Trust, But Verify - (Daily Standard questioning John Kerry's 180 release form; is it complete?)
DAILY STANDARD.COM ^ | JUNE 14, 2005 | DEAN BARNETT
DURING THE MOST RECENT PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, various antagonists repeatedly urged John Kerry to sign a Standard Form 180; by signing Form 180, Kerry would have released the entirety of his military records for public consumption. The senator stubbornly refused these pleas. (Actually he "stubbornly refused" in a uniquely Kerry-esque manner. While he kept promising to sign the form and get the information out there, he never quite managed to do so.)
During Kerry's appearance on Meet the Press almost four months ago, Tim Russert once again broached the issue of Kerry signing a Form 180. As he did during the campaign, Kerry promised to sign the form and then spent the ensuing 100+ days taking no action on that front.
But last week finally brought deliverance for those anxious to exhume the carcass of Kerry's political career. According to the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times, Kerry signed a Form 180 and his precious military records were issued to them and them alone. Since the released records revealed no new information (other than the fact that Kerry had been something of a dullard during his time at Yale), one would have thought the issue would be closed. In actuality, the interesting dimensions of the story were just beginning to reveal themselves.
IN ORDER TO FOLLOW THIS TALE, it's important to be familiar with some of the minutiae surrounding Form 180.
First, there's the matter of logistics. When one signs a Form 180, he specifies the party or parties to whom the documents will be released. In Kerry's case, the specified parties were apparently the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times, two newspapers not known for their hostility towards liberal politicians. Other than the parties you specify on your Form 180, no one else gets the records.
Next, there's the issue of completeness. One can sign a Form 180, but doing so doesn't necessarily mean that you intend to have all of your military records released. If you follow the link and look at an actual Form 180, you'll see an entry for "other information and/or documents requested." Below this point, a veteran can limit the information request in any way he sees fit.
So, did Kerry limit the scope of his release? As if answering those who might be inclined to cynicism about their story, the Boston Globe was rather unambiguous in characterizing Kerry's request. Reporter Michael Kranish's story put it this way: "On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an 'undeleted' copy of his 'complete military service record and medical record' to the Globe."
Assuming one trusted the Globe and its reporter implicitly, such strong language would have settled any questions regarding the nature of Kerry's Form 180 execution. As Kranish repeatedly put it during our brief interview, "My story speaks for itself."
After poring through Kerry's records, Kranish's sole piece of new news was the relatively trivial fact that the putatively intellectual senator had a college transcript one would more readily expect from an SEC offensive lineman. But given the charges that various antagonists had lobbed at the senator during and after the campaign, the scoop on Kerry's grades had to be a disappointment for his foes. They had hoped that his full military records would show a chronicle of embarrassments including medals that weren't fully earned, or perhaps even a dishonorable discharge from the Navy because of Kerry's unauthorized trip to North Vietnam while still an officer in the service.
STILL THERE REMAINS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION: Should we trust the Globe and the Times? Both papers are asking their readers to take their word regarding the precise nature of Kerry's Form 180. Had they the inclination, of course, the papers could easily allay any suspicions regarding the nature of Kerry's Form 180 by publishing a reproduction of it or linking to a PDF of it on their respective websites. Members of both the old media and the new media have suggested as much.
The fact that the papers eschewed these options is curious. After all, when the Globe ran a front -page story on the enormous cost of parking at Fenway Park, the paper saw fit to publish a reproduction of its photographer's receipt which proved that he did in fact pay $100 to park his car for the Opening Day festivities.
What's more, both papers have refused to share Kerry's records with other publications or to post them on their websites. So, in sum, here's where things stand: In order to settle long-standing and serious accusations, Senator Kerry and his campaign dealt exclusively with two partial newspapers. Those papers, in turn, refused to make completely public or transparent either the nature of the transaction or the precise contents of what they received.
SHOULD WE TAKE THEIR STORY ON FAITH? While Kranish insists his story speaks for itself, also speaking for itself is the Globe's consistent failure to serve as an unbiased and fair reporter when it comes to political matters. And without impugning Kranish's or the Globe's credentials as impartial arbiters when it comes to John Kerry, it still merits comment that in the story on Kerry's grades as an undergraduate, the Globe's headline referred to Kerry's performance as "lackluster:" that's a pretty generous way to describe a record which included four D's in Kerry's freshman year.
Also underscoring the Globe's credibility deficit was Kranish calling Kerry's grades "virtually identical" to President Bush's even though Kerry's grades were demonstrably, albeit slightly, inferior to the president's.
But when it came to covering the Kerry document dump, Kranish and the Globe were tougher than the Los Angeles Times. Amazingly, the Times's Stephen Braun didn't see fit to mention a single word about Kerry's undergraduate performance.
NONE OF WHICH is meant to accuse either the Globe or the Los Angeles Times of wrong-doing. Indeed, quite to the contrary, it is difficult to believe that either institution would jeopardize its reputation by misrepresenting either the contents of Kerry's military records or the nature of his Form 180 request. Although stranger things have happened.
But both papers are guilty of failing to comprehend the shifting dynamic in news coverage and consumption. We live in an age where home-schooled journalists have made a habit of correcting once revered institutions like CBS News and the New York Times.
Serious consumers of news prefer to co-exist with the mainstream media using Ronald Reagan's maxim: Trust, but verify. This means readers and viewers want a gander at primary sources whenever practical. It also means that when a media organ says in effect, "Just trust me," the plea will have precisely the opposite effect of what's intended.
Dean Barnett writes about politics and other matters at soxblog.com |
