By: E&P Staff Since the beginning of the so-called "swift boat" controversy, leading newspapers have grappled with how seriously to take the charges from the veterans challenging the Vietnam conduct, and medals, of Sen. John Kerry. Most papers have fluctuated from providing balanced "he said, she said" reports to tough investigations that have often raised serious questions about the credibility of some of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Two days ago, in a front page news article, two New York Times reporters referred to the Swift Boat charges as "mostly unsubstantiated." The paper went a step further on Thursday on the front page, when reporter Elisabeth Bumiller flatly called the attacks on Kerry "unsubstantiated," without a qualifier, in the first sentence of her story on the resignation of the national counsel for President Bush.
Bumiller was back in the same spot on Friday, with David E. Sanger, this time, in the second paragraph, calling the attacks on Kerry "unproven."
Other newspapers were not as bold on Thursday. Dan Balz and Thomas B. Edsall in a Washington Post Page One story referred to the "volley of charges and countercharges," while adding that many of the charges "have been undermined by the testimony of other veterans who served with Kerry in Vietnam or by military records."
Rick Pearson in the Chicago Tribune referred only to the Kerry campaign attempting to take advantage of the "perceived damage to Bush's credibility on the ad issue." The Boston Globe neutrally referred to the vets "impugning" Kerry's record but described at length statements by Vietnam veterans, such as former Senator Max Cleland, backing Kerry. The Los Angeles Times referred to the "acrimonious debate."
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here