Thursday, August 19, 2004


If you've been around discussions of the Kerry/Swiftvets brouhaha, you've likely either run into citations of this "report", or at least points lifted directly from it. You might have been left wondering just where the fact checking was supposed to start - you're not alone

Those attacking the credibility of the swiftboat vets are citing a supposedly impartial, unbiased, non-partisan report on the Annenberg Foundation-supported site as evidence their claims are bogus.

What I found there is a one-sided, biased report that seems to set out with one purpose – to undermine the legitimate assertions of some 250 sincere Vietnam veterans who believe with all their hearts John Kerry is a sinister fraud unworthy of being considered as a legitimate candidate for the presidency.

If you've already read the piece, there's probably nothing here that you didn't already know. It's just nice to see that people with real jobs writing also noticed. I think a naturally resulting question would be "Is this a deviation from FactCheck's practices"? A quick search of the site suggests not.

Update: Man Kerry Rescued Calls Swift Boat Ad False: Gives Vivid Account of Rescue Under Enemy Fire
Wherein flatly ignores every contrary fact to arrive at the conclusion that Kerry's got it right. On the basis of what facts? Journals, affadavits, Freedom of Information Act requests, interviews, or books of first person accounts perhaps? No, Rassman's WSJ op-ed - a very solid basis on which to disregard the word of a couple hundred other people, it would seem.

Clarification: Kerry's Silver Star citations
The original version was "Kerry didn't get the star for shooting a kid." The new, corrected version is "Ok, we were wrong, Kerry did shoot a kid, and that reaffirms that he didn't get a star for shooting a kid." I'm not making this up.

At first glance,'s Kerry articles could only be more partisan if they could vote straight-ticket Democrat. The only check that any fact seems to undergo is whether or not it supports the desired conclusion. The lack of a DNC seal on the site appears to be an oversight.

It takes a further review of the site's handling of Kerry to find that it is indeed capable of being critical of him (as in this examination of two campaign ads), but apparently only when not given alternative targets like the Swiftvets. So - just who is fact-checking, anyway? I haven't a clue, but thanks to Joseph Farah for asking.


Post a Comment

<< Home