I read an opinion piece by Sylvia Smith yesterday that I wasn't particularly taken by. Ms. Smith's main thesis was that the current debate about Vietnam service wasn't relevant to the question of who could be a better commander in chief.
Fair enough.
But in the process, I thought she was far too "even handed," as journalists are wont to do these days. Report what one side said, report what the other side said, don't evaluate either one for truth or credibility and claim that you are being "fair."
Well, I kinda had enough, so I wrote to Ms. Smith, who is, accoding to www.fortwayne.com,
A 31-year veteran of The Journal Gazette, Sylvia Smith has covered Washington for 15 years. She is the only Washington-based reporter who exclusively covers northeast Indiana. Her e-mail address is sylviasmith@jg.net, and her phone number is 202-879-6710.
Her Op Ed is excerpted below first. Then my letter to her. Finally, her response letter to me. In fairness to her, I'm going to respond and link this diary so she can join whatever discussion might ensue.
Interspersed, of course, is my additional commentary.
Posted on Sun, Aug. 22, 2004
SYLVIA SMITH
Silver lining to `liar, liar' ads
WASHINGTON - I may be the only person tuned in to the presidential race who isn't outraged by the competing TV commercials that are making scurrilous accusations about President Bush and John Kerry.
OK. Here's where she lost me. Only a couple of words in, and she says that someone is running "scurrilous" ads against President Bush. Have I missed something? Who's running scurrilous ads against the President? Strike One.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has spent $550,000 in three swing states to call Kerry a liar when it comes to his Vietnam record.
MoveOn.org launched a counter-ad that says, in part, "George Bush used his father to get into the National Guard, was grounded and then went missing."
OK. SBVT ads debunked as myth. Some facts, but largely myth and lies.
Move On's ads. Lets see: (1) Bush used his dad to get into TANG - Fact; (2) Bush was grounded -- Fact; (3) then, he went missing - Fact.
Still no "scurrilous." Strike Two.
I think these ads, in the main, are scummy, and they bring up ancient history. Even if Kerry and his crew invented their wartime, is that 30-year-old scenario relevant? Likewise, let's say Bush did skip out on his National Guard service. Is his career since then nullified by the skanky conduct of a 20-something?
Whoa?! The ads certainly bring out history. Putting the facts aside and addressing the hypothetical: YES. If Kerry made all this shit up about 'Nam, of course its relevant! Likewise, if the POTUS was AWOL, I'm going to say that's kinda pertinent too.
But my gripe with Ms. Smith was to the "even handedness" with which she approaches these two sencarios. To her, both are equal. They aren't.
She goes on in this "he said" "she said" fashion and ultimately concludes:
Voters are pretty smart, and only hard-core partisans will be convinced of the veracity of the liar, liar pants on fire ads from either the Bush bashers or the anti-Kerry vets. But they will be part of the fabric of this election, and we'd do well to consider the tapestry as a whole in deciding which lever to pull, what laws to change and how important it is to have a vigorous media.
So I wrote her a letter:
In your editorial below, you seem to suggest that the "anti-Kerry" and "Bush Bashers" stand on equal footing when the one claim that Kerry was lying about his Vietnam service and that Bush didn't even complete the service that kept him out of Vietnam.
The Swift Vets said that John Kerry lied. Kerry has amassed a heap of evidence to suggest otherwise -- including numerous previous statments from the Swifties themselves who have now contradicted themselves.
Contrast this with the "Bush Bashers" who have correctly pointed out that there is no proof (or dubious proof) that Bush actually completed his TANG service. In response, Bush has said, among other things "I did so," but claims that key records that would corroborate his story (and only those records) have been lost.
I will fess to being partisan of the first order. But if I've mischaracterized things above, I welcome your correction.
To put it in your personal context: if each of those folks came to you with their respective stories (i.e. "Kerry lied" and "there are no records that Bush completed his duty") could you run either story? Could you verify either one?
The big problem with your "he said she said" characterization is that these claims aren't on equal footing. You do a grave disservice to the debate by suggesting that they are.
MRL
Chicago, IL 60622
Democrat
And she wrote back:
The parallel is that the questions arise from both candidates' military service in the Vietnam era. I did not say that if it's true that Kerry lied about his performance and that Bush was, in essence, AWOL that it is the same thing. I asked whether either of those would be relevant to today's campaign. I did not answer the question.
Pretty sure that as quickly as she missed the point in her op ed, she missed the point of my letter. At the risk of beating a dead horse, my point ws that not taking a side made these things seem equal. I had no beef with the they-aren't-relevant-angle (although she self contradicts and says that it is relevant to a certain degree right in her piece), I was going after the you-treat-unequal-things-equally-and-that-is-wrong angle. to beat a
But, OK, what else did she say?
For some people, the answer is yes, but only if it applies to the other guy. No matter what "proof" there is or isn't, partisans will believe their guy and doubt the other guy.
Apparently "partisans" are the only audience worth writing to? If so, and if they have made up their minds, why bother even doing the "Vietnam is irrelevant" piece?
In general (and apply this to yourself only if you think it does apply to you), partisans think that when journalists raise questions about their candidate, it means the "support" the other guy.
Sometimes I think this, but I try to evaluate thigns objectively -- NOT in the same way that she does -- i.e. by just saying what each side says and not critically evauating what they are saying.
Here's the deal: I have not seen Kerry's military records, and as far as I know he has not signed the form that would allow journalists to examine them. Yes, he has posted his military records, but I do not know whether that's all of them and, if not, what the unreleased material shows.
Paraphrase: I don't kow what is true or not, I don't want to do the homework and investigate, ergo, I'll write an Op Ed saying its all B.S.
If these were Bush records, you would not expect me to take records he released on faith. Yet Kerry supporters seem to think that if a journalist wants to see the records for him/herself, it is the same as accusing Kerry of lying and therefore is a Bush supporter.
This makes no sense. If anyone reading it can figure out what she means (you, included Sylvia) let me know.
As for my duty to NOT run any story in which someone might be lying: Are you serious?! My job is to tell you what people are saying/doing in this campaign.
Paraphrase, "I'm a stenographer, not a journalist." If you say it, I'll print it. At this point, I want to quote Gina Davis's character "Larry" in Fletch, who said (and gestured) "Print this!"
We journalists add to that information each day, as you have seen with the swift boat allegations.
<cough> Bullshit </cough> Huh? First she admits not to have ever checked the facts and then she claims credit for "adding to the story." Pray tell, what have you added?
Over time, a fuller story is known.
. . . the facts of which Ms. Smith is still apparently unaware - re: Bush or re: Kerry and Vietnam / TANG.
If we were to NOT write the day's development until every piece of information were known and, as you say, verified, there would be no news.
Paraphrase: report first, verify later (if at all).
To the best of our ability, we offer back-up information or contradictory information to claims politicians make. But sometimes that information doesn't come forward until after the pol has already made his statement. Then we do a second-day story, and a third-day story, etc.
Yeah. Right. Its 2/3 through this Swift thingy cycle and she still doesn't know the score.
You do yourself -- and me, for that matter -- a disservice if you expect jouranlists to be partisans.
Again, completely missed my point. I don't want "partisanship" I want honest judging of truth. If one guy tells 5 lies and the other none. You dont' have to call them 50-50 to avoid being called "partisan." Tel the truth, see the truth, that's all we ask Sylvia.
As you surely know, two people can see the same incident and have different interpretations or even different recollections of what they saw.
This is the ridiculously simplistic model that I am critiquing. Its not simply "two people" of equal footing and credibility having differnt interpretations of events. Do your homework. Judge the facts and the claims.
You ask if one side came to me with its story and I could not verify it, could I run it? Of course.
Holy Shit! See above re: "run first, verify later (if at all)"
But then the story indicates that there is no corroborating information -- as I believe the original stories did.
Do your homework! The "original" story was a claim. It was a claim that could have been and should have been investigated.
THAT's what journalists do. And if the allegations are off-the-wall, then readers can evaluate that and make conclusions about those people and the candidates they represent.
Sylvia
"Off the wall"? "John Kerry shot himself, faked the wounds, and lied to get war medals." That's about as "off the wall as you get." But when so-called "journalists" can only reduce it to a "he said she said" despite disproportionate evidence on one side, she gives credibility to the "off the wall."
This kind of crap infuriates me! Help!