218
submitted 5 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

For the younger folks: Kerry got some seriously badass medals for his military service in Vietnam. People who had been on the same boat as he did, but at a different time, worked with the Republican party to claim that he hadn't really done what he did. The press ate this up, and distributed it widely, costing him public support and likely the election.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 45 points 5 months ago

I don't remember much of the Kerry campaign, but didn't he lean into his service record? The stolen valor argument is much weaker seeing as Walz has never claimed he's seen active combat.

Regardless, it's incredibly disappointing to see reputable news outlets bat for Trump just because the Dems have two ever so slightly left-leaning people on the ticket.

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 40 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

They are clutching at straws. Every step the Democrats have taken since Biden decided to withdraw from the race has tripped the Republicans out. They had no game plan for that contingency, and they are still several steps behind and frantically playing catch up. They are falling back on their old negative handbook tactics. Hopefully they don't work. Because that Swiftboat Vets thing against John Kerry was really stupid. The only thing that was more stupid back then was that so many idiot voters believed it.

ETA: Some of these newspapers / media outlets are really freaked out, but only about Walz. They were fine when it was just Harris because she's very moderate. Her choice of Walz (which was a smart choice because it reinvigorated liberal voters towards her) is the thing that they are stressing out over, because of the (tax) implication.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago

There's a documentary about it because the Swift Boating was such bullshit.

Several of the swift boaters themselves recanted after the Questionable Victory of GeeDubz part II.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Can't find the documentary, here's a relevant article:

On Friday, the group, who served with Mr. Kerry in Vietnam, sent a letter to T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oilman who helped finance the 2004 attack advertisements, taking him up on a challenge he issued last November: that he would give $1 million to anyone who could disprove a single charge the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made against Mr. Kerry.

. . . Mr. Pickens did not reply.

So Mr. Kerry’s veteran allies took up the cause. In a 12-page letter — with a 42-page attachment of military records to support their case — they rebut not one but several of the accusations of the Swift boat group.

The veterans offer to go through Mr. Kerry’s record and the video with Mr. Pickens “page by page, frame by frame.” And they demand an apology, to them “and to the American people.”

Of course, none of this is new. Extensive news media accounts undermined the Swift boat charges in 2004, pointing out that some of the Swift boat critics had written statements in Vietnam lauding Mr. Kerry for extraordinary bravery in the incidents they later said he made up. One critic had himself received a medal for heroism during a hail of gunfire he later claimed Mr. Kerry had concocted to win his third Purple Heart.

But that did not blunt the political impact.

Ah yes. Texas scumbag T. Boone Pickens, the Musk of his day, funded the whole smear campaign.

And it's a reminder that republiQans do not give one good goddamn how true something is or not. If it has "political impact" they'll use it.

[-] Hazzia@infosec.pub 4 points 5 months ago

I got a real Boone T' Pickens with that guy

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

And please not, this is literally the same person trying to swift boat here - Chris LaCivita, now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.

Grifters all the way down the trump camp

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 25 points 5 months ago

It's equally weak because it's all bullshit. The problem is that the press isn't willing to assess truth on this kind of thing, and then center that.

[-] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Remember Kerry was miligned by much of the veteran community because he protested against the war in Vietnam. The swiftboat claims helped to fit into a narrative that his service record was flawed, especially against GWB's controversial record with losing flight status with the Air National Guard.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Snorting coke and going AWOL from the TANG was way more respectable to these idiots.

[-] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 39 points 5 months ago

Bezos trying to keep his tax loopholes I see

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 19 points 5 months ago

Sulzburger too unfortunately.

[-] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Absolutely, both grubby little dragons greedily gobbling up as much as they can to make number go up.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Bezos and Musk owned newspapers like the deregulation guy, more at 11

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 32 points 5 months ago

This doesn't work very well when the top of your own ticket features someone who didn't serve in the military in any capacity whatsoever and probably has the thinnest skin of any US president in history.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

To be fair, George W. Bush's proxies successfully ran the original swift boat attacks on Kerry even though he served in the Air National Gaurd while Kerry fought in Vietnam. Not saying it's an exact one to one comparison, but it wouldn't be the first time a veteran managed to smear someone who actually served.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 5 months ago

I think people operate on a belief of fairness that obviously does not actually apply in real life. Bush was a draft dodging rich kid and Kerry actually got injured and awarded for heroism, but media manipulation made Kerry's service an issue. That Trump is a big sack of lumpy turds isn't going to save us from hypocritical false attacks being drummed up because the media wants excitement.

[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

It's literally the same person trying to swift boat here - Chris LaCivita, now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.

These grifters are so fucking transparent, if people would only pay attention.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 27 points 5 months ago

Having read them both, the Post does put a lot of focus on former colleagues, though I think they come across as having an agenda more than legit criticism. I don't really get the beef with the Times' coverage at all though. They cover literally the same points as TPM. No idea what leads them to say that the coverage is "more egregious and spurious than you’re probably able to imagine."

TPM:

The attacks aren’t just “like” the Swift Boat attacks from 2004. They’re literally the work of the same guy. Chris LaCivita was the strategist who ran the Swift Boat attacks in 2004 and cut the commercials. He’s now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.

NYT:

But Mr. Vance’s comments were also reminiscent of the “Swift boat” attacks in 2004 that effectively cast doubt on the military exploits of Senator John Kerry, then the Democratic presidential nominee. A key strategist behind those attacks, which helped doom Mr. Kerry’s bid for the White House, was Chris LaCivita, who is a senior strategist for the Trump campaign.

TPM:

The overriding point here is that Walz didn’t just say, well, I might get deployed. I’m outta here. It is well-documented that he was already planning to run for Congress, had been discussing with fellow guardsmen for some time whether he would retire as part of his plans to run for Congress and in fact had already announced his run months before he retired.

NYT:

But Joseph Eustice, a 32-year veteran of the national guard who led the same battalion as Mr. Walz and served under him, said in an interview on Wednesday that the governor was a dependable soldier and that the attacks by his fellow comrades were unfounded . . . Mr. Eustice recalled that Mr. Walz’s decision to run for Congress came months before the battalion received any official notice of deployment, though he said there had been rumors that it might be deployed.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 55 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The NYT repeats the lie in the headline, but buries the truth down in the article. The result is that people see the lie, and not the truth.

Very few people encountering an article on social media actually read it; something like 2% do so much as click through.

This pattern basically guarantees that a huge numbers of people will have a false belief.

[-] krellor@fedia.io 12 points 5 months ago

The times headline is stating what the news is, which is that a claim was made:

Vance Attacks Walz’s Military Record, Accusing Him of Avoiding a Tour in Iraq

Which is a factual statement of the news. The times piece presents the claim made, and the refutation of it and the evidence without ever making a direct claim one way or another. I e , unlike an opinion piece, the times isn't making a subjective assessment or value statement.

Given that, what other headline can they give? Adding adjectives like "spurious" or "misleading" would be editorializing unless they are quoting an independent authority on the subject.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Making a decision on the truthfulness of a claim is not "opinion". Paperwork was filed before his unit was given notification they were going to Iraq. Saying he left to dodge a deployment is a false accusation. No opinion necessary.

News reporting is not stenography. JD Vance has press releases and web sites to just broadcast his BS.

[-] krellor@fedia.io 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In the general course of reporting news, most traditional news outlets don't make those sorts of determinations. Sometimes the editorial board will do specific fact checks of claims, but most NYT, AP, Reuters, etc, articles don't make those sorts of determinations. They do present verified claims from other authorities or named parties, which is why they included rebuttals from those sources.

And a campaign press release is not a news outlet. Proper news outlets have reporting guidelines.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 5 months ago

In the general course of reporting news, most traditional news outlets don’t make those sorts of determinations.

Whether you that's common or not, that's not good journalism and worthy of criticism. And a pattern that's changing, with a greater emphasis on both fact checking and making clear in the headline that a claim is false.

NYT: A Timeline of Trump’s False and Misleading Statements on the Mar-a-Lago Search

AP News: Donald Trump falsely suggests Kamala Harris misled voters about her race

Reuters: US Republicans target noncitizen voting, as Trump keeps up false voter fraud claims

And a campaign press release is not a news outlet.

Yes, that's the whole point. Don't elevate a press release to news unless you're willing to do some journalism and note where the statements are false. They have a free speech right to post their opinions on their campaign sites or social media, but news sites are supposed to be informing their readers and blindly repeating a false claim is not doing that.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

They are the “Newspaper of Record”.

They can do some reporting and say:

Vance Falsely Claims That Walz is Was Not a Master Seargeant

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago

Vance and the two MAGAts who made the claims in the first place are full of shit. Walz filed papers to run for Congress on Feb. 10 2005. He retired from the military on May 16, 2005. His unit didn't receive an alert order for mobilization until two months later.

Records show Walz officially filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Feb. 10, 2005.

In March 2005, the National Guard announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard, according to an archived press release from Tim Walz for U.S. Congress.

"I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on the specifics of the deployment," said Walz in the March 2005 statement.

The statement continued: "As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or Iraq," said Walz, who indicated at the time he had no plans to drop out of the race. "I am fortunate to have a strong group of enthusiastic support and a very dedicated and intelligent wife. Both will be a major part of my campaign, whether I am in Minnesota or Iraq."

The Minnesota Army National Guard told CBS News that Walz retired on May 16, 2005. CBS News has asked Walz to clarify when he submitted his retirement papers.

The Minnesota National Guard told CBS News that Walz's unit — 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery — received an alert order for mobilization to Iraq on July 14, 2005 – two months after Walz retired, according to Lt. Col. Ryan Rossman, who serves as the Minnesota National Guard's director of operations. The official mobilization order was received on August 14 of the same year, and the unit mobilized in October.

[-] ArugulaZ@lemmy.zip 23 points 5 months ago

Against Captain Bonespurs? Ha ha! HA HA HA! Get out of here with that shit. "Democracy dies in we're going to do some cheerleading for the dictator anyway."

[-] Trabic@lemm.ee 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

CADET Bonespurs. FTFY

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Evotech@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago

What is this headline? Fucking garble. Every word capitalized, reads like shit. All the headlines are written in this weird way lately

[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Title case or headline case - Wikipedia

But arguably that headline is garbage title gore. The "On" should be "on" the very least and "Swiftboating" would make it more comprehensible.

[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

This is the important part, "The attacks aren’t just “like” the Swift Boat attacks from 2004. They’re literally the work of the same guy. Chris LaCivita was the strategist who ran the Swift Boat attacks in 2004 and cut the commercials. He’s now the co-manager of the Trump campaign."

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

He lost the election because he made a lot of lofty promises with the energy and enthusiasm of a half eaten grapefruit.

It was just hard to be excited for the guy.

Meanwhile Dubya comes out and lies through his teeth and you knew it but boy he could work a crowd.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for New York Times:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Talking Points Memo - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Talking Points Memo:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Wikipedia - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Wikipedia:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_John_Kerry#:~:text=His%20only%20tour%20in%20Vietnam,political%20career%2C%20especially%20during%20his
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/times-and-wapo-jump-on-board-trump-camp-swift-boating-of-walz/sharetoken/ea812310-1527-47c9-acaa-b5412797f36a
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/us/the-2004-campaign-advertising-friendly-fire-the-birth-of-an-attack-on-kerry.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BU4.W8Ka.UUC0wahQrvjY&smid=url-share
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[-] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

New York times is not left of center anymore. This bot is arbitrary. Mods please pin it to the bottom. It's seriously fucking up the feed for a LOT of people. I don't care how much Ground News is paying for the real estate.

[-] alilbee@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

They are very upfront about the bot describing bias against the American center and not the global or whatever "objective" standard people try to insert. By that metric, center-left perfectly describes NYT. Their editorial board has posted multiple times describing Trump as an unfit candidate and they have historically endorsed the democratic candidate. They're obviously not even American leftist and they're not center-left on the global scale, but it's all relative.

I personally like the extra information and those who don't are free to block the bot. I have seen commentor twisting themselves into absolute pretzels to avoid admitting that they can simply block the bot.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

seriously fucking up the feed

Sure. lol Dramatic much? Oh the poor feed is suffering so, so greatly, it's changed sooooooooo much now. Look, it's completely different now!

That said, I do kinda like the idea of it being pinned to the bottom. I don't think that would hurt anything, everyone would still see it.

Could at least make it not upvote itself, then it'll kinda just tend to stay down there naturally.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Neither the Post nor the Times' articles do what TPM says they do, though.

They both report (accurately) on what Vance said, and then both report (accurately) on why it is bullshit. The Post article maybe does a little more BoTh SiDeSing than the Times one, as it it is written in a manner to make it seem like the Harris campaign was being evasive. But neither gives any impression that Vance's claims were correct.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 17 points 5 months ago

What they're doing is putting the lie in the headline, where lots of people read it, and burying the truth paragraphs down in the article. Because very few people click through to articles, but just see headlines, the impact is to leave a large chunk of the public with a false belief.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
218 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19338 readers
1935 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS