Liz Cox Barrett at CJR Campaign Desk offers up an amusing piece on how the press has turned on John Kerry in four short years. In 2000, when Kerry was being considered as a potential veep for Gore, he was showered with praise for his energy, enthusiasm, and charisma. And now? Well, you read the papers, don't you?
The "handsome," "charismatic" candidate who four years ago had an "easy manner," "charm," and a record impregnable to Republican attack has undergone a hideous transmogrification, as described by reporters.
[...]
Kerry, it seems, was repeatedly whacked by an Ugly Stick sometime between 2000 and 2004. (Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Botox, if you -- like the Tribune and other news outlets -- entertain that sort of scuttlebutt).
But there are worse things than ugly; Kerry has also, apparently, lost any shred of charisma, and is now utterly free of charm.
Imagine that.
The article offers a good thesis and lots of current Kerry-bashing quotes, but it's missing a tremendously important bit of evidence. Where are the links (or at least sources) for those stories from four years ago? CJR has well documented the current crop of "Kerry is ugly, uncharismatic, and aloof" quotes. But the story doesn't really get any oomph until they provide specific examples of reporters, analysts, and publications that said one thing in 2000 and another in 2004. As it stands, when I read the story I don't know whether it was one set of people and publications that wrote that nonsense in 2000 and a completely different group that is writing the current blather.
I suspect there are lots of great examples of hypocritical analysts and reporters on this issue. But if CJR wants to lecture bloggers on how to be a journalist, they'd better practice what they preach.
[Cross-posted at Sid's Fishbowl]
