Los Angeles Times Finally Prints Swift Boat Vet Correction
This morning, the Los Angeles Times runs a correction that I have been pushing them to run for a week:
Swift boat ads — An article in Section A on Aug. 20 about Sen. John F. Kerry’s response to a veterans group critical of his military record stated that none of the members of the group served on Kerry’s patrol boat in Vietnam. Steve Gardner, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was a Kerry crewmate. He was not on Kerry’s boat during the incidents for which Kerry was awarded medals.
Big thanks to Glenn Reynolds for helping to shine the bright lights on this issue. Without his help, this error might still be uncorrected.
Yesterday, I noted that — six days after I had notified the paper of this error — I had seen no correction, nor even received a response to my e-mail. I supplemented my complaint with the text of a follow-up e-mail that I had just sent to the paper’s Managing Editor. Instapundit kindly linked to my post.
And today, the very next day, the correction has appeared. Something obviously got the attention of the Times editors. I don’t know whether it was my e-mail to the Managing Editor or the Instapundit link (or both), but I suspect the Instapundit link had a lot to do with it. It’s easier to blow off a single reader than it is to persist in refusing to correct obvious mistakes when thousands are looking on.
As I have argued, this was not a trivial mistake. It concerned a matter of intense national interest. Kerry’s campaign repeatedly defends Kerry against the accusations of the Swift Boat Vets by arguing that we should look to the opinions of those who were on the boat with Kerry. Yet Swift Boat Vet Steve Gardner says he spent more time on the same boat with Kerry than any of the crewmates who are supporting Kerry.
While Gardner may not have witnessed the incidents for which Kerry was awarded medals, he would know something about an issue that could pose a real threat to the Kerry campaign: the “Christmas in Cambodia” story. Indeed, Gardner is appearing in a new commercial focusing on the “Christmas in Cambodia” fabrication. It’s important for the citizenry to understand that Gardner knows what he’s talking about when he speaks about Kerry’s Cambodia falsehood.
So, are bloggers having an impact on Big Media? From my personal perspective, I think it’s a mixed bag. I’m still annoyed that the paper has completely ignored other valid criticisms of mine. For example, the Times editors haven’t yet corrected their false implication that John O’Neill has given money only to Republicans. I asked them to look into this, and have heard nothing in response. Nor have they ever explained why they (apparently deliberately) omitted the fascinating story of Kerry’s failed attempt at a photo-op with servicemen at a Wendy’s on the campaign trail. I asked for an explanation and never got a response.
And the list goes on.
On the positive side, I appreciate this correction, however late and subdued it may be. This is the second correction I have persuaded the paper to make in recent weeks (the first was this correction from July 8, regarding Paul Bremer’s farewell speeches that the Times initially claimed had never occurred). And there was that front-page story about Justice Ginsburg that the Times printed based on my tip. It’s hard to grumble too much when it’s clear they’re paying some attention.
One of the most encouraging signs I have received in recent days was from a member of the White House Press Corps, who wrote me to say:
I will continue to read your blog. It’s a good one. If you don’t think blogs are having an impact on the thinking and work of the White House Press Corps, think again. (Though I suspect you know you guys have influence). They may scoff at blogs that pick on them for bias, but the more honorable ones are actually concerned about how they do their jobs.
(My emphasis.)
That may be the most encouraging piece of news I’ve heard yet.
UPDATE: Here is Beldar’s version of the correction:
Swift boat ads — An article in Section A on Aug. 20 about Sen. John F. Kerry’s response to a veterans group critical of his military record stated that none of the members of the group served on Kerry’s patrol boat in Vietnam. Steve Gardner, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was a Kerry crewmate. He was not on Kerry’s boat during the incidents for which Kerry was awarded medals. Nor was he on Kerry’s boat when it spent Christmas in Cambodia, since Sen. Kerry made that whole story up.
I like it.
UPDATE x2: Thanks to Instapundit for the link. If you have made it all the way down here to the bottom of this post, I’m hoping that you like what you’ve read. If that is the case, please remember to bookmark/blogroll the site, and return often!
Great news, Patterico! Congratulation for getting results.
Now, if I could get the same results from my local daily, Barcelona’s La Vanguardia. Its ombudsman even accused us who are pointing at errors and biases of being paid hacks for political parties and foreign countries.
Comment by Franco Alemán (from Barcelona, Spain, the proud new member of the Axis of Weasels) — 8/27/2004 @ 6:37 am
Patterico Continues To Keep The LA Times Honest
One of my good blogfriends, Patterico from Patterico’s Pontifications, has done remarkable work over a long period of time documenting the bias and carelessness that has become routine for the Los Angeles Times. When the paper asserted last week that…
Trackback by Captain's Quarters — 8/27/2004 @ 7:21 am
AT LAST –
The LA Times Los Angeles Times Finally Prints Swift Boat Vet Correction” href=”http://patterico.com/archives/002623.php”>gest the story right….
Trackback by PRESTOPUNDIT -- "Kerry in Cambodia" Wall-to-Wall Coverage — 8/27/2004 @ 7:46 am
Michelle Malkin and Patterico have the latest…
…on the Swift Boat veterans kerfuffle
Trackback by Dump Dick Durbin — 8/27/2004 @ 10:29 am
Bear Flagger Brings Times to Knees
The big news of the week, though you won’t see it on the National Networks, is that the Los Angeles Times has surrendered on the field of Political Battle. To a tenacious member of the Bear Flag League ( it…
Trackback by Sneakeasy's Joint — 8/27/2004 @ 11:15 am
Good job.
A lot of the distortions come from Kerry, but sometimes it’s the media that makes Kerry’s remarks look more fictious than they were. ABC News did it yesterday by eliding a qualification Kerry included in his remark.
Comment by Lynxx Pherrett — 8/27/2004 @ 11:35 am
Forced Correction
Patterico has, with the help of Instapundit, forced the hand of the LA Times. As he explains, the Times ran a story charging that no members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were aboard John Kerry’s boat in Vietnam in…
Trackback by Democracy Digest — 8/27/2004 @ 1:30 pm
Watch This Space
Sorry for the light posting, but the company called and I’ve been pressed back into service part time and will take me a few days to get blogging and the work schedule synched. In the meantime, here’s a story for…
Trackback by Feste...a foolsblog — 8/27/2004 @ 2:51 pm
I, as a Canadian, have noted Kerry’s service records, and would just like to make a little note, even if it doesn’t mean much. The corrections noticed were of great importance to the main body of people. This easily means that the Swift Boat movement is basically moot. The whole idea in fact, bothers me. These people have no right ragging on kerry’s service record. Thanks for letting me say something.
Comment by Mike — 8/27/2004 @ 10:43 pm
One of the problems with Steve Gardner’s credibility is that he’d claimed to be an eyewitness to some of the events that led to Kerry’s medals — and it later turned out he hadn’t been, not at any of them. After that, how can anyone believe anything else he says? (Especially since more witnesses have come forward to confirm Kerry’s version and refute Gardner’s and O’Neill’s and the SBVT’s version)
Comment by Raven — 8/28/2004 @ 1:42 am
I hope everyone goes and reads the link Raven has provided, to see what utter bullshit it is, and how desperately the book-banning Media Matters folks are stretching to try to paint Gardner as a liar.
Comment by Patterico — 8/28/2004 @ 8:57 am
I do think Gardner tried to imply that he was on Kerry’s boat at the time the incidents happened for which Kerry was awarded medals.
Gardner says in effect, “I was on Kerry’s boat. I saw what happened.” He may have seen what happened, but not from Kerry’s boat.
If that is truth to you, Patterico, then God help us all. To me, it’s an important distinction.
I’m willing to give Bush some benefit of the doubt when the ex-Lt. Gov. of Texas says he helped Bush avoid the draft.
If Hamm and Kerry need to give back their medals, then Bush needs to give back the presidency. Then we can have a race between Hanoi John and Hailiburton Dick. And damn the discussion of real issues.
Comment by Joel Thomas — 8/28/2004 @ 11:23 am
Kudos To The Blogosphere, Sort Of
Los Angeles Times Finally Prints Swift Boat Vet Correction” href=”http://patterico.com/archives/002623.php”>Patterico’s Pontifications: Los Angeles Times Finally Prints Swift Boat Vet CorrectionSo, are bloggers having an impact…
Trackback by Daily Pundit — 8/28/2004 @ 11:39 am
Let’s have a little less of what people said “in effect” and more of what they actually said — in full context.
That Media Matters post was shameful.
Comment by Patterico — 8/28/2004 @ 1:28 pm
Great Work Patterico! But I just do NOT believe all these “corrections” are the result of accidents, typos, etc. They deliberately LIE in BIG AND BOLD, above the fold, etc. Then later print a little bitty correction, hoping it will never be seeen.
Keep holding their feet to the fire but we all need to write to them and let them know they are NOT fooling anybody with their cheap tricks! Standard operating procedure and they need to know we are on to them and it will not work!
Thanks for your persistence in this for otherwise they would NEVER have acknowledged their lie. Note I did NOT say mistake for I do not believe for one minute they could not find the correct information.
This is like living behind the Iron Curtain where people could not get information! If not for the Internet and bloggers, how would we know the truth about anything the MSM says these days!!
Comment by Anna — 8/30/2004 @ 12:15 pm
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council links:1 Ru…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 8/31/2004 @ 8:22 pm
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Peter’s Comment Touched Me Deeply by e-Cl…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 9/2/2004 @ 9:50 pm
Patterico wrote about that Media Matters webpage:
… what utter bullshit it is …
They cite their sources. If you found any falsehoods there, please expose them. Are they in the sources as cited, or did Media Matters misquote them?
If, on the other hand, this was mere fulmination on your part, by all means feel free to fulminate.
Here’s another link: http://swiftvets.eriposte.com
And another: http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
Again, if you find falsehoods there, please point them out.
It would perhaps be more persuasive to specify, “Here they claim X, but the truth is Y, and documented at Z” — but, of course, if a generalized coarse expletive is the only response available, I’m sure everyone will understand.
Comment by Raven — 9/4/2004 @ 11:52 pm
Raven,
As I already said, I encourage people to read it for themselves, as I think it refutes itself.
But hey: if you want to put your credibility behind the junk you are linking to, fine. Let’s look at it a little bit, just so everyone here clearly understands the nature of the crap you are trying to peddle.
The falsehoods in the original post you linked are in the stirring way they present their claims: GARDNER LIED ABOUT BEING THERE FOR THE WOUNDS!! All you have to do is actually read the entire post, and you’ll see that Gardner is clearly acting as a spokesman for the group: explaining what other people saw. He repeatedly said that he was not there for the infliction of the wounds he was describing. Of course, in each case the Media Matters folks portray this as an “admission” rather than Gardner being truthful.
In one case, they have Gardner seeming to misspeak on the Savage show, suggesting he was there for the first wound. But that was cleared up later in the show when Gardner clearly said he hadn’t been there for the actual infliction of the injury — he just saw Kerry 3 days later and knew that the injury was minor. Nobody who listened to the entire show could have thought Gardner was claiming to have been there for the infliction of the wound, because Gardner said the exact opposite. Big whoop.
Bottom line: the post says LISTEN TO THIS! and then delivers zero.
As far as your other links, I followed the first one. On their front page, they proudly displayed this claim, which caught my eye:
So, I clicked on that, and here is what I saw:
Nothing in there to debunk Hoffman’s claim. Kerry did have a tour of duty that was abbreviated to just over 4 months, just as Hoffman said. However, the “correction” whitewashes the fact that Kerry volunteered for the Naval Reserves, and falsely suggests that Kerry actually saw Vietnam combat in two tours of duty.
Great accuracy.
I gave up on your links after that.
I am not wasting my time debating this further, as it is not worth my time. It frankly wasn’t worth the time I spent in this comment. But, since you insisted on pushing the point, I thought I’d spend the time anyway, just so people here can see what you and your links are all about.
Comment by Patterico — 9/5/2004 @ 7:58 am
Patterico,
1. You seemed to have forgotten how much Gardner was proclaimed (and proclaimed himself) to be a first-person eyewitness of those events. “John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star…. I know, I was there, I saw what happened.” But he wasn’t there, you admit he wasn’t there, and now you pretend he never claimed he was there?!
Media Matters gives other examples, e.g.:
Face the facts, Patterico, Gardner went on record with lies, and then had to back down. The SBVT presented him as a witness — but he didn’t witness these events.
2. By your reasoning, Hoffman could just as truthfully have claimed, “Kerry served one day in Vietnam: December 15, 1968.”
Of course, Kerry also served other days in Vietnam, before and after that particular day — a fact unstated but not actually contradicted by that statement.
This statement would be exactly as misleading as “Kerry served ‘an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days’” (leaving unstated that he had served a previous full tour).
As “B.S.”, Hoffman’s actual statement has a quantitative but not a qualitative difference — that is, it differs in scale (by how many days it understates Kerry’s service), but not in kind (it still misleads).
A new article mentions Hoffman: Reconstructing one day on a Swift boat:
Comment by Raven — 9/5/2004 @ 8:24 pm
Raven: NOW you have done it! Patterico HATES posters who do not merely echo his unbased conclusions - people who independently research, without prior conclusion to enable selection of only those informational tidbits that support that prior conclusion - and who resort to tactics such as logic to advance their arguments.
You are probably next in the line of succession, as “pet Troll”, and a parade of name-calling in tag-team with XRLQ: I appear currently to hold that position, but, the Administration is shaking up many of the cabinet posts, and I could find myself having resigned up to four years earlier than I had planned; so,bring your “A” game, for this axis is big-league (at least in a childish way.)
Comment by Conley T. Gwinn — 11/17/2004 @ 2:03 pm
I don’t hate you, Mensa Boy. I don’t even hate Raven — but I already responded to his nonsense and feel no urge to repeat the same responses to the same arguments.
You, I find amusing. I love your diction, which makes it almost impossible to understand what you’re saying (something I’m sure you’d attribute to my lack of intelligence rather than your inability to make yourself clear). I am also amused by the way you moan about ad hominems and name-calling, as you mock a president you call Bungle. I think you’re funny, Mensa Boy.
Comment by Patterico — 11/17/2004 @ 6:06 pm
Patterico: Let me speak in those short words, those short sentences, that you and Bungle relish. This should be clear, even to you. Raven destroyed your attempted rebuttals. Raven put you on the defensive. Your typical reaction to defense, is to leave the field. That is what you have done here.
If that doesn’t work, THEN you attempt a counter, by becoming offensive. I deride Bungle’s policies, because they are bad policies. I deride Bungle, because he has buttressed every act with lies. I find the lies even more offensive than the acts. Your namecalling is merely amusing.
I find your retreat as amusing as your namecalling. I find your inability to remain on the sidelines when your “pet Troll” contributes a post, even MORE amusing.
Is there any question, despite my problems with lacking clarity in the past (sez u) in catching my drift now? Or should I attach a text-graphic of the chicken attempting to cross the road - in the glare of the oncoming headlights portending doom?
Comment by Conley T. Gwinn — 11/17/2004 @ 7:23 pm
Raven said the same things he had said before.
You claim to find it amusing when I don’t respond to pointless comments, and also when I do. Your post was clear enough this time that the contradiction inherent in your comment was evident.
At least we amuse each other. That’s the main thing.
Comment by Patterico — 11/17/2004 @ 9:03 pm
Patterico: (short words - ON; short sentences - ON)
There is no contradiction. It is possible to be amused by both/either/neither of your actions. Most amusing of all, that you have responded yet again to this subject declared dead. It is GOOD to be amused - and I am easy.
Comment by Conley T. Gwinn — 11/17/2004 @ 10:18 pm