Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Patriot Ledger still Swift Boating Kerry

By

This is my first post at BMG, so I haven’t earned street creds yet, but the latest (Tuesday’s)Quincy Patriot Ledger story and my subsenquent WTF moment definitely warrant a post.

On Monday the Ledger had an interview with Sen. Kerry, but for whatever reason, yesterday the paper printed a ‘rebuttal’ of what Kerry had said that cited only right wing sources and that repeated the lies of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth from the ’04 Presidential campaign. 

This is one sided “reporting” of the worst kind. These lies have been exposed over and over again.  Apparently, the Patriot Ledger never got the memo and thinks it’s okay to print articles based on only one point of view.

Using the likes of Lucianne, (Pillar of Integrity, she); Drudge, (the wingnuts’ ultimate source of unbiased information – right after Hannity, O’Reilly, and Freerepublic.com); and of course the (Never Speak Ill of Supplysiders) WSJ isn’t journalism, it’s hackery.

It would behove the Ledger to write a counter story to balance out those lies at our earliest convenience. Their LTTE email is editpage@ledger.com. Let’s find out if they will actually print other points of view than those taken from right wing front groups.

on edit: clarified ‘the latest’ as Tuesday’s article.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Actually, I think you were too kind to The Patriot Ledger.  Can one really call it reporting or good journalism if all they did was reprint lies from blogs?

  2. and a warm welcome! Hope we hear more from you as you rapidly build up your cred!

    <

    p>
    A small nit: At least for now, the WSJ’s editorial page is very different from its reporting. The come from different planets. There quotation was from the zanier part of the paper.

    <

    p>
    Again, though, welcome.

  3. This paragraph appears to have two thoughts –

    <

    p>

    #1 – On Monday the Ledger had an interview with Sen. Kerry,

    #2 – but for whatever reason, yesterday (Tuesday?) the paper printed a ‘rebuttal’ of what Kerry had said that cited only right wing sources and that repeated the lies of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth from the ’04 Presidential campaign.

     

    <

    p>
    I am going to assume that Sen. Kerry was complimentary to his own point of view in his interview, and that a rebuttal need not agree with that point of view.

    <

    p>
    So how do you get to –

    <

    p>

    This is one sided “reporting” of the worst kind.

    <

    p>
    Rather, it would appear to be classic ‘Point-CounterPoint’ reporting.

    <

    p>

    These lies have been exposed over and over again.  Apparently, the Patriot Ledger never got the memo and thinks it’s okay to print articles based on only one point of view.

    <

    p>
    Wasn’t the Kerry interview per se ‘one point of view’?

    <

    p>
    If it’s OK to accept My DD or Kos as a source of information, what’s wrong with Drudge or Lucianne?

    <

    p>
    Is there really anything to protest here?

    • Hypothetical balanced news:

      President Bush asserted today that the world was flat. Democratic critics challenged this, insisting the world was round.

      Hypothetical actual news:

      President Bush asserted today that the world was flat. When presented with photographic evidence that the world is in fact round, the President declined comment.

      • Um…so the Democrats WOULDN’T insist the world is round?

        <

        p>
        The odd thing is that the Senator could put the whole thing to bed tomorrow.  There is a form (DD-115?) that must be signed to allow media access to his military records.  While he has released sections of that record, which he has chosen, it is my understanding that he has never signed the permission form, despite saying he would.  He instead now says that the portions he chose are all that is relevant.

        <

        p>
        Now, that may be true, but he reneged on the blanket permission, and that has fueled media speculation for four years.

        <

        p>
        KB – if the shoe were on the other party, you’d yelp to high heaven.

        <

        p>
        And really – geting back to the coverage instead of the issue – how has he peper been derelict in printing both sides and letting people make up their own minds?

        • a veterans service..where, when, medals, all the details ,etc.

          <

          p>
          Obviously, it is clear that Kerry has something to hide as he continually refuses full disclosure of his military record.

          <

          p>
          Otherwise, why would he do this? If he were truly proud of his service record, he would have no problem making it available to full public disclosure. One can only conclude that this guy is a dishonest politician and a dirtbag with dirty laundry in his locker that he seeks to hide. This senatorial disgrace has no problem throwing someone else’s medals over the white House fence but won’t  disclose his service record?
          Hopefully , we’ll be rid of him in 08 and get an honest veteran who has already  disclosed all the details of his service, our next Senator,  Jeff Beatty

          • unlike Bush.

            <

            p>
            though I guess it’s hard for someone to accumulate much of a military record if your military service consisted solely of getting hammered, doing blow and sleeping until noon.

            <

            p>
            but it’s clear from his masterful handling of the war in Iraq that President Bush is, at a minimum, a military genius, no matter what his military record may say.

            <

            p>
            sweet double laundry-related analogy though. 

            • It’s the Standard Form 180. That’s the release a veteran needs to sign for his or her complete service records to be made public.

              <

              p>
              A DD-214 is only your discharge certificate, and lists the medals you were awarded along with the type of discharge you were given.

              <

              p>
              Kerry never made his complete service file available for public scrutiny.

              <

              p>
              Here is a quote from around that time: “Navy Personnel Command FOIA Officer Dave German wrote in an e-mail to Judicial Watch that the Navy “withheld thirty-one pages of documents from the responsive military personnel service records as we were not provided a release authorization.”

              <

              p>

              unlike Bush.

              <

              p>
              Bush released his records in February of 2004.

          • I spent a year in Vietnam—-68-69. I knew vast numbers of men who recived multiple shrapnel injuries(minor000but injuries nonetheless. More than anything they were an irriation and no one ran to sick bay for a purple heart unless the corpsman went to the Lt. And ratted them out and they ordered to go and then ordered to accept another purple heart. For God’s sake John Kerry did everything in his power to construe every percutaneous boo-boo as a combat inflicted wound requiring medical intervention. And as soon as he received three he went immediately to his CO and requested transfer back to CONUS.He abandonned his command!It doesn’t happen. A CO doesn’t abandon his post. He has multiple men under his command that he is responsible for. Then he runs back to USA gets off active duty (NOT discharged) and begins to besmirch the character of every man who fought there.

            <

            p>
            John Kerry is a fraud, a traitor to his country and his fellow service members. He is a pathological liar and a fantasist. He personally wrote several of his own citations for an award. Obviously no one else would do it for him. Plain and simple he is a weasel. Now he attempts to disavow his post RVN conduct. His best buddy from Cape Cod: Joe Bangert. Joe was a Winter Soldier. Testified under oath before congress regarding all of his grisly transgressions and observations. It was an absolute fabrication, but it sounded good to John F. Kerry. Joe bangert isn’t a lawyer or a US senator now. Joe has fallen on hard times—-very hard times. Think his old pal Sen John F. Kerry would reach out to him? Naw.

        • The odd thing is that the Senator could put the whole thing to bed tomorrow.

          <

          p>
          This thing has been put to bed, shot down, killed, blown up, poisoned and trampled by a rampaging herd of real journalists and then, put to bed again.  ALL the records, solid journalists, John McCain, John Warner, most of the navy and all but ONE of Kerry’s boatmates are in agreement on the issue. 

          <

          p>
          On the “other side” of the debate (sic) lies a stunning lack of consistency, clarity and focus…. nothing about their story is quite so focused as their intent to harm.

          <

          p>

          There is a form (DD-115?) that must be signed to allow media access to his military records.  While he has released sections of that record, which he has chosen, it is my understanding that he has never signed the permission form, despite saying he would.  He instead now says that the portions he chose are all that is relevant.

          <

          p>
          You are so completely full of it.

          <

          p>

          And really – geting back to the coverage instead of the issue – how has he peper been derelict in printing both sides and letting people make up their own minds?

          <

          p>
          Because one side has been decidedly and completely exonerated and the other side completely and decidedly indicted. It’s just that simple. Why dredge it up when it’s been settled? 

          • A link to Michael Kranish’s story in the Globe in 2005 –

            <

            p>
            http://www.boston.co…

            <

            p>
            Kerry released the records ONLY to the Globe!  Who says they are swell.

            <

            p>
            When Bush released his records, there was no such stipulation.  How would you have reacted if Bush had released his records only to Rush Limbaugh?

            <

            p>
            THAT is what is odd.  The Globe-only restriction remains in place, but the Globe says the full records they saw ae ‘substantially’ the same as the ones he chose to release in 2003.  So why the continued restiction?

            <

            p>
            And before you say the race is over, he’s entering another one.

            • *[new]  Petr – here’s the odd part –  (0.00 / 0)
              A link to Michael Kranish’s story in the Globe in 2005 –

              <

              p>
              It’s over. The story has been done.

              <

              p>
              Over.

              <

              p>
              Spent.

              <

              p>
              Finished.

              <

              p>
              Completed.

              <

              p>
              Exhausted.

              <

              p>
              Flushed.

              <

              p>
              It is well past denouement.

              <

              p>
              The flabber has gasted and you sir, are guilty of terra-necro-hippo-sadism (beating a dead horse into the ground…)

              <

              p>
              What part don’t you (want to) get???

              • Because, frankly, a large segment of the American polulace is NEVER going to take the Globe’s uncorroborated word that the sun will rise in the East.

                <

                p>
                If the records back him up, stop being OBSTINATE, and release them to all!  Or there will ALWAYS be an asterisk attached in the minds of many.

                • Typed up on an IBM Selectric…

                  <

                  p>

                  *[new] WHY the Globe-Only restriction? If YOU could shut Rush up, and/or make O’Reilly look stoopid – wouldn’t you JUMP on that? 

                  <

                  p>
                  Actually, No.  I wouldn’t. Why should/would I? I’m not Rush. I’m not O’Reilly. I don’t listen/read/watch them and I don’t care to emulate them.  In fact, I don’t care to think about them much at all, stoopid or otherwise…

                  <

                  p>

                  Because, frankly, a large segment of the American polulace is NEVER going to take the Globe’s uncorroborated word that the sun will rise in the East.

                  <

                  p>
                  Neither you or I are, in any way, responsible for any segment of the American populace larger than 1. Get over it. It’s done.

    • Hi Peter. Thanks for the heads-up on the confusion about the articles’ dates. I corrected in an edit.

      <

      p>
      I see what you’re saying about Senator Kerry presenting his own POV in the first article, and there is nothing wrong with a counter POV on quotes such as the following:

      <

      p>
      ” ‘Evangelicals care enormously about the centrality of the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the Bible,” he said. “If you lead a life and if you are involved in issues that manifest a concern for those kinds of issues, there’s no reason that one separate issue or another ought to create a wedge.’ “

      <

      p>
      “Kerry also said Bush and current Republican president contenders have exploited the issue of terrorism for political gain.”

      <

      p>
      ” ‘There is a willingness to try to exploit 9-11, to scare Americans to try to move this debate to a place that it frankly isn’t,” he said. “I think the artificiality of that will be seen by many Americans, and it certainly does not represent real leadership.’ “

      <

      p>
      They may, or may not, be up for debate. Had the ledger run a counter story with counterarguments to those statements, I’d still be ticked off, but I’d say ‘Fair enough. Two sides are being represented’.

      <

      p>
      However, the swiftboat veterans’ accusations were already rebutted and proven to be lies back in 2004 and least one of them retracted his claims.

      • Elliott, asked about the contradiction between his recommendation and his new questioning of Kerry’s third Purple Heart, responded, ”It makes me look kind of silly, to be perfectly honest.”

        <

        p>
        But he said: ”I simply have no reason for these guys to be lying, and if they are lying in concert, it is one hell of a conspiracy. So, on the basis of all of the information that has come out, I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand.”

    • …an interview is, of necessity (and obviously), one-sided, that of the person that is being interviewed. 

      <

      p>
      An article that is purported to be a news article (not an interview) is–or should not be–one-sided.

      <

      p>
      If the Patriot-Ledger wanted to publish an interview with Lucianne Goldberg or her vile spawn Jonah, and couch it as such, that would be a parallel.  But publishing a supposed news article that presented only one point of view (presumably without challenge–I don’t read fish wrapping) is not a parallel.

  4. Until now, I’d always heard it spoken of as a reputable paper, but any paper that would print this kind of filth must be challenged on it.  Irresponsible and unacceptable by any standard of journalism.

    <

    p>
    Thanks for the post and the links.  I will be writing to the “reporter” and to the editors.

  5. A liar. A traitor. Hanoi John.

    <

    p>
    What kind of reporting is this?  It sounds like the repetition of 35-year-old name-calling to me.

    <

    p>
    And what about this line?

    <

    p>
    “There’s something weasely about him,” said Elliot Olson, a self-described independent voter from Minneapolis.

    <

    p>
    Is that reporting??  A local MA paper had to go to Minneapolis to get this quote from some guy who knows Kerry exactly how?  Why is this Elliot Olson someone whose opinion should matter?  They don’t give us that information.

    <

    p>
    It seems obvious that the right wing noise machine seized on one line Kerry said, turned up the volume, and generated the predictable response from the Kerry-haters who apparently have little else to do but spew venom at the sound of his name.  And the Patriot-Ledger just repeats everything they say.  Nice.

    <

    p>
    Salon has a thought-provoking article up titled Online blowhards are killing democracy.  If anyone’s interested, I posted on it today.  I agree that this is happening both on the left and the right.  It is killing civil discourse and reinforcing the self-righteousness of ideologues who have no reason to be so proud of themselves or their positions.

    <

    p>
    The Patriot-Ledger has taken a giant step into Drudge territory with this article.  There’s nothing here that is informative or researched.  It is a hit piece, pure and simple.  They ought to be ashamed.

    • What this reveals is that he right wingers are bereft of ideas and the Patriot Ledger writer is trying to drum up some interest in himself. 

  6. Said this in the course of debate with Senator Kerry over the Kerry-Feingold Ammendment.  Does the Patriot Ledger writer presume to know better than Senator Warner?

    <

    p>
    Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will conclude. The Senator from Massachusetts and I have had this conversation about that period of history before. We will have it again and again. I recall, I went to the Pentagon in February 1969 and was there for 5 years in the Navy Secretariat. As the Secretary of theNavy, the Senator always said I was his boss. He has been very respectful about that.

    <

    p>
    I remember when his Silver Star came through our Secretariat at that time. I went back and checked for accuracy, and it was accurate, I say to the Senator.

    • I happened to be watching the senate on c-span the day that happened – it was a truly moving moment.  It showed both Kerry and Warner in a fine light.

  7. Let's forget about the piss-poor journalism at play here and instead not lose sight that many Republicans in this country view the swiftboating of John Kerry as something to be admired and repeated.

    It's 2007 and the swiftboat for truth nutjobs are still out there. And they're still going after John Kerry. And many establisment Republicans have their backs. If Republicans are still trying to swiftboat Kerry three years after the election, then what are they willing to do in 2008?

    Just listen to what Rush Limbaugh, who got out of Nam because he had a boil on his fat ass, said today on his radio show. And this is taken directly from Rush's site: you know, the Swift Boats were one thing, and they were right on the money, and nobody has disproven anything they claimed in any of their ads, statements, written commentaries, or anything of the sort.

    And let's not forget that the Republicans aren't bothering to wait 30 years to swiftboat returning Iraq and Afghanistan vets who speak out against the war. It's all that Rush and his guys know what to do.

    • swift boating of Iraq war vets 30 yrs from now.  Hopefully we will have evolved by then but I’m not optimistic.

  8. If they were so anti-Kerry they would’ve included more negative stuff in the first article. Or they wouldn’t have done it in the first place.

    <

    p>
    The second article seemed to me a product of 1) the huge online reaction they got to the first story and wanting to capitalize on it. b) recognition that they could do it without a lot of heavy lifting 3) they’re wanting to do it right on day 1 by including it all, but not having the capability to do so.

    <

    p>
    I can’t say this is exemplary journalism by the QPL. A follow-up on a story may well be justified. And if they followed up on some “new” news in the first article, fine. But they are following up on a story that is several years old, with reaction that is several years old. This doesn’t need to play out over two days.

    <

    p>
    But, like they say, they start from zero every day in the news business. Comprehensive overage of local elections and how changes (or lack thereof) in elected officals will (or will not) shake out in policy proposals and debate for Ma and Pa resident are probably still being written. We can look for those in depth features in days to come, I’m sure. (sarcasm)

    <

    p>
    It’s lazy journalism, to be sure. Or making a bad decision because your’e trying to make up for a lack of resources. But I don’t think it’s an intentional hachet job designed to further the VRWC.

  9. Diane asked the question of why my opinion should matter.

    <

    p>
    Diane evidently does not like what I had to say. She attributes Ben Van Heuveluen as to what is wrong with the blogs. It is Ben’s view that a blogs political slant leads to a greater extremism of the blogs readers and to the blog itself. That is a good point and well taken. Since I do not have a blog nor do I consider myself an extremist one would think that my comments and opinions would help moderate any blog. In this case my comment was not directed to a blog but to the reporter of a story on John Kerry.

    <

    p>
    The crux of my comment was that John Kerry has still not signed the 180 that completely releases his military records as he promised Tim Russert on Meet the Press. Kerry has made a promise that he has not kept. That is the reason I referred to him as weaselly. I could have also said that he crawdad. If I am lying,I am Diane.

    • you’re simply missing a few vital pieces of information.

      <

      p>
      From the Boston Globe on June 7, 2005:

      <

      p>

      Senator John F. Kerry, ending at least two years of refusal, has waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records.

      The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe, are mostly a duplication of what Kerry released during his 2004 campaign for president, including numerous commendations from commanding officers who later criticized Kerry’s Vietnam service.

      The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry’s military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions. An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service. Indeed, one of the first actions of the group that came to be known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was to call on Kerry to sign a privacy waiver and release all of his military and medical records.

      But Kerry refused, even though it turned out that the records included commendations from some of the same veterans who were criticizing him.

      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. Asked why he delayed signing the form for so long, Kerry said in a written response: “The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media. Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn’t kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out.”

      <

      p>
      Take a look at Sen.  Kerry’s records on Findlaw which have been available since 2004.  You’ll note that the Form 180 itself is not there but that’s not a critical document since it simply authorized the release of all the documents that are listed. 

      <

      p>
      One sidenote:  they left the .pdf extension off the link for the discharge record at
      http:// news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/rcrddischarge — but if you use that url and then add “.pdf” at the end it pulls up the doc. 

      <

      p>
      The Right Wing Noise Machine has built such a fiction around this that in spite of this material having been available since 2004, most people don’t know that it exists.  Bookmark this comment or the sites it refers to and the next time this topic comes up, please point the uninformed to the sources. 

Archives