Really good Media Matters article on the media bias against Kerry

[beachmom]

This is ostensibly an article smacking down a whiny George Will column, but it has a great plethera of info on constant media bias against Kerry:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703090001

Throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, the media -- echoing Republican attacks -- frequently labeled Kerry a "flip-flopper." Following are several examples:

A July 9, 2004, Washington Times editorial echoed GOP talking points by accusing Kerry of "performing an ideological flip-flop," claiming that McCain, not Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), was Kerry's first choice for vice president.

San Diego Union-Tribune editor Robert J. Caldwell wrote of Kerry in an October 31, 2004, column: "Serial flip-flops are not the hallmark of strong wartime leaders."

...

Kerry was also repeatedly labeled an "opportunist" by those in the media:

In an October 24, 2004, Slate.com feature, senior writer Timothy Noah stated that, even though he was planning to vote for Kerry, he "disliked" him because "e's pompous, he's an opportunist, and he's indecisive." Noah went on to say of Kerry's service in Vietnam: "I can't suppress the uncharitable suspicion that what drew him there wasn't patriotism so much as a preppy passion for physical challenge and the urge to buff his future political resume."

According to an October 25, 2004, Associated Press report, in its editorial endorsing Bush for president, The Forum (Fargo, North Dakota) "called John Kerry an 'opportunist' who changes positions when it fits his political ambitions."


More examples at the link.

[ginnyinWI]

1. ugly.

Dontcha just love "journalists" who seem to know all about a person's inward motivations for doing something, based solely on stereotypes and, presumably, their own biases, prejudices, and their own thinly disguised envy.

I have an idea: how about a journalist who bases his opinions on an actual interview? Sheesh. Journalism is not what it used to be--a responsibility taken seriously. Now it's all about ambition and money.

[beachmom]

2. Even better than an interview is reading the leader's writings

It was nice meeting Kerry, but talking with him for a few minutes is not what allowed me to "get to know him". Instead, it was reading all of his writings, from letters and journals from Vietnam to op-eds and speeches he has written since. A person's writings are often more intimate than a sit down interview. He also will say something revealing once in a while, I may add. I really am at the point where I think I "know" him pretty well, but it is based on careful research and study, the kind of work journalists haven't been willing to do. The way they describe him is foreign to me. I think his honesty is what throws them. They can't quite accept that (like Karennj being a real grassroots supporter, not a paid operative) and go off in a direction they feel more comfortable with which fits their cynical world view.

[Luftmensch067]

6. Well said

It takes a certain amount of time and trouble to feel like you know something about a public figure. It takes research and contemplation and (gasp!) actual interest and curiosity. That's the exact feeling I have when I read such shallow "journalism" -- that it's foreign to me.

[karynnj]

11. Even then after, it still really really meant something

to actually meet the Senator in Boston. Even those it was a can't possibly lose situation for him - there was a sense that he was "real". In some ways, this was an odd reaction because by then, I had read stuff from his 3 decades long public life.

His actions over those decades tell who he is. So, unless people want to assume that he spent 3 decades being a leader willing to repeatedly stand alone when it was the right thing to do just to fool us in 2004 that he had integrity and was principled, then that is who he is.

[Democrafty]

8. Just want to add, though, that not really "knowing"

somebody doesn't give anybody permission to just make shit up. I think journalists have a bad habit of acting like psychiatrists - looking for deeper meanings that aren't always there, and then reporting on their own conclusions, as opposed to what actually happened.

[whometense]

5. One of my pet peeves too.

Even with Hillary - who I do not like at all - I hate it when commentators speculate on her motives.

It's fair to criticize what she does and says, even what she wears, if you wanted to be that shallow - but no one has the right to assume they understand someone else's motivation for doing what they do.

[karynnj]

3. Although I understand that he is using Kerry's treatment to

prove that Will is wrong, it is deeply unsatisfying. If I knew nothing about John Kerry, reading this extensive list of extremely negative comments - all with the same basic theme - I would conclude that the point was that the media does not let liberals get away with flip flopping when they do it.

As he intended to use Kerry's treatment as the example, he should have inserted a paragraph that said (at minimum) that nothing in Kerry's long record justified the charge of flip flopper and that the repetition of the charge by many people, which gave it credibility was typical of the RW smear machine.

I have been repeatedly surprised when reading decade old Kerry speeches to see that they could be given today with minor updates to reference new material. You can not have a 90+ lifetime record on environment, woman's issues, and civil rights, if you made inconsistent votes. In fact, Kerry is more principled and consistent than most politicians.

Even the $87 billion dollar comment used to say he flip flopped was not a flip flop, but unfortunate shorthand in answering a question that he had already carefully and coherently answered in detail minutes before. The Republicans ran with this to attack a Kerry strength - his integrity and strength of character.

[whometense]

4. And the meme goes on.

I was listening to WBUR's On Point this morning as they recapped the week's political news. I was listening, that is, until guest Mort Zuckerman sneered that he had been a full-on Gore supporter in 2000, but that he viewed the 2004 choice between Kerry and Bush as a choice of "the evil of two lessers." When host Tom Ashbrook laughed at that witticism I turned off the radio.

This stuff just wears me down. Tom Ashbrook is normally a pretty mainstream news guy, pretty fair and reality-based. When he allows crap like that to go unchallenged I start to despair of it ever being debunked.

Mort Zuckerman is a McLaughlin group regular, and a down-the-line conservative, so I don't buy that he ever questioned Bush's fitness for office. But why is he being allowed to talk trash about Kerry?

Another guest on the show was Tim Grieve - another Kerry-hater, but I turned it off before he spoke at all. They have a podcast if anyone cares to listen. I still have steam coming out of my ears.

[beachmom]

7. Yep, it all can get you down

Overall, this is what the media does:

1. Ignores Kerry
2. Trashes Kerry
3. In small niche publications, they will cover Kerry's work like for small businesses, but it ain't sexy and doesn't get noticed by Big Media or many blogs.

It is rare and of course celebrated here, when they actually tell the truth about him, like that ABC piece on how the Reid amendment is essentially the Kerry/Feingold amendment.

The only thing that gives me hope is that people like Jimmy Carter or Al Gore, who were repeatedly trashed or ignored for a long time, have now been afforded great respect for their works. Maybe this will be true for Kerry one day, although he's different since he is still a senator. I just admire his "putting one foot in front of the other" attitude, and not lamenting the media reality he faces at this time.

[karynnj]

9. I wanted to comment

I actually registered to comment after reading this and just got an account! - but this is already archived and they are accepting no new comments - but at least I can comment next time.

Your comments do demonstrate how deadly ALL the smears on Kerry were. Had he run, he would have have to dispell all that garbage and do it without much if any media support. It doesn't take much real examination of his record to see that it, in its own way, was as unfair as the SBVT.

In a way, you could see that in the way they lept on Kerry for the "joke". It was minor compared to Hillary's misstatements that can not be explained as misreading prepared text that the media had before she spoke. No one bothers to note that in the last half year she made as more gaffes than Kerry in 3 plus years of constant coverage.

Last week, I heard any number of pundits say that McCain's "wasted" comment wouldn't hurt him because his support of the troops was known. Kerry had 4 decades of supporting the troops that at least equals McCain's and no interretation of what he said is close to as bad as what McCain said. Yet there was no similar defense of Kerry.

The sad thing is that in spite of a strong, clean, honest campaign, where he won the nomination because of his strengths and a general election campaign where he nearly almost won in spite of tepid support from many Democrats and a very biased media, the media is still repeating the same RW memes.

It was great to see and hear Teresa blast those lies in NYC. It was especially cool to see Teresa, when first asked the question, obviously considering how to answer for a few seconds - then smiling - before proceding to praise and defend the campaign they fought.

I do hope that time will make people see that they bought a pack of lies in 2004- often from media people they had trusted for years.

[whometense]

10. That must have been sweet.

In the few times I've been in the same room as Teresa since the 2004 election, she has every time made some sharp comment about the media and the way they covered the campaign and her husband. It's very clear both John and Teresa knew exactly what was going on - and what is still going on. I've thought all along that overcoming the media smears would be the most difficult part of a 2008 run. People just repeat things out of laziness or nastiness, and it's self-perpetuating. The Boston Globe has done its part, as has the Herald of course.

It really galls me to hear this stuff, and I still try to jump on it, but really I think promoting the "Kerry was right" stories as well as all the excellent work he is doing is more effective. It's hard to argue personality - but the facts speak for themselves. It's the only way to shut those creeps up.

[karynnj]

15. That was one of the reason we all made this a home though

The sheer unfairness that a man's (and later I could see it was even truer of Teresa's) good name and reputation earned by decades of solid thoughtful actions was slimed by politicians and the media for political reasons.

It really bothers me that they have continued it even though he is not running for President. This is in spite of the fact that neither Kerry has made it easy for them, both have continued their dignified, thoughtful work and have acted with class. At some point, you would think the media would conceded that they really are very good people.

What motivates me to respond on some of these is the off chance that if enough of us do it, it will at some point hit what ever remmnents of conscience remain in some smirky reporter sometime. It may be Pollyannaish, but what's the alternative?

[MBS]

16. I gave up on the RW decades ago

But it's the betrayals by "our" side-- the stupid and self-serving snark from fellow progressives,who should be Kerry's strongest allies , and well as the lies, shallow gossip and s___ from the media. whose job should be to actually ferret out , listen to, and report the truth -- that make me most worried about the state of our country. If these guys can't see a real leader when he's right in front of them. . where did everyone's brains go???
and why are they still doing this????? Our country is so messed up right now. : (

[ginnyinWI]

12. even on NPR, JK is fair game!

:(

It's not fair and not right. I get that show in the evening so I might listen. But only if I feel I can take it.

How do you come back politically when you are the butt of jokes for so many people? I guess if enough time passes--like with Gore. He was a joke for a while, too. But now a lot of people would be willing to give him another look.

[whometense]

13. Joe Conason says it beautifully in Salon today.

He's talking about the repugs blaming Clinton, but the idea is applicable: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/03/16/clinton_attorneys/

... From the Drudge Report to the Fox News Channel to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the usual suspects are shrieking in unison:

Bill Clinton fired a lot of U.S. attorneys too! In fact Clinton was worse because he fired all of them at once! And the Democrats didn't complain when Clinton did the same thing!

If those wails are loud enough, hapless mainstream journalists tend to repeat the same bogus accusations. Phony analogies and bad history gush out in a toxic stream of informational sewage. Then somebody (sigh) debunks those claims, just like someone hoses down the street after a parade of circus elephants...

[ginnyinWI]

14. thanks--good article.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Our job as bloggers is to expose tactics and therefore dilute the damage that they do. The worse * and his adm. gets, the more Independents are going to lose faith in anything the GOP does or says, and that is where to get Democratic votes. That's all the matters in the end--who people vote for (and how those votes get counted, of course).

I always enjoy hearing Rachael Maddow explain RW tactics--we need everyone to do this. Do you suppose anyone on TV would go there? Risky undertaking. A guest on a show could. I think some of the more lefty guests have, but we need more.