Reply #3: I agree, but that is the job of the MEDIA

[jpgray]

There are two things to be reported in an allegation or campaign statement. The fact of the statement or allegation, which is who says it and what was said, or the truth of it, which is whether the statement has any validity. Bias in the media can be expressed by weighting things one way or another. We now have two recent examples to show this:

Swift Boats. All fact. The media networks focused almost exclusively on the facts of the charges, giving up ample time to the Swifties themselves without ever looking into the truth of the charges. The result is people hear everyone talking about how Kerry didn't serve well, and if enough spokespeople say it and enough journalists report what they say without saying whether it is true, people will believe it. Constant parroting for a week and then muted evaluation of the truth has the desired result--Kerry is smeared by a glut of false charges that were directly refuted by the record. Since all that was reported was the fact of the charges, they became assumed truth before any evaluation occured.

TANG docs. All truth. The media have focused almost exclusively on the validity of the documents rather than the fact of their implications. The result is everyone hears their validity constantly questioned from all corners, and they get the impression that they are false.

This is how the media can be biased without being blatant about it. Kerry cannot solve this, Dean was unable to solve it in the primaries--no one can solve it. Dean is angry and a flaming liberal? Just focus on the fact of the allegation--that it was said--and people will start to believe it. Dean's criticisms of Bush? Focus on their truth and muddy them out so people don't believe them. Simple system, totally indefensible line of attack.