The point of my last post, beside my amusement at the image of W. with man-eating aliens, was to illustrate something about the nature of rhetoric in the current political debate. Behind this whole flap lies a meta-story, about what counts as “truth”, the difference between reporting, analysis and journalism, and, I think, a deeper philosophical issue between “revealed truth”, apprehended through non-rational, emotional perception, and “Cartesian reality”, apprehended through logic and the use of external evidence.
I’ve been seeing a lot of coverage in which dutiful journalism school graduates are working hard to be “objective” about the whole Swift Boat Vets allegation issue. Sadly, their interpretation of “objective” is to present both sides of the controversy as if they had equal weight. There are important cases where good reporting doesn’t just mean reporting “he said” and then “the other guy said”. Imagine if news reports merely took my last posting and reported it with the headline “Guard Vet Casts Doubt on Bush’s Alabama record.” Somewhere in the fourth or fifth paragraph, after reporting that I said Bush had ties to evil aliens and wanted to eat babies, there may be a mention that not only does the Bush administration deny the allegation, but many other people think I made it all up. Is it good reporting to make the story into a “he says one thing, the administration says another” situation? At some point, good journalism requires judgments to be made about what gets reported. Otherwise, any loony allegation becomes legitimized.
In the Swift Boat situation, the Navy records all support Kerry’s version. Sure, maybe such things aren’t always precise, given fog-of-war and fog-of-bureaucracy, but aren’t they at least presumptively the truth? Doesn’t anyone contradicting that historical record have a burden of proof, beyond mere allegation? Have the SwiftVets presented any actual evidence that proves those Naval records are in error? Alternately, is there evidence from other sources that Naval commendations are generally given out under false pretenses, which might then lessen the burden of proof in this specific case? No.
All the people who were closest to the action in question also support the Navy’s official (and Kerry’s) version of events. Interesting. Those who are accusing him either weren’t present, or were tens to hundreds of yards away. And, some of those who shared those distant vantage points ALSO support the official version. Doesn’t this give us basis to make some judgments about the evidentiary value of their stories?
Next, in evaluating an allegation, especially one that flies in the face of established historical record, doesn’t it make sense to evaluate the people making the claims, based on their previous reliability, and possible motives for either telling the truth or, perhaps, fabricating? The current set of “revisionists” are a motley group. Some are on record as actively supporting Kerry in his past campaigns, as reported in the New York Times. Are they lying now, or were they lying then? Others will tell you straight out about how angry they are about comments Kerry made after he returned home from Viet Nam, comments they often misquote or misconstrue. One of the people appearing in the ad actually worked in a minor position for the Bush campaign. Does this give us any hints about whether they have a bias?
Finally, before judging the credibility of these allegations, which a) contradict the record, b) contradict the stories of those closest to the action, c) contradict the recorded previous statements of some of those making the allegations now, and d) seem to potentially be biased by resentments over other issues, like Kerry’s anti-war activism, there is another step. Have we seen anything like this before? What does our previous experience tell us about situations like this?
As it turns out, we HAVE seen similar attacks on two decorated veterans recently, John McCain and Max Cleland. John McCain was running directly against George Bush. Max Cleland was running against a Republican candidate. Hmm. Some of the same people working on the Swift Boat Veterans ads also worked on these previous attacks. Could these Swift Boat Vets be a front for a group of Republicans attempting to smear John Kerry, rather than a legitimate group of old soldiers with an honest desire to correct the historical record? Maybe we should take a look at their funding sources before we repeat their allegations?
Sadly, there are people like Lee Atwater and now Karl Rove, who, in their commitment to winning and to power, figured out that objective truth doesn’t matter, and that the place to attack your opponent is on their strength, not their weakness. If you throw bullshit onto anyone, even if it all slides off, they still end up stinking. And in the meantime, everyone is looking at them with crap all over them, and no one is looking at you and your defects. It works especially well in a culture that has been conditioned by absurd TV advertising and sound-bite journalism to stop thinking for themselves, and not to spend much time questioning things that don’t seem to make sense. It’s abetted by a news media that ranges from drum-banging ideological supporters, to well-meaning, but unsophisticated, “objective” reporters.
To borrow a phrase, “America can do better.”
—
For the pithiest comment about the whole Swift Boat Vets flap, I recommend a Mike Lukovich cartoon that was reprinted in the Sunday New York Times print edition. I’d link to it, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wants to know way too much stuff about me before it lets me see the page I want, so I can’t. For those less obsessed about sharing demographic info on the Net, go look somewhere around http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/luckovich/ for the Michael Phelps cartoon.
Also interesting, especially given Bob Dole’s comments this morning, is a Boston Globe editorial Sunday, imagining what would have happened if supporters of Bill Clinton had impugned Bob Dole’s war record in 1996. Speaking of Dole’s comments this morning, it might be worthwhile to remember Dole’s own 1988 description of one of his own wounds from WWII, caused by a grenade he admits he threw, badly, himself: it was “the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart.” What? No time spent in the hospital, Bob? And “self-inflicted” to boot. Shame on you.
PS. For those who don’t think the Bush campaign has anything to do with this, here’s their official commentary on Kerry’s reaction to being called a liar, a fraud, and a coward.
“Bush’s campaign chairman, Marc Racicot, went on CNN and said the Kerry campaign has come ‘unhinged,’ and that Kerry himself ‘looks wild-eyed.’ Earlier yesterday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Kerry is ‘losing his cool.’ In 2000, the Bush campaign used similar language to portray rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as potentially too unstable to run the country.” (Washington Post)