OHIO — In 2004, it was the Swift Boat ads.
Today in Ohio, we’ve seen the Swift Beard ads.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, Ohio was one of five battleground states targeted for millions of dollars in negative television advertisements produced by a group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The ads accused Democratic nominee John Kerry, who had earned Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts for his service during the Vietnam War, of lying about his record. Thorough investigations by major national news outlets eventually concluded that the accusations against Kerry were unsubstantiated (though they also found inconsistencies in parts of his account)—but not before the ads, and the debate they generated, reshaped the campaign.
On a much smaller scale, local stations here last November began featuring an ad produced by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attacking Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who is running for re-election. The ad took Brown to task for “killing jobs” and “raising taxes”; it also featured a grainy photo of a bearded Brown, looking as though he had just appeared from a days-long bender, which turned out to be heavily altered. (A Chamber spokesman told the Beltway newspaper The Hill he could neither confirm nor deny the Chamber’s artistic endeavors.)
The anti-Brown ad was a relatively small bit of chicanery, which rated only a few short mentions in the mainstream press. Still, it was a sign that national political players have again set their sights on Ohio—and that reporters here will need to devote time and effort to help voters sort out truth from fiction.
And, perhaps, apply some lessons from experience. During the 2004 Swift Boat episode, the Ohio press relied heavily on national publications to execute the digging that helped get to the bottom of the story. William HerseyHershey, former chief of the statehouse bureau at the Dayton Daily News, now says he wishes he had dug a little deeper.
“I wish I had sounded out more Vietnam veterans on the whole Swift Boat issue, including those who served with Kerry and those who didn’t,” Hershey said.
Still, journalists face an uphill battle in stopping the spin cycle, he said. “Say that something like this happens again and we are prepared and cover it vigorously and do all the fact-checking,” Hershey said. “I don’t know that any amount of preparation and learning lessons from a previous time could combat what is going on in cyberspace and in TV ads.”
The Swift Boat ads, funded by wealthy Texans who supported President Bush, certainly caught the press here by surprise. Joe HalletHallett, a senior editor and political columnist for The Columbus Dispatch, watched veterans at a national VFW convention in Cincinnati reject Kerry, despite the fact that he “legitimately and objectively” was a war hero. He saw it as a masterful campaign to undermine Kerry.
“This was something I hadn’t seen,” Hallett recalled. “They were really able to embed a lot of doubt in voter’s memories.”
Hallett found his dual role of reporter and columnist advantageous in covering these events. Time, and journalistic standards of objectivity, can be an enemy of the press in rapidly moving campaign coverage, he says.
“Too often these are he-said, she-said stories,” Hallett said. “A lot of the reporting related to Swift Boat was just that, rather than reporters finding time to take a deep look at Kerry’s war records.”
He found some comfort, and time to reflect, in the column format.
“From a reporter’s point of view, it is more difficult to write about the whole Swift Boat episode then it is for a columnist,” Hallett said. “When you are covering a campaign day to day, chasing one event after another, time constraints don’t give you as much opportunity to do in-depth reporting.”
Still, Hallett believes reporters have a responsibility to push through the fog of accusations—though, as other observers have noted, doing so can put mainstream outlets in an uncomfortable position.
“As much as we have an obligation to be objective, we still need to point out when something is bullshit,” says Hallett. “We have that obligation to the readers, but then we also get painted as favoring one side or another.”
- 1
- 2
I guess if you mean, as example, by "inconsistency" the fact, say, that Kerry lied his ass off about Nixon sending him on a Super Secret "mission" to Cambodia in December of 68 (during the Johnson administration)... Then yeah... There's that little "inconsistency"...
It's pitiful that the ONLY "journalist" who even came close to putting Kerry on the spot over his silly Cambodian lie was Jon Stewart.
But there's no bias afoot, of course..
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 20 Jan 2012 at 02:37 PM
The last comment reminds me of a joke from Late Night:
"Have you folks been following the controversy with John Kerry and his service in Vietnam and the Swift Boat campaign? It all took place in Vietnam and now it just won't go away. I was thinking about this: If John Kerry had just ducked the war like everybody else he wouldn't have this trouble." -- David Letterman
#2 Posted by Ella, CJR on Fri 20 Jan 2012 at 08:02 PM
Kerry did duck the war, as a matter of fact....
Three purple hearts (miraculously earned without a single trip to any hospital or doctor's office in his three months of "combat" during which he, by his own admission, committed war crimes and completed his mythological "mission" to Cambodia) bought him a cushy stateside post in Manhattan .... And the rest is, as they say, history.
Kind of like those two Boston Marathons he claimed to have run... Or his "Irish" ancestry.
All the things that the hard-hitting "professional journalists" of the world probed at length... Remember?
The only trouble with Kerry is that he's a compulsive liar.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 20 Jan 2012 at 08:44 PM
Likely you a warehouse of this sort of information, all about liars on the Democratic side. What about defenses of people on the Republican side? Let's give it a shot:
George Bush and:
a. Drunk driving
b. AWOL from National Guard
Wind up turnkey on back of last commenter, and.....go!
#4 Posted by Ella, CJR on Fri 20 Jan 2012 at 11:26 PM
Padkiller is where old ratfucks go to die.
The reason why the Swift Boat ads worked was because no one at the time was challenging republican narratives. To do so got you labeled as shrill, got your bosses threatened, got angry rednecks making phone calls and writing letters, got your access threatened and potentially your phone tapped.
Back then, Fox was Fox, msnbc was trying to be Fox, CNN was trying to be neutral (which is different from balanced) and the most politically informative news program on tv was the daily show. We watched as bush screwed up 9-11 and its investigation, manipulated intelligence to get into Iraq, instituted policies of indefinite detention and torture on people they had no grounds to hold, screwed up Afghanistan, screwed up Iraq by firing the army and not securing military caches like Al Qa'qaa, etc etc and none of those scandals penetrated because everyone, democrats and the press, were scared to bring them up. Other than knight ridder, now mcclatchy, and the blogs, everyone backed away from substantively criticizing republicans. That's why Kerry lost, not Swift boats, but systemic cowardice by democrats and press institutions.
These days, we do have fact checkers who do good work(most of the time) and tv personalities who aren't afraid to call out retard conservatives. Futhermore, Americans have lived through a horrible republican era where a hurricane destroyed a city and almost let the banking system (and the world economy) collapse. Republicans have blown a lot of their trust.
People see the Elizabeth Warren ads where they claim she's close to the banks and laugh. Sarah Palin doesn't get to coast to political success based on her talk radio popularity. There's the brain dead 30% who will follow whatever Shawn Hanitty say regardless how often he said the opposite the day before, but most people are aware that one of the major political parties in America is a nut job receptical. The problem is the press will only allow that kind of criticism to go into the mainstream when it's safe, not when it matters. We have seen a case study of what happens to the press when coverage really matters and it resulted in the election of an utter incompetent twice.
We shouldn't have to wait for billions of dollars to disappear in the country we fraudulently invaded and a major city to be sunk under water for it to be safe to voice criticism.
And if the president was a big coward who couldn't show up to a 9-11 inquiry without roping in his big brother vice president - nevermind show up to his cush cush military duty during Vietnam, journalists shouldn't allow him to hide behind his political groups which were questioning his opponent's valor.
Is journalism supposed to help citizens make informed choices or assist in making stupid ones?
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Jan 2012 at 03:36 AM
Thimbles, I don't know where you were in 2004, but I was following the campaign, and the 'Swift Boat' ads were constantly being challenged - not only by the Democrats, who had considerable media resources, but by mainstream journalists. The dominant media narrative long before Election Day was that the 'Swift Boat' ads were unfair. I don't think the outcome would have been different in any event. Very few people saw the ads.
The mainstream media, as it will do, constructed a narrative that avoids pinning the causes for any Democratic loss in a presidential campaign on actual issues, preferring the inside-baseball stuff with which political reporters are obsessed. Kerry lost because he just seemed too much like a Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts liberal to a majority of swing voters in the year 2004. He had chosen the sleazy John Edwards, knowing he was sleazy, as his running mate - maybe voters saw Kerry's opportunism at work overriding his judgement. Kerry was unable to persuade voters otherwise. There was also a trace of opportunism in Kerry's two marriages to extremely wealthy women. I don't know if it has quite penetrated the minds of some journalists stuck in frozen left-right narratives, but quite a lot of people identify liberals and Democrats with wealth, self-interest, and power. Kerry's policy prescriptions apparently filtered through the lenses of a majority of swing voters as 'capitalism and wealth for me and my Hollywood/Malibu friends, social programs for you masses'. Just enough of a majority to lose the election.
Focusing on extraneous campaign events means American political journalism spends a lot of time being surprised by election outcomes. I'd like to see better predictive capacity, but don't. There's where ideological slants do hurt good journalism.
#6 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 01:05 PM
None of your gnashing of teeth is going to transform Kerry's mythological trip to Cambodia into historical reality.
And sure... Bush's 35 year-old DUI (if it existed) is fair game...But so is Obama's cocaine abuse.
So WHY do we see the AP sending a busload of reporters to Maine to track down a 35 year old misdemeanor that may or may not have existed, but nary a single AP reporter tracking down Obama's admitted felonious use of cocaine?
HUH?
Why do we see the AP sending a dozen reporters to fact-check Palin's tome... But nary a single reporter to fact-check Obama's ghost-written book?
HUH?
The press hounded Bush to release his Yale transcripts (until it was proven that he got better grades than Kerry did, that is)...But WHY isn't the press asking Obama to release his transcripts?
HUH?
You people have me wrong. I'm no George Bush cheerleader. I called for his impeachment here in this forum, as a matter of fact.
The REALITY, however, is the plain ideological bias among so-called "professional journalists" and I use this bit of Swift Boat reality as an example.
Kerry lied his ass off about his military service... PERIOD.
That's just the way it is.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 01:21 PM
"Thimbles, I don't know where you were in 2004, but I was following the campaign, and the 'Swift Boat' ads were constantly being challenged - not only by the Democrats, who had considerable media resources, but by mainstream journalists."
Yes, I was there and yes they did challenge, late and weakly.
I was there when Kerry followed the advice of perennial loser, Bob Shrum, and 'floated above' the attacks until they became entrenched in the public eye.
The media said little to nothing about the false nature of the lies until the Kerry campaign started belatedly hitting back because, in the words of David Gregory, "if we did not stand up and say, this is bogus, and you‘re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn‘t do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It‘s not our role." The media role is to report controversy, to instigate it by calling a liar a liar would be 'biased'. The media couldn't debunk before the Kerry campaign started making charges, because they were cowards, and the Kerry campaign wouldn't debunk because their leaders were stupid and weak.
This lead to a bitch slap political victory.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003295.php
"The mainstream media, as it will do, constructed a narrative that avoids pinning the causes for any Democratic loss in a presidential campaign on actual issues, preferring the inside-baseball stuff with which political reporters are obsessed."
Avoiding the issues gives the advantage to republicans, who run on crap like likability and have-a-beerability while avoiding issues like "Do you know who's in charge of Pakistan?" or "How to you plan to balance a budget and cut taxes?" Gore tried to run on issues and the press concluded he was a boring robot.
"He had chosen the sleazy John Edwards, knowing he was sleazy, as his running mate "
As a conservative southern democrat.. that's what he was back then. Then we later found out he was sleazy after he had an affair on his cancer stricken wi... wait a sec.. Sorry, I just had to confirm I wasn't just talking about Newt Gingrich. I get these names confused sometimes.
more in a bit
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 11:11 PM
Ah fussbucket, I'm getting called away. More later.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 12:06 AM