Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Galley Reader J.B. sends in this email pointing out a stunning quote Howard Kurtz's story:

"There was a rush because Mary felt it was a great story and she was going to get scooped on it by USA Today," Mason said. "I think she would have done that with any story. I firmly believe if they found something about Kerry and his past, they'd be rushing to get that on the air, too."

Obviously, Linda Mason was in Bhutan when the Swift Boat Vets were getting started.


Good point, J.B.

3 comments:

Bizarro Jack said...

Everyone is aware of GWB's mysterious gaps in his record, and that he was in a "Champagne unit", and anyone who wasn't operation on blind faith in GWB's goodness was waiting for the other shoe to drop. So it was a fake shoe -- they should be ashamed for broadcasting it.

SBVT created something from nothing, refuting their own claims from a few years earlier. And why would you need to do a story on them when they are already paying to have their own highly dubious story told? It's barely comparable, barely.

I know wiki is hardly infallible, but if anyone reading sees problems in these documents, by all means, do your best to fix em.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia doesn't just have a reputation for dubious accuracy, it also has a reputation for left-wing bias. I followed a link there the other day and was shocked to see words like "Repuglican" and "wingnut", so I wouldn't put any more stock in their info than I would in that of their ideological soul mates at Democratic Underground.

Bizarro Jack said...

As I have gotten us further and further off topic, I will apologize for hijacking this post and try to refrain from further comment here . . . after one more post.

The beauty of wiki is that it is user maintained, so false, misleading, or "non-neutral POV" (as they like to say there) information can be fixed, and the changes are well documented; If you or I see something that is skewed liberally, it is in fact probably easier for us to fix it than it is for the original author. Wiki is not always "NPOV" but the designers desperately want it to be.

Personally I think both stories that I cited were relatively brief, "just the facts" recountings, but I cannot be aware of all worthwhile omissions. That is, I'm sure they are not totally free from bias but I saw evidence in the text that the authors were trying to eschew that bias. At this time, I do not doubt that the user community is skewed liberally, because it is on the internet, and it is new technology. One could say that a "conservative" position on wiki would be to prefer using a printed encyclopedia.