Ted Koppel follows Rather's journalistic lead

[fintstone]

ABC News or ABC spin
Thomas Sowell

October 20, 2004

As if Dan Rather's use of forged documents to try to discredit President Bush shortly before the election was not enough of a clue to the mainstream media's political agenda, ABC News has now joined CBS News in the political spin game.

What ABC News has done was too elaborate to be called a "mistake." Now that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have become too well known for the mainstream media to continue ignoring them, ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel has broadcast its "investigation" of one of the Swift Boat veterans' charges against John Kerry.

The charge was that Kerry received a medal for an incident in Vietnam that he falsely reported. How did ABC's Nightline try to establish the truth? Interview crew members who were on Kerry's boat at the time? No! Interview veterans who were in other boats near John Kerry's boat at the time? No!

Nightline went to Vietnam to interview people whom they had been told were among the Communist guerrillas involved in the disputed incident.

It would be an unwarranted insult to Ted Koppel's intelligence to believe that he does not understand the unreliability of what is said publicly by people living in a totalitarian society, especially when it is said in the presence of a Communist official who took Nightline to the people who were to be interviewed.

What is the Communist government's stake in all this?

In recent years, high officials of the Vietnamese government have openly admitted that they were losing the Vietnam war on the battlefields but hung on, waiting for a political victory, based on their belief that the anti-war movement in the United States would eventually force American withdrawal.

When much of the American media became part of the anti-war movement, the gamble obviously paid off. One of the Vietnamese Communists' museums pays tribute to the American anti-war movement in general and features a picture of John Kerry in particular.

Against that background, how surprising is it that what was said in the interview backed up John Kerry's version of the disputed incident? Yet Ted Koppel described the people interviewed as "witnesses" who "have no particular axe to grind."

The clincher, according to Mr. Koppel, is that the interviewee's version of what happened matches the combat report and the official Navy citation with the medal. Surely ABC News knows that the combat report was written by John Kerry and that the Navy citation was based on what Kerry said in his report.

Nevertheless, according to Koppel, John Kerry's awards "should have been the most unassailable part of Kerry's record."

This kind of reasoning reminded me of an episode in a New York department store some years ago when I bought a sweater and gave the sales lady a credit card. She pointed out that there was no signature on the back of the card.

After I signed the credit card in her presence and then signed the bill, she compared the two signatures that she had just seen me write and, since they matched, it was OK with her. But at least she didn't say that this procedure was "unassailable."

Who would have dreamed that ABC News would compare what Kerry said in his report with what was said in a citation based on that report and find it convincing that they matched?

Everything about the Nightline program reeked of contrived "ambush journalism," to ambush John O'Neill with the words of Vietnamese villagers who were put on the program before him, and thereby exonerate John Kerry from O'Neill's charges.

If this program were a serious attempt to get at the truth, it would hardly have completely ignored all those Americans who were on the scene during the disputed incident and instead go to the other side of the world to talk with people in a Communist country with a Communist official present.

Other boats from John Kerry's unit fought that day in the same vicinity. Even with the best of intentions, the Vietnamese villagers interviewed on Nightline had no way of knowing which of the many Americans who opened fire that day 35 years ago was John Kerry. The Americans in that unit knew -- but they were not interviewed on Nightline.

That is what stamps this as spin, rather than news.

Do media elites think we are all fools? Probably.

[dd74]

This is also what's known in the news business as "angle." Clearly, Koppel took a different angle. Nothing is wrong with that. Would his report be any more credible had he only interviewed these Swift Boat Vets against Kerry? No, but "The Right" wouldn't be the first to say so.

And as it is, any Americans related to Kerry's actions at that time have been played over tirelessly. If Koppel interviewed whomever one interested person or party believes he should interviewed, the story would be no better and no worse.

You can't win with the media. You can only turn the channel or turn it off.

[dd74]

Oh, and meanwhile, Charles Gibson, who also is on ABC, will be interviewing Bush himself. Sounds like they're either after ratings or to show fairness between sides. Which do you think they're after?

See? Even the president is a news pawn.

[dd74]

Oh, and meanwhile, Charles Gibson, who also is on ABC, will be interviewing Bush himself. Sounds like they're either after ratings or to show fairness between sides. Which do you think they're after?

See? Even the president is a news pawn.

[dd74]

Oh, and meanwhile, Charles Gibson, who also is on ABC, will be interviewing Bush himself. Sounds like they're either after ratings or to show fairness between sides. Which do you think they're after?

See? Even the president is a news pawn.

[dd74]

Oh, and meanwhile, Charles Gibson, who also is on ABC, will be interviewing Bush himself. Sounds like they're either after ratings or to show fairness between sides. Which do you think they're after?

See? Even the president is a news pawn.

[dd74]

Oh, and meanwhile, Charles Gibson, who also is on ABC, will be interviewing Bush himself. Sounds like they're either after ratings or to show fairness between sides. Which do you think they're after?

See? Even the president is a news pawn.

[dd74]

Oh, and meanwhile, Charles Gibson, who also is on ABC, will be interviewing Bush himself. Sounds like they're either after ratings or to show fairness between sides. Which do you think they're after?

See? Even the president is a news pawn.

[Mule]

No news here. Our local newspaper printed a story showing that Bush is getting 18% of the black vote this election as compared to 9% in the last election. The headline? FEW BLACKS VOTE FOR BUSH

[widebody911]

Oh, and meanwhile...

[bryanthompson]

Actually, Mule, the fact that Bush doubled his share of the Black vote is very signifigant. Perhaps blacks are waking up to the fact that the lefties have been projecting the attitude of victimization on them so they can be controlled.

[dd74]

Sticky return key, I guess.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Actually, Mule, the fact that Bush doubled his share of the Black vote is very signifigant.

So now both Powell and Rice are going to vote for him?

[Mule]

That's right Thom, & Jesse Jackson, Marion Berry & Johny Cochran are voting for Kerry. If you weren't proud before, go ahead & stick your chest out now.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by dd74
This is also what's known in the news business as "angle." Clearly, Koppel took a different angle. Nothing is wrong with that. Would his report be any more credible had he only interviewed these Swift Boat Vets against Kerry? No, but "The Right" wouldn't be the first to say so.
............

The problem is, the "angle" is always the same for the major networks.....whatever casts the nation and the president in the worst possible light....and Kerry in the most positive.....regardless of the truth.

[dd74]

Originally posted by fintstone
The problem is, the "angle" is always the same for the major networks.....whatever casts the nation and the president in the worst possible light....and Kerry in the most positive.....regardless of the truth.

Careful, Fint: you're about to dig yourself into a journalistic hole.

Blanket statements are dangerous.

If I can say you're correct (which I can't), I will say this: Iraq is a failure. Bush set it up as an easy victory. Many in this country, including the media feel Bush and his administration have openly lied to them.

So if you weigh this, yes, there's reason for what's been loosely termed "the people's media" to have a slant against Bush. But Bush himself is to blame because he began this war with such conviction.

As an aside: the media may be acutely upset with Bush, particularly with his Iraq actions, because it is so dangerous in the country that reporters can barely complete their stories. Are you aware that these reporters are being killed (Danny Pearl), and that conditions are so bad, that:

A) Some journalists have discussed arming themselves.
B) All journalists are afraid of being kidnapped while doing their jobs.
C) All journalists (at least with TV crews) have armed guards with them.
D) Even that does not guarantee safety, so these same journalists are now using Iraqi "stringers" to go out and get the stories.

Thus, the stories have been "stepped on" twice. Once by "stringers" a journalist barely knows, and the journalist him/herself. Some tainting is bound to get into the theme.

Regardless, conditions as poor as they are in Iraq, I can't see how any journalist would not be pissed off mightily. You should rent "The Killing Fields," or read "My War Gone By, I Miss It So," and you'll get a taste for what aligns a journalist against those in power.

Nonetheless, there you are, under fire and under deadline. And while soldiers have no choice but to follow orders, journalists in what they, like other Americans, were promised was a "mission accomplished," never opted to be kidnapped and killed.

Secondly, many journalists have said it is easier to work and receive stories from the Iraqi/insurgents than the US military, because one side (the terrorists who are winning) are more honest than the soldiers (who are losing).

Now play all that into the fact Bush initiated this war, and you get a sense of where the news leans and why. Chaos; No good news, and an administration that lied.

As for Kerry getting preferential treatment - yes, it may seem that way. But he didn't commit the U.S. to a war that remains unfounded - this is Bush's mantle to bear. As well, Kerry, I think, was cut up pretty well with all the Swift Boat coverage.

But preferred...always. No, I don't see it. If that was the case only liberals would watch the news and conservatives would rely on blind fate.