Representative Press Blog

I have noticed how some people on the right look for what they think are examples of "bias" in the media. So often tortured logic and denial go into producing their supposed instances of media's "liberal bias". These guys, like Doug Harper, stubbornly insist that the things they point to are examples of "bias." And they obnoxiously refuse to acknowledge the real and clear examples of dishonesty when they are pointed out to them.

The reality is the bias is overwhelmingly in the other direction and mainly outside of what they can fathom, serving agendas that they seem incapable of understanding even the existence of. The latest things Harper insists are examples of "bias" are only so in his mind.

Here is a real example of real bias and out right deception that is obvious to anyone that knows that real story. In his AP article "Rove Says Kerry Tarnished Vietnam Veterans", Ron Fournier, distorts what Kerry said in '71.

Fournier writes, "Testifying to Congress on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he detailed atrocities he said were committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam, including rapes, beheadings and random killings of civilians, only to acknowledge later he had not witnessed these acts."

"he detailed atrocities he said were committed by U.S. troops"?!? It is incredible how manipulatively dishonest it is the way Fournier puts it. What Kerry actually said was, "They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads ..." "They told the stories", the U.S. troops themselves. The way Fournier puts it, it is deceptive to a ridiculous degree. And Fournier writes, "only to acknowledge later he had not witnessed these acts." What the hell is this guy pulling? When a speaker says that people told stories about certain events, IT IS NEVER ASSUMED that the speaker witnessed the events. The context and common usage of "they told the stories at times they" makes it clear that the speaker heard the stories about the acts, not that he witnessed the acts himself. This is not the way our language works. Fournier deceives his readers by implying that Kerry implied or stated that he witnessed the acts.

Someone that witnesses an event NEVER describes it as "they told stories" if they witnessed it too! Fournier acts like it would be logical to assume that Kerry had been implying he had witnessed the events. The meaning of Kerry's testimony is clear, what Fournier has done is off the wall dishonest. And he is playing along with a game that others have been playing about this key sentence from Kerry's testimony for quite some time.

It is deceptive since Kerry clearly said that he heard the stories about the acts from the soldiers that did those acts.

When a speakers says "they said they saw X, Y, or Z ..." it simply is not normal or logical to assume the speakers means that he saw the events too. You don't describe events that you are a witness to as "they told stories". You would say something like "we both have stories about these acts", or "we witnessed these acts." Saying it the way Kerry did made it CLEAR that he heard it from the troops, only a dishonest person or a fool would assume that Kerry meant he actually witnessed the events. So it is really underhanded to write "only to acknowledge later he had not witnessed these acts," as if it would be reasonable to assume he had witnessed the acts!

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads ..." The part in bold is often omitted when they quote Kerry. Is this honest? The thing omitting these words avoids is the obvious conclusion: these deniers are calling US soldiers liars. To play the game, the words are left off so that people can deny the crimes and avoid acknowledging the fact that US soldiers ADMITTED TO THESE CRIMES.
Very often in the media I have seen it portrayed as "Kerry accuses soldiers" when the reality was soldiers admitted publicly to war crimes and Kerry is simply relaying what other soldiers said. Again , is it HONEST to misrepresent the facts? Somone wrote "it's more accurate to say, as opposed to his having "accused" all veterans of being war criminals (Kerry being a Vietnam veteran himself), that he merely reported to Congress what other vets had said in public testimony concerning their own involvement in, or witnessing of, alleged war crimes." It isn't "more accurate", it simply is acurate to say Kerry merely reported what others had said, saying that he "accused" vets is inaccurate.

And SEVERAL media outlets have picked up this AP angle and ran with it. Here are some of them:
nynewsday.com
news.bostonherald.com
boston.com
newsday.com
washingtontimes.com
aolsvc.news.aol.com

UPDATE: Someone must have admitted that the " only to acknowledge later he had not witnessed these acts" line was too inaccurate. Below is another version of that paragraph but it still has a flaw. It should not say "Kerry detailed atrocities he said were committed by U.S. troops" but at least now Fournier mentions that "Kerry said at the time he was referring to incidents witnessed by other veterans". The other version was horrible.

"Rove Targets Kerry Anti-Vietnam Testimony"
"Testifying in 1971 to Congress on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Kerry detailed atrocities he said were committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam, including rapes, beheadings and random killings of civilians. Kerry said at the time he was referring to incidents witnessed by other veterans, and has since said he regrets some of the language he used."
[link to www.newsday.com]