One of the striking talking points that came out of the New York Times in the wake of its controversial article last week about whether Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal had, over the years, exaggerated his military service during the Vietnam War era, was the insistence from the Times that the story was a deeply important one and one that needed to be covered. The Times, faced with stiff criticism for its handling of the Blumenthal story, seemed to suggest it had a moral obligation, not to mention a newsroom duty, to look closely at the military service rhetoric from a New England politician running in a statewide election.
A Times flack even appeared to lecture Blumenthal about how he needed to be straight with Nutmeg State voters.
But I'm having a tough time buying the Times' sudden devotion to the topic, considering that during the 2000 presidential campaign, the same Times staff went out of its way not to report on the web of detailed allegations that Republican George Bush had failed to fulfill his military obligation while defending Texas air space as an Air National Guard pilot and that the presidential candidate had routinely lied about that fact. For that story, the Times team shrugged. But it's decided this spring to go all-in over Blumenthal? Seems strange.
Bottom line: In 2000, candidate Bush's military record during the Vietnam War was very much in doubt, as was Bush's repeated explanation as to why, after receiving $1 million worth of taxpayer-funded flight instruction, he had essentially vanished from the Guard and failed to fly, show up for monthly drills, or even take a mandatory physical. Yet back in 2000, the New York Times didn't seem to care much about that military-record story. And the Times newsroom seemed to make a decision not to cover the controversy -- a controversy that, given the historically close nature of the 2000 race, could have tipped the balance of the vote.
So, yes, given that stark background, it's tough to make sense of the Times' recent dedication to pursuing the Blumenthal story.
Read the full Media Matters column here.
Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EricBoehlert
There are no such issues with Blumenthal's. There are a few instances where Blumenthal could be accused of misrepresenting his service, if you completely ignore the context of his clear and specific description of his service throughout his career, and you take the worst interpretation of language in those few instances. At worst (and I don't agree with this interpretation, but looking at worse), they would be small lies. There are NO instances of him making up any false narrative or stories about service over there.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005230001
"The Hartford Courant's Colin McEnroe contacted political journalists throughout the state, and with one exception, none stated that they had ever heard Blumenthal say that he served in Vietnam.
"If, as the Times claimed, Blumenthal had a 'long and well established pattern of misleading his constituents about his Vietnam War service,' one would think that the people that cover him every day would have noticed.""
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/opinion/19pressler.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html?pagewanted=all
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/demons-and-demonization/
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060515/15mediatakes.htm
However, this does not detract from their reporting about Blumenthal. Blumenthal has lied and misled deliberately re his "service in Vietnam". End of story.
of why he failed to report for duty at his required station, why he never took the mandatory physical test or just where was he? They have found no one who saw him, met him, flew with him while he supposedly transferred himself to Alabama.
Now compare Mr Blumenthal with Mr. Bush.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
Fair and balanced like Fox News. One can only hope for the soon to be expected demise of News papers for the powerful. Huff Post will rule.
The Times has either totally missed the boat, or drastically played down, several huge stories in the past decade. Not only that, it acted as a conduit for the Bush/Cheney administration to plant the lies and falsehoods used to justify invading Iraq into the media narrative at that time.
A pretty shameful track record for an organization that right wingers try to paint as some sort of evil propaganda arm of the liberal establishment.
Hence we had a situation in 2008 where Hillary Clinton was considered a "bad person" by many Americans based on nothing (or nothing true).
The New York Times is extremely clever about how they go about serving the desires of their GOP masters. Unlike the Wash Post, Wall St Journal and LA Times who fill their editorial boards witth pro GOP propagandists while retaining fairly decent types in their hard news divisions, the NYT does the exact opposite. Their editorials remain reasonable and realty based (so they look 'left wing") but their news division is filled with anti-Dem half truths and inuendo.
The Bush story, covered to the point of journalistic malfeasance by the way, was a murky tale. Some evidence seemed to indicate there was something there, but it was really impossible to come out and publish a story averring that Governor Bush didn't meet his guard requirements and have that story pass journalistic muster.
The Blumenthal story, by contrast, is very easy. The guy has been running around (mis?) stating repeatedly that he served in Vietnam. It isn't exactly Woodward and Bernstein journalism to figure out that the claims are demonstrably and irrefutably false.
Maybe this analysis will help the author figure this out.
Bush is a Republican and Blumenthal is a Democrat. The main stream media always treat Republican Pols better than Dems. This has been their default mode for at least forty years.
The only thing worse than the main stream media's double standard when it comes to politics is the people's inahbility or unwillingness to recognize and accept it.
Bottom line, this whole Bush/guard thing is a perfect example of how Republicans are expert at taking their guy's weakness ( dubious service) and making it a strength (landing on the carrier deck) and taking their opponent's weakness (Gore, Kerry REAL in-country military duty) and making it a weakness (swiftboating.)
Heck, they were even, in 2004, saying that retired general Wes Clark was a traitor and a coward for leading NATO troops in Bosnia.