Did The Media Take Down Kerry?
A Logical Approach to the Swift Boat Controversy
Did the so called “liberal” media help bring down John Kerry? The answer to that question is a resounding yes. This presidential campaign was a long and grueling one, and there were many different chapters to it; but the one episode that had the most impact was the attack ads by The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Their unfounded attacks and the media’s subsequent naivety in covering them during the entire month of August created a surge of momentum for President Bush that Kerry was never able to recover from, and that was the difference in this race.
Kerry was slightly ahead in polls after the Democratic Convention, but between then and the Republican Convention the attack ads against Kerry led by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were launched in an all out assault. During this time the media suffered from one of the worst cases of tunnel vision during a political campaign. They were not able to step back and consider their actions from a historical perspective. Instead their concerns were limited to the hot story – or what they could turn into a hot story - and not necessarily what made good journalistic sense. The coverage that the swift boat controversy received is almost mind boggling when one logically considers the facts of the case and the results of the coverage. It was truly a case of the blind leading the blind.
The allegations against Kerry were so obviously misleading, but this was never effectively pointed out. One doesn’t even have to understand all the complexities of the Vietnam War or normal military procedures to see this. The facts are simple: 35 years ago the navy awarded John Kerry three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star while fighting for his country in Vietnam. These are undeniable facts; but those opposed to Kerry went to extraordinary lengths to question these facts in a desperate attempt to cast doubt on his ability as a commander in chief. What was almost more disturbing is that so many in the press bought into it without any grasp of the big picture. They were sucked into the game of covering this story without doing their due diligence as responsible members of the media.
Analyzing the Facts: Is it possible that any single allegation against John Kerry is true? Yes, that is possible. That doesn’t mean it’s true, but in fairness it is possible that one of his medals was mistakenly awarded to him. One can reach this conclusion through logical reasoning. In total, estimates are that 87,000 military awards were issued during the Vietnam War. So, with this many awards issued by the military during a long and grueling war one could reasonably conclude that a small percentage were based on inaccurate testimony, misdiagnosed wounds, and/or in rarer cases even a self-inflicted wound.
However, in John Kerry’s case he received five of these awards, and this is where logical thought should easily trump any of the criticism that Kerry was under. For example: even if one were to conclude that as much as 10% of medals awarded in the war were undeserved, then the chances that all five of Kerry’s awards were undeserved is 1 in 100,000. And that’s if the percentage of inaccurate awards was as high as 10%. If you surmised that only 5% of awards were undeserved, then the chances decrease to 1 in 3,200,000. The math in this case just doesn’t lie. The only way those chances could become more realistic is to accept a theory that a much higher percentage of awards were mistakenly given out; but there is no reasonable basis to assume that the military makes a mistake with as many as ½ or even ¼ of the awards they give out. If you thought that then you’d have to have reasonable doubt about any soldier who had earned a military award.
Also to be considered is that according to one of Kerry’s accusers who served in Vietnam, when speaking of one of Kerry’s Purple Hearts, stated that the award was undeserved because the injury was nothing more than a scratch, and that Kerry is the only person he’s ever known or even heard of that received a Purple Heart for a scratch so small. So, in this case the charge is that of all the Purple Hearts issued during that war this is the only one awarded for such a minor scratch. This man wants you to believe that of all the minor scratches that must occur during a war that Kerry is the only soldier who was able to parlay one of these minor scratches into a Purple Heart. The chances of this occurring are too remote to even calculate.
The Smear Campaign: Does this prove Kerry is above criticism? No. Just because he at least earned some of his medals legitimately doesn’t mean that he’s above reproach if, for example, he lied about one or two of his medals. And, it would and should be covered if there were legitimate evidence that called one of Kerry’s medals into question because of a lie he told. However, there is no such evidence. All Navy records show that his medals were earned and that he served with distinction and bravery. The only thing that is opposing those official records is a well orchestrated smear campaign. The proof that it is a smear campaign is the fact that different people have questioned every single one of his medals.
If only one or two were questioned then logically one could make a case that these questions should be entertained. Again, going by the 10% theory, if one medal were called into question it would be worth considering because there could be a 10% chance the medal was falsely awarded. Then we could listen to the evidence and determine if this medal was one of those 10%. If two were called into question there would be a 1 in 100 chance that both were mistakenly awarded – a long shot yes - but with ample evidence one might conclude that the circumstances around both medals are suspicious enough that perhaps Kerry is the one soldier out of 100 that was able to pull off conning the system. But, we are not being asked to believe this plausible notion that one or two of the medals were undeserved. We are being asked to believe that all five were undeserved, and this is where the attacks lose their credibility.
The Bronze Star that was awarded for pulling Lt. Rassmen back into their swift boat while coming under fire has been questioned by some saying that there was actually no enemy fire. The Silver Star that was awarded because Kerry chased a Vietcong with a rocket launcher through the jungle and shot him has been questioned with the accusation that Kerry lied about how dangerous the situation was - that it wasn’t in fact dangerous at all, it was only a young Vietcong that Kerry shot in the back and there was no other hostile forces around. The first Purple Heart was questioned for being a minor scratch worthy of only a band aid. And the other two Purple Hearts were questioned not individually for the details surrounding if they were each severe enough to warrant a Purple Heart, but rather with the broad blanket accusation that the injuries were self-inflicted.
At this point, when a reasonable person understands what they are expected to believe, then one can logically come to the conclusion that it is not the least bit plausible to think that John Kerry didn’t deserve any of his awards, i.e. that all 5 were awarded in error. Therefore, if the only logical conclusion is that it’s not plausible that all the charges against Kerry could be true, then one must accept that at least a couple of those charges are false. It is then obvious that there must have been, at the least, several people involved in an orchestrated attempt to smear Kerry with false charges. This does not prove that all five charges against Kerry are false, but it shows that at least some are.
The Big Picture: This begs the question if it is responsible to give credibility to a story from a source which attacks Kerry with no hard evidence when it is obvious there are at least several non credible sources out there which are telling similar stories. Again, it is not proven that all sources attacking Kerry’s medals are false; however, it can be reasonably concluded that they should all be discredited. The reasons are simple: if challenged on their attacks the attacker, in order to make their case, would have to support the idea that all Kerry’s medals, or at least a majority of them, were undeserved or their case would cease to have any merit. The reasoning put forward by Kerry’s attackers was that he was unfit to be commander in chief based on the fact that he was falsely promoting himself as a decorated war hero. To prove that only one or two of his medals were undeserved would not overcome the idea that he was a decorated war hero who would then still have three or four justly deserved medals. For any individual attack on just one of the medals to mean anything they would have to support the idea that all of them or at least a majority were undeserved. This is where they cease to be a credible source because they are trying to sell a theory that is not realistically plausible.
Yet we watched for an entire month as these implausible attacks rolled on and on. Nobody on the democratic side of the aisle was able to effectively point out that the attacks just don’t add up. They were on the defensive and their inadequate responses ensued from that. But, the objective sources in the media should have done the math. This error was most likely not a calculated one for many, whereas for a few it was. For the many, the controversy was the perfect quench for a news dry month in the middle of summer, irregardless if it had any merit or not, and the ripple effects were felt straight through to Election Day.
An Ethical Approach: There is also another question that anyone in the media who covered this story should have asked themselves: Would it be acceptable to apply this much coverage and scrutiny to a twenty something year old soldier just back from Iraq? If you support the questioning of Kerry’s medals in Vietnam then you would also have to support the questioning of any young soldier in Iraq who’s received five medals from the army because that is exactly who John Kerry was in 1968. He was a 26 year old lieutenant who volunteered for service and fought in a controversial war, under the most chaotic conditions, with no clear end in sight. In Iraq we have had hundreds of thousands of young men and women who have done the exact same thing.
Would anyone dare question the record of a 26 year old lieutenant just back from Iraq with 3 Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star to his credit? Would anyone believe that this soldier, as well as other soldiers in his unit, lied about the circumstances surrounding all 5 of those awards? Would anyone have the audacity to say that this kid lied about these awards because in 35 years he may run for president and he would want to sell himself in the future as a decorated war hero from the Iraq War? We’re not talking about high ranking officers - colonels and generals - where one could make a case they might be worrying about their career during a war. We are talking about a 26 year old lieutenant on the front lines. To question those awards would be a slap in the face of every soldier serving in Iraq who is doing their best to survive, and democrats and republicans alike would be outraged if that were to occur.
And, not for nothing, but Vietnam was a helluva lot more chaotic and dangerous than Iraq. This is not to diminish the current situation, but facts are facts. In Vietnam over 50,000 soldiers were killed; in Iraq that number is over 1,200 and still climbing, but it will not come close to approaching that 50,000 figure. So, if you accept that the soldiers on the ground in Iraq are trying to survive first and foremost and not worrying about their possible future political careers, then you must accept that those soldiers in Vietnam were even more focused on their own survival since that war was many times more dangerous.
Did the so called “liberal” media help bring down John Kerry? The answer to that question is a resounding yes. This presidential campaign was a long and grueling one, and there were many different chapters to it; but the one episode that had the most impact was the attack ads by The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Their unfounded attacks and the media’s subsequent naivety in covering them during the entire month of August created a surge of momentum for President Bush that Kerry was never able to recover from, and that was the difference in this race.
Kerry was slightly ahead in polls after the Democratic Convention, but between then and the Republican Convention the attack ads against Kerry led by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were launched in an all out assault. During this time the media suffered from one of the worst cases of tunnel vision during a political campaign. They were not able to step back and consider their actions from a historical perspective. Instead their concerns were limited to the hot story – or what they could turn into a hot story - and not necessarily what made good journalistic sense. The coverage that the swift boat controversy received is almost mind boggling when one logically considers the facts of the case and the results of the coverage. It was truly a case of the blind leading the blind.
The allegations against Kerry were so obviously misleading, but this was never effectively pointed out. One doesn’t even have to understand all the complexities of the Vietnam War or normal military procedures to see this. The facts are simple: 35 years ago the navy awarded John Kerry three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star while fighting for his country in Vietnam. These are undeniable facts; but those opposed to Kerry went to extraordinary lengths to question these facts in a desperate attempt to cast doubt on his ability as a commander in chief. What was almost more disturbing is that so many in the press bought into it without any grasp of the big picture. They were sucked into the game of covering this story without doing their due diligence as responsible members of the media.
Analyzing the Facts: Is it possible that any single allegation against John Kerry is true? Yes, that is possible. That doesn’t mean it’s true, but in fairness it is possible that one of his medals was mistakenly awarded to him. One can reach this conclusion through logical reasoning. In total, estimates are that 87,000 military awards were issued during the Vietnam War. So, with this many awards issued by the military during a long and grueling war one could reasonably conclude that a small percentage were based on inaccurate testimony, misdiagnosed wounds, and/or in rarer cases even a self-inflicted wound.
However, in John Kerry’s case he received five of these awards, and this is where logical thought should easily trump any of the criticism that Kerry was under. For example: even if one were to conclude that as much as 10% of medals awarded in the war were undeserved, then the chances that all five of Kerry’s awards were undeserved is 1 in 100,000. And that’s if the percentage of inaccurate awards was as high as 10%. If you surmised that only 5% of awards were undeserved, then the chances decrease to 1 in 3,200,000. The math in this case just doesn’t lie. The only way those chances could become more realistic is to accept a theory that a much higher percentage of awards were mistakenly given out; but there is no reasonable basis to assume that the military makes a mistake with as many as ½ or even ¼ of the awards they give out. If you thought that then you’d have to have reasonable doubt about any soldier who had earned a military award.
Also to be considered is that according to one of Kerry’s accusers who served in Vietnam, when speaking of one of Kerry’s Purple Hearts, stated that the award was undeserved because the injury was nothing more than a scratch, and that Kerry is the only person he’s ever known or even heard of that received a Purple Heart for a scratch so small. So, in this case the charge is that of all the Purple Hearts issued during that war this is the only one awarded for such a minor scratch. This man wants you to believe that of all the minor scratches that must occur during a war that Kerry is the only soldier who was able to parlay one of these minor scratches into a Purple Heart. The chances of this occurring are too remote to even calculate.
The Smear Campaign: Does this prove Kerry is above criticism? No. Just because he at least earned some of his medals legitimately doesn’t mean that he’s above reproach if, for example, he lied about one or two of his medals. And, it would and should be covered if there were legitimate evidence that called one of Kerry’s medals into question because of a lie he told. However, there is no such evidence. All Navy records show that his medals were earned and that he served with distinction and bravery. The only thing that is opposing those official records is a well orchestrated smear campaign. The proof that it is a smear campaign is the fact that different people have questioned every single one of his medals.
If only one or two were questioned then logically one could make a case that these questions should be entertained. Again, going by the 10% theory, if one medal were called into question it would be worth considering because there could be a 10% chance the medal was falsely awarded. Then we could listen to the evidence and determine if this medal was one of those 10%. If two were called into question there would be a 1 in 100 chance that both were mistakenly awarded – a long shot yes - but with ample evidence one might conclude that the circumstances around both medals are suspicious enough that perhaps Kerry is the one soldier out of 100 that was able to pull off conning the system. But, we are not being asked to believe this plausible notion that one or two of the medals were undeserved. We are being asked to believe that all five were undeserved, and this is where the attacks lose their credibility.
The Bronze Star that was awarded for pulling Lt. Rassmen back into their swift boat while coming under fire has been questioned by some saying that there was actually no enemy fire. The Silver Star that was awarded because Kerry chased a Vietcong with a rocket launcher through the jungle and shot him has been questioned with the accusation that Kerry lied about how dangerous the situation was - that it wasn’t in fact dangerous at all, it was only a young Vietcong that Kerry shot in the back and there was no other hostile forces around. The first Purple Heart was questioned for being a minor scratch worthy of only a band aid. And the other two Purple Hearts were questioned not individually for the details surrounding if they were each severe enough to warrant a Purple Heart, but rather with the broad blanket accusation that the injuries were self-inflicted.
At this point, when a reasonable person understands what they are expected to believe, then one can logically come to the conclusion that it is not the least bit plausible to think that John Kerry didn’t deserve any of his awards, i.e. that all 5 were awarded in error. Therefore, if the only logical conclusion is that it’s not plausible that all the charges against Kerry could be true, then one must accept that at least a couple of those charges are false. It is then obvious that there must have been, at the least, several people involved in an orchestrated attempt to smear Kerry with false charges. This does not prove that all five charges against Kerry are false, but it shows that at least some are.
The Big Picture: This begs the question if it is responsible to give credibility to a story from a source which attacks Kerry with no hard evidence when it is obvious there are at least several non credible sources out there which are telling similar stories. Again, it is not proven that all sources attacking Kerry’s medals are false; however, it can be reasonably concluded that they should all be discredited. The reasons are simple: if challenged on their attacks the attacker, in order to make their case, would have to support the idea that all Kerry’s medals, or at least a majority of them, were undeserved or their case would cease to have any merit. The reasoning put forward by Kerry’s attackers was that he was unfit to be commander in chief based on the fact that he was falsely promoting himself as a decorated war hero. To prove that only one or two of his medals were undeserved would not overcome the idea that he was a decorated war hero who would then still have three or four justly deserved medals. For any individual attack on just one of the medals to mean anything they would have to support the idea that all of them or at least a majority were undeserved. This is where they cease to be a credible source because they are trying to sell a theory that is not realistically plausible.
Yet we watched for an entire month as these implausible attacks rolled on and on. Nobody on the democratic side of the aisle was able to effectively point out that the attacks just don’t add up. They were on the defensive and their inadequate responses ensued from that. But, the objective sources in the media should have done the math. This error was most likely not a calculated one for many, whereas for a few it was. For the many, the controversy was the perfect quench for a news dry month in the middle of summer, irregardless if it had any merit or not, and the ripple effects were felt straight through to Election Day.
An Ethical Approach: There is also another question that anyone in the media who covered this story should have asked themselves: Would it be acceptable to apply this much coverage and scrutiny to a twenty something year old soldier just back from Iraq? If you support the questioning of Kerry’s medals in Vietnam then you would also have to support the questioning of any young soldier in Iraq who’s received five medals from the army because that is exactly who John Kerry was in 1968. He was a 26 year old lieutenant who volunteered for service and fought in a controversial war, under the most chaotic conditions, with no clear end in sight. In Iraq we have had hundreds of thousands of young men and women who have done the exact same thing.
Would anyone dare question the record of a 26 year old lieutenant just back from Iraq with 3 Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star to his credit? Would anyone believe that this soldier, as well as other soldiers in his unit, lied about the circumstances surrounding all 5 of those awards? Would anyone have the audacity to say that this kid lied about these awards because in 35 years he may run for president and he would want to sell himself in the future as a decorated war hero from the Iraq War? We’re not talking about high ranking officers - colonels and generals - where one could make a case they might be worrying about their career during a war. We are talking about a 26 year old lieutenant on the front lines. To question those awards would be a slap in the face of every soldier serving in Iraq who is doing their best to survive, and democrats and republicans alike would be outraged if that were to occur.
And, not for nothing, but Vietnam was a helluva lot more chaotic and dangerous than Iraq. This is not to diminish the current situation, but facts are facts. In Vietnam over 50,000 soldiers were killed; in Iraq that number is over 1,200 and still climbing, but it will not come close to approaching that 50,000 figure. So, if you accept that the soldiers on the ground in Iraq are trying to survive first and foremost and not worrying about their possible future political careers, then you must accept that those soldiers in Vietnam were even more focused on their own survival since that war was many times more dangerous.
posted by The Animal | 9:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home