In Howard Kurtz’ chat this morning with readers of the Washington Post, one questioner took the “news media” to task for hyping the Kerry BotchedJokeGate gaffe last week.
The reader fumed, “I’m really frustrated the way the news media at large played up the Kerry gaffe time and time again last week …Who decided to make this story as big as it was?”
Kurtz, channeling Kerry himself, tried to loosen things up with a bad joke, explaining that “The secret committee of biased journalists, a select and shadowy group” were the folks responsible for pushing the story. Nice try, Howie, but don’t quit your day job.
The real laugh line, however, was still to come — even though Kurtz was being serious. “Actually, as I noted a moment ago, it was John Kerry, by escalating his rhetoric after what he admits was a botched joke, who sent this story into the media stratosphere. The fact that several Democrats publicly criticized or distanced themselves from Kerry’s joke-gone-bad didn’t hurt.”
So, by Kurtz’ reckoning, Kerry “sent this story into the media stratosphere” all by his lonesome. Count us surprised. We had no idea that Kerry wielded so much influence over reporters and their editors, who sent the reporters out to run the story into the ground.
Kurtz’ failure to acknowledge the media’s role in driving this saturation coverage is typical of the establishment press. We are simply observers holding a mirror up to society, the deluded sentiment goes. (What we are, actually, is an insecure bunch of copycats who simply can’t lay off a story once it has been “legitimized,” i.e., published elsewhere.) There was a great example two weeks ago, when Virginia Senator George Allen’s aides “leaked” sexually explicit portions of his opponent James Webb’s novels to the Drudge Report. On October 28, two days after Drudge ran the story, the Washington Post weighed in front page with its own take on the passages, noting that “Allen’s aides” had been “trying to get other news organizations to write about the excerpts for weeks.” Left unsaid was that the Post’s editors presumably didn’t find the passages newsworthy enough to bother — until some other editors decided they were, that is.
Newspapers and television news operations aren’t run as democracies. Journalists and their bosses decide every day which stories to run — and for how long — and which ones to ignore. Kerry botched the joke, and after that it was essentially out of his hands, and in the hands of reporters and editors to decide how far to push the story.

Paul McCleary Takes A Kerry Claim For Gospel Truth
Kerry botched the joke, and after that it was essentially out of his hands...
padikiller questions McLeary's readiness to blindly accept Kerry's claim
FIRST of all...
Who says Kerry "botched" a joke?...
Kerry?...
"Cambodia Mission" Kerry?.....
The guy who got WORSE grades at Yale than President Bush did?...
What basis is there in McLearyland to credit Kerry's claim as a fact?...
Are we to take GOP claims as fact, Mr. McLeary?....
SECONDLY....
What process supposedly rendered the handling of Kerry's "botched joke" to be "essentially out of his hands" Mr. McLeary?...
HUH?....
Kerry claims to have botched a joke and, assuming that he did botch a "joke" he nonetheless offended a LARGE number of people... And the next day he had the opportunity to apologize for HIS mistake...
But he didn't do so.... He acted like an idiot instead...
So at what point, exactly did the story jump "out of his hands"?...
HUH?...
Was it the following day, when he flipped and flopped by apologizing for the "botched joke"?... (He refused to apologize BEFORE he apologized, of course)...
Is THIS when the story jumped "out of his hands"?....
HUH?....
CJR maintains two sets of ethics..
One for Dems... And another for the GOP..
Claims from Demcrats are to be republished by CJR as fact....
While claims from Republicans are to be ridiculed and subjected to derisive dismissal...
This is CJR's definition of "professional journalism"...
Posted by padikiller on Mon 6 Nov 2006 at 07:02 PM
Wow. I'm impressed with the amount of effort padikiller put into his post without going to the trouble of comparing what Kerry said to his prepared remarks.
If he had done so, he would have seen that Kerry left out key words and miserably delivered the prepared lines. This matches not only McLeary's characterization of the joke as botched but any reasonable person's definintion of the word.
Of course, facts and the truth aren't padikiller's concern.
Posted by Whatever on Mon 6 Nov 2006 at 09:38 PM
I find it odd how padkiller, in any of his rants agains't McLeary, that he seldom if ever bothers to cite any of his own material to back up his claims when attacking McLeary. Secondly one has to wonder if pakiller has a fetish for McLeary since it seem that padkiller's criticisms seem to be directed soley at McLeary.
However, whatever reason padkiller has for his blatant disregard for anything that is written by McLeary, I believe that we should break apart what he states in his latest post here.
First he attacks McLeary for taking "A Kerry Claim For Gospel Truth." Now while Kerry's gaffe was stupid I have yet to see anything or anyone refuting that the botched joke was nothing more than just that other than padkiller's and various other hardcore GOP supports saying otherwise in a matter of opinion. Thus due to a lack of evidence from any opposition I think McLeary is quite safe in assuming that Kerry's gaffe was nothing more than a botched joke.
Secondly, to back up his arguement McLeary's claim about the media running this story for to long padkiller insists that it was Kerry's own doing for taking two days to appologize. The problem with pakiller's arguement here is that he is arguing a different issue than what McLeary is arguing. McLeary's article is about how the MSM ran the story for 4 days after Kerry appologized not the 2 days it took Kerry to appologize.
Finally, I find that padkiller has a double standard to what he decides to comment on here at CJR. It appears that to me any article that may point out a problem within the GOP causes padkiller to flame about how CJR is not unbiased and has a different standard for the Dems. However, if there's an article that may point out a flaw in the Dems or at least doesn't point out a flaw in the GOP padkiller is never to be seen unless to praise CJR for praising the GOP. Thus it seems that padkiller suffers from prejudiced posting.
Posted by buckyhomes on Mon 6 Nov 2006 at 11:07 PM
"Whatever" wrote:
I'm impressed with the amount of effort padikiller put into his post without going to the trouble of comparing what Kerry said to his prepared remarks.
padikiller responds
This silly liberal attempt at insight again presupposes that the "prepared remarks" actually exist... And that Kerry isn't simply lying (as he has lied many, many times)
At last count, the MSM outlets have presented at least FOUR different versions of these supposedly "prepared" remarks...
Of course, Kerry's pathetic claim is patently absurd on its face. It makes NO sense for Kerry to "joke" about President Bush's academic performance when Kerry got WORSE grades at Yale than Bush did.. (any of you "professional journalists" care to deal with THIS one?)
Finally, regarding the purported "botched joke", it must be noted that Kerry has a LONG history of diparaging troops..
One can't help but notice the Liberal Two-Step going on here.. And that the liberals are dodging the central issue...
Assuming for the sake of argument that Kerry did in fact "botch" a joke... And that this "botched joke" insulted a LOT of people (which it did)...
WHY didn't Kerry simply step up to the podium and apologize on Day 1?..
HUH?...
WHY did he act instead like a jackass?...
HUH?...
And WHEN exactly did the control of the story "jump out of his hands" and into the hands of the "professional journalists"?..
HUH?...
Posted by padikiller on Tue 7 Nov 2006 at 12:53 PM
buckyhomes wrote
I find it odd how padkiller, in any of his rants agains't McLeary, that he seldom if ever bothers to cite any of his own material to back up his claims
padikiller responds
What "claims" of mine do you think need "material"?...
McLeary is the one who blindy labels the claims of the Kerry camp as fact...
Not me..
buckyhomes wrote
...due to a lack of evidence from any opposition I think McLeary is quite safe in assuming that Kerry's gaffe was nothing more than a botched joke....
padikiller is tickled by the inadvertant admission
LOL...
So.. Kerry's claims are to be blindly accepted as true unless there is "evidence" from the "opposition"?...
This is EXACTLY the complaint I made!.... welcom to MY side of the debate!...
Some ethical standard THIS is!.... Claims (from democrats) are presumptively true!...
buckyhomes wrote:
I find that padkiller has a double standard to what he decides to comment on here at CJR. It appears that to me any article that may point out a problem within the GOP causes padkiller to flame about how CJR is not unbiased and has a different standard for the Dems
padikiller responds
BALONEY...
I have complimented MANY articles here... including many invloving matters that were critical of or damaging to the GOP (one recently in particular on CJR's coverage of the "Foleygate" mess)
The problem I have with Paul McLeary in particular is that Mr. McLeary plays fast and loose with the facts in order to spin a liberal web...
As a particular example, his recent whiny diatribe about the Bilal Hussein story utterly ignored several key facts and blindly parroted the AP's screwy position... Namely Mr. McLeary failed to report that the AP knew all along why Husein was being held and that it sat on the story for five months before the story broke under them.. That Hussein tested positive for handling explosives at the time of his arrest (in the company of senior terrorists, no less)... And that Hussein has been implicated in the abductions of two journalists...
Mr. McLeary refused to correct his story even after the truth was pointed out to him..
No self-respecting "professional journalist" behaves in this manner..
Posted by padikiller on Tue 7 Nov 2006 at 01:28 PM
Padikiller said:
"Some ethical standard THIS is!.... Claims (from democrats) are presumptively true!..."
Sure, this is a legitimate criticism. But Padi, you frequently appeal to White House statements as unequivocal proof (as in our previous go-round about Woodward's book). You can't have it both ways -- at least, you can't unless you really are the mindless ideologue you usually seem to be.
There are two possibilities: (1) Kerry intentionally insulted the military on the eve of a crucial election. Or (2) Kerry put his foot in his mouth again. Kerry would have to be stupid or self-destructive to have intended to insult the troops. Ergo, he made a mistake. Opting for (1) is transparently ideological posturing to invent controversy where none exists.
An analogy: in the first debate in 2004, President Bush said that he visited a military widow and "loved her". If Democrats had seized on this botched diction and demanded that Bush apologize for implying that he had made like Richard III with a widow of the Iraq war, they would have been laughed out of the room.
Posted by MRooney on Tue 7 Nov 2006 at 09:58 PM
MRooney wrote
But Padi, you frequently appeal to White House statements as unequivocal proof (as in our previous go-round about Woodward's book). You can't have it both ways --
padikiller responds
I have never claimed that White House statements are "unequivocal proof" of anything...
I said that the White House's rebuttal of some of Woodward's claims was compelling... And that I found the rebuttal to be persuasive AFTER checking it out INDEPENDENTLY...
Woodward claimed that Laura Bush wanted Rumsfeld out... But LAura Bush flatly denied making the comment...
Other leaders (many from outside the Bush administration-including foreign leaders) also flatly disputed Woodward's account.
Woodward's hatchet job was simply sloppy pre-election pandering and was widely derided even by the most liberal of his peers...
Posted by padikiller on Tue 7 Nov 2006 at 11:15 PM
MRooney wrote:
Kerry would have to be stupid or self-destructive to have intended to insult the troops. Ergo, he made a mistake
padikiller responds
Stupid is, as stupid does....
I think you nailed it hard BEFORE your logically fallacious "ergo"....
Kerry has a LONG history of maligning trops at war...
What makes you think that he wouldn't do so again?...
And WHY would Kerry make a "joke" about President Bush's academic effort when Bush got BETTER grades at Yale than Kerry did?...
HUH?...
I notice you guys are dancing all around this question!....
Posted by padikiller on Tue 7 Nov 2006 at 11:21 PM
Padikiller said:
I have never claimed that White House statements are "unequivocal proof" of anything...Technically true, but nonetheless a lie by omission: you said
the "Five Myths" of Bob Woodward are refuted in an utterly devastating manner with irrefutable evidence.So you're just lying. Or I suppose your mastery of diction affords you a distinction between "irrefutable evidence" and "unequivocal proof"?
And the only evidence you ever cited was the White House press release. So, from what you have written, White House press release (or the words of Laura Bush) = irrefutable, ironclad evidence. Or, to adapt what you said above, claims from Republicans are not just presumptively true, they are irrefutably true. Your standards for belief are so brazenly inconsistent it's an act of charity for anyone here to bother to reply to your Pavlovian barkings.
And WHY would Kerry make a "joke" about President Bush's academic effort when Bush got BETTER grades at Yale than Kerry did?...But one more thing before I leave you to your usual inane weaseling. You taunted:
HUH?...
Maybe because Kerry learned something since Yale. Perhaps it was while Kerry was doing his duty to his country by fighting for it in war, while Bush showed what he was made of by intermittently showing up to his cowardly position in the National Guard. Yeah, Kerry only risked dying for American troops several times -- what a soldier-hater! We all know the true friends of America's soldiers had "other priorities" in the '60s and now show their patriotism by sending American troops into war under false pretenses and inept leadership. That's what's so disgusting about the attack on Kerry: it's Orwellian character assassination by a pack of chickenhawks. Well, it was a nice try, anyway.
Posted by MRooney on Wed 8 Nov 2006 at 02:28 AM
In that same column he argued that the Washington Post was mistaken not to put the story about Kerry's remark on the front page of the paper.
If he can't see the ridiculousness of that, I'm not sure what sort of "media coverage" he's providing.
Posted by Xanthippas on Wed 8 Nov 2006 at 04:31 PM