# Posted 7:13 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

HE SAID/SHE SAID JOURNALISM: Conservatives prefer a very simple explanation of why the media is biased: because most journalists are liberal.

Liberal critics of the mainstream media have a far more nuanced explanation: because journalists are so obsessed with preserving their reputation for objectivity, they tell both sides of every story but provide little indication of which one has more merit. You might call it "he said/she said journalism".

Recently, liberal critics -- including both Hendrik Hertzberg and Kevin Drum -- have invoked the he said/she said hypothesis to account for the media's unjustifiable decision to treat the Swift Vets as "serious (though partisan) critics" of a certain Senator from Massachusetts.

Kevin's comments came in response to the "wildly misleading" post in which I described press coverage of the Swift Vets as sympathetic to Kerry. Since Kevin has decided to call me out on this one (along with Zachary Roth at CJR's Campaign Desk), I will do my best to oblige.

The place to start is with the three articles to which I provided links in my post about the sympathetic coverage. The first of the three is the NYT's first major investigative report about the Swift Vets. Its authors elaborate their conclusion in the seventh paragraph of their article:

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

It's not exactly what you would call he said/she said journalism. But that doesn't mean it's sympathetic to Kerry. After all, if the Times is right about the Swift Vets' allegations, then that's just the truth, not a pro-Kerry broadside. Moreover, OxBlog has argued that the Swift Vets are full of it, except for their allegations about Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia.

So what's to complain about? Answer: the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the NYT report. They read:

Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign" - a charge the campaign denied.

A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of
connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.

This passage clearly suggests that Kerry is right and that Bush broke the law that prevents the coordination of political campaigns with independent 527 advocacy groups. However, there is no evidence to substantiate this charge in the NYT report, nor has any evidence emerged since.

(The closest thing to such evidence has been the revelation that a lawyer by the name of Ben Ginsberg worked for both the Bush campaign and the Swift Vets. Ginsberg confirms this allegation, points out that his behavior was fully legal, and that the media have ignored numerous connections between the Kerry campaign and a whole host of liberal 527s.)

Next up, the LA Times. Here are the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs from its first major investigative report:

What military documentation exists and has been made public generally supports the view put forth by Kerry and most of his crewmates — that he acted courageously and came by his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts honestly. This view of Kerry as war hero is supported by all but one of the surviving veterans who served with him on the two boats he commanded.

None of the critics quoted in the ad actually served on the boats with Kerry. Some of them also have given contradictory accounts and offered conflicting recollections.

But what actually happened about 35 years ago along the remote southern coast of Vietnam remains murky. Some of Kerry's own recollections over the years, as presented in two biographies and many interviews, also have been inconsistent.

The reference to Kerry's inconsistencies puts the LAT ahead of the NYT, which two sentences to Kerry's statements about Cambodia. Yet when the LAT actually addresses the evidence about Cambodia, it comes down firmly on Kerry's side.

Anyhow, the main point is that neither the NYT nor the LAT practiced anything close to he said/she said journalism in their first major reports on the the Swift Vets. If I haven't persuaded you yet, I strongly encourage to go beyond the excerpts I've provided and read the rest of the lengthy NYT and LAT reports, which continually and explicitly cast doubt on the Swift Vets' recollections.

Finally, the WaPo. Here's the first sentence from it's article:

Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

I guess you could call it "he said/he said" journalism. I should point out, however, that this wasn't the WaPo's big piece on the Swift Vets, just a companion piece. The major WaPo report [still searching for permalink] was authored by Michael Dobbs and published on August 22nd. Its strangely worded conclusion was that

An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day [in March 1969] suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeding in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.

Once again, this is anything but he said/she said journalism. However, it may provide the Swift Vets with far more credibility than they deserve. Have they "succeeded in raising doubts about Kerry's war record"? Yes, in the sense that their allegations have had an impact regardless of whether or not they are true.

Also, what exactly does it mean to not prove someone a liar? That kind of phrasing suggests that the Swift Vets' allegations have as much merit as Kerry's defense.

The rest of the WaPo article is quite well-done, however. It's main shortcoming is that it only focuses on the March 1969 Bronze Star episode, a decision that makes the Swift Vets look better than they should. On the other hand, it also prevents the article from commenting on Kerry's inconsistent recollections about Cambodia.

In conclusion, I'd say that I've taken the first steps towards showing that straight news accounts of the Swift Vet controversy took a clear stand on the merits of the Swift Vets' allegations. Kevin, Zach, the ball is in your court.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion