this story as a "rumor" if it were about Bush. The writer of the original letter summed it up this way:
Got that? The Kerry camp’s admission that he’d been lying for 35 years about a “sentinel” event in his life was just a rumor, thus not covered…
All the news thats fit to print (unless it hurts our guy!)
nerepublican.blogspot.com |
