Why didn't the media report on Bernie Kerik sooner?

[idiosyncratic]

In this excellent, although long article, Kerik's history over the campaign cycle is recounted.

He was extremely active, and probably very detrimental to Kerry's campaign, yet he was allowed his high profile with no one dredging up the dirt about him to discredit him.

"Throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, Bernard Kerik was a forceful and vocal advocate for President Bush. The Bush-Cheney '04 campaign could count on Kerik, and Kerik could count on the media to air his praise for Bush and his attacks on Senator John Kerry, including his suggestion that a terrorist attack was more likely if Kerry were elected. He was a frequent presence on network and cable news shows and frequently quoted in newspapers, which, perhaps like the Bush administration, assumed that his stature as former New York City police commissioner and as a senior adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior in charge of training the Iraqi police force allowed him near-immunity from scrutiny. He made dozens of appearances on television in support of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and on terrorism and the president's reelection.

Much about Kerik has been uncovered by the media since his nomination for Department of Homeland Security secretary, and even more since that nomination was withdrawn, including allegations of corruption and abuse of authority during his tenure as police commissioner, questions surrounding his business associations and transactions, and questions about his abrupt departure from Iraq. But even before his nomination, there was plenty of available information -- including the very stridency of his attacks on Kerry -- that should have raised serious questions about his credibility. But the media, which so willingly gave him a forum to tout the president's war on terrorism (and rail against the purported threat Kerry posed to the country's security), never pursued those questions. . . .


Why, oh why, couldn't our side have done a "Swift Boat smear" on him during the campaign in order to silence him sooner and lessen his influence on * voters?

[knowbody0]

1. that would be classified as investigative journalism

MSM is a wood chipper for truth

[blm]

2. The corporate media masters kept the Kerry haters propped up to help Bush.

A few real journalists woke up after the election. Or maybe they were just unleashed?

[bowens43]

3. Because they're are bush ass lickers.

[catgirl]

4. They're probably terrified they might get picked off!

Killing journalists seems to be in vogue these days.

[idiosyncratic]

7. Ooooohhh! I forgot about that little wrinkle.

R.I.P. to all those brave journalists who tried to get the truth out.

[cornermouse]

5. Did any democrats attempt to research Kerik?

Maybe they should have. Maybe its time to stop waiting for the media to investigate. Maybe its time the democrats began to investigate and then funnel it out through appropriate internet and alternative media outlets?

[wicket]

6. great article, thanks