The double-edged sword of realtime media coverage is while you receive the news instantaneously, you also receive it piecemeal, lacking factual followup or investigation. What emerges is a dangerous pattern, wherein an issue is presented, accusations are made that effect opinion and then in hindsight, once the journalistic leg-work is done, the media concludes it was all much to do about nothing. The damage is done, images are tarnished and fairness is an afterthought. Anyone who followed the "Dean Scream" fiasco can see this pattern in its ugliest form. The media mea culpa we are now witnessing with regard to the SBVFT controversy is another frustrating example of journalistic failure.
That a bunch of GOP cronies, under the guise of a 527, were able to hijack the election debate and manipulate media coverage and public perception is a shameful disgrace. Yesterday, well after the fact, seemed to mark the general media awakening and subsequent mea culpa. Joe Klein with his too little too late:
And there's a huge controversy now, because a lot of the people who are attacking John Kerry because of those actions during the war had told different stories at different points. Several of them had defended John Kerry in 1996, the last time this came up. This is very curious. And it's the kind of thing that the media just can't stay away from when you have something this dramatic...The truth of the story seems to be, from the guy who were on the boat with John Kerry, that he behaved honorably, that he behaved in a heroic fashion. All of the documentation says the same thing. Of course, you can always call into question a guy who puts in for a Purple Heart because he got a scratch. But there were an awful lot of guys in Vietnam who were doing that. And there were an awful lot of guys who got out of Vietnam because they'd been wounded three times. I think putting yourself in the line of fire to be wounded even once should probably take this sort of issue out of the realm of political consideration. He went. He fought. Enough.
Aaron Brown, demonstrating media repentance after his network spent weeks giving free reign to unsubstantiated slander:
At some point it has to be about the truth. Veterans groups who have launched attacks against John Kerry have every right to claim he is not fit to lead. They can claim he's a jerk.
They can claim he dishonored fellow soldiers after the war. That is the stuff of opinion and they, like everyone else, are entitled to have their own opinions and entitled to have them respectfully heard.
But, as the late Senator Daniel Moynihan said, you are not entitled to your own facts and facts are where this whole messy affair gets dicey for those who launched the attack.
In my view, we've all been a bit slow in our business to look at the facts, enjoying the tussle over the story a bit too much. But "The Washington Post," "The New York Times," Knight Ridder and perhaps others have done a lot of looking at the facts and those facts raise a lot of questions about the accuracy of the attacks
The available official record is unambiguous. John Kerry was a war hero. The citation that accompanies his bronze star speaks of his "professionalism, great personal courage under fire and complete dedication to duty." If you go by some of the witnesses to those events, like the young Special Forces soldier Kerry pulled from the river, there is no argument.
If the record was so unambigious, so undisputable, would it not be a journalistic necessity to verify the accusations before public airing? If you have a newly presented fact that contradicts previous assumptions, it is the duty of the media to validate before publicizing.
You could argue that it is a positive that the blowback now seems real, the media turning on the accusations. However, this is irrelevant, the seed of doubt has been planted, the media facilitated the slander. John Kerry's military service will never have the same stature it did prior to this controversy, so in that regard, to the ads, mission accomplished.
The media arrogance is so entrenched that they fail to see how easily manipulated they have become. Their penchant for "breaking news" has made the media so reactionary they lack the moral prudence to do their work effectively. I have little doubt that this whole episode will only embolden those forces(i.e Rove) that wish to warp the landscape to fit their needs. Throw out a charge with little factual basis, let the media feeding frenzy digest, then play smoke and mirrors to the point where the truth is forever lost in the confusion.
I'm tired of after the fact realizations, get it right the first time, learn restraint and uphold the ethics you so often cite in disappointing retrospect.
