Instruction Manual for Blowing a Swiftboat Out of the Water (You too can help!)

[Jackpine Radical]

The Obama people did a remarkable job chopping down Corsi. For starters, they got that 40-page refutation out immediately, and went on the attack with it.

As Fldem5 analyzed it, here was the Obama playbook:

1. Have a staffer research Corsi's entire schedule.

2. Contact news outlets/organizations that will host Corsi.

3. Send over a list of Mr. Corsi's greatest hits/posts/lies/disproven accusations/slander

4. Strongly request equal airtime for one of your representatives to rebut Mr. Corsi's claim.


Hound him wherever he goes, until he becomes a caricature of himself.

Here, in the words of a piece in Editor & Publisher, are the reesults:

This Time the Press Does Not Wait to Hit a Swiftboater's Claims

By Greg Mitchell

Published: August 15, 2008 7:40 AM ET

Four years ago this month, with E&P’s Joe Strupp, I explored in a number of articles the belated or conflicted media response to the “swiftboating” of Sen. John Kerry, then the Democratic nominee for president. The mainstream press gave the charges-- carried in ads, in books and articles, and in major TV appearances -- a free ride for a spell, then a respectful airing mixed with critique, before in many cases finally attempting to shoot them down as overwhelmingly exaggerated or false. This delay, along with Kerry’s own reluctance to face the matter squarely, quite possibly cost the Democrat the White House.

Now, this month, a bestselling anti-Obama book -- by a co-author of the most prominent “swiftboat” anti-Kerry book in 2004 -- has predictably been published (by Mary Matalin's imprint) and has gained immediate and wide attention in the mainstream. But this time, in many cases, the media response has been a "swift" kick to its credibility.

On Wednesday night, for example, when that author, Jerome Corsi, appeared with Larry King on CNN, he was forced to debate an antagonist, Media Matters’ Paul Waldman -- and, for much of the time, King himself. Waldman was even able to air some of Corsi’s revolting Web comments in the years before he became famous as a swiftboater.


A Washington Post editorial for Friday's paper calls Corsi an "expert of misrepresentation," and adds, "footnoting to a discredited blog item does not constitute careful scholarship, and the bulk of Mr. Corsi's book has nothing to do with issues. He gets facts wrong. ... He makes offensive statements."

And a bunch of DUers went on the offensive over at Amazon. Literally overnight, hundreds of one-star (highly negative) reviews sprung up for the Corsi book:

http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Nation-Leftist-Politics-Personality/dp/1416598065/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218894898&sr=8-1

And people like Blogslut took the attack to the airwaves:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6642017

Thank you, people, for providing such a wonderful answer to my challenge of the other day:

Explain to me why I shouldn't be totally cynical

The media lie to us regularly; there is no more truth value in CNN or the network broadcasts than in Pravda in the Bad Old Days, and for pretty much the same reason: the ruling classes use lies and partial information to shape our beliefs and emotional responses to their will.

Even when the public uses the so-called power of the vote against their abusers, the People In Charge simply miscount the results and, through their control of information, convince the people that the election was honest.

We watch in horror and incomprehenskon as the ruling classes strip the nation of its wealth, raiding the public treasury on a grand scale, entangling us in wars across the world that serve no interest of ours, but merely advance the interests of the plutocrats as they play their game of global empire.

The mechanisms of the police state grow stronger day by day under the guise of orotecting us from foreign and domestic enemies. The government hones its skills at torture, even building an interrogation chamber in the White House before (can we doubt this is coming?) they turn their dark arts upon us.

Nothing we do has any effect. We watch ourselves sink into despair and learned helplessness.

Like I said, talk me out of this mindstate. Please.

Explain to me why I shouldn't be totally cynical.

Looks to me like we learned some things since the Kerry campaign, folks.

[blm]

1. Kerry put out a 36pg refutation of the lies backed by official Naval records and media DELIBERATELY

ignored it and Mitchell is WRONG To not come out and ADMIT that corporate media did this intentionally to protect Bush in an election year - Dan Rather admitted it last year.

Instead, Mitchell claims the media were reluctant...BULLSHIT - they HAD the truth IMMEDIATELY from Kerry's camp and COMPLICITLY refused to use it the way any legitimate news organization would. These news outlets REFUSED to even broadcast Kerry's speech attacking the swifts and challenging Bush to publicly debate their Vietnam services instead of hiding behind the swifts and their lies. Now, not only do news organizations, INCLUDING THE LEFT MEDIA, fail to report what did happen then, they claim today that it NEVER HAPPENED, at all.

THIS is the truth why media acted so complicitly against Kerry with Rove and the swifts in 2004 - truth that not even Mitchell will note:



Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Thanks again, BLM.

We need to keep making the point. Nevertheless, for whatever reason, Obama is getting much different results than Kerry did. Perhaps the explanation is as simple as this--the media don't see Obama as a threat to gore their ox. Or perhaps they feel burned by their participation last time--maybe they know they lost credibility in the eyes of the public, thereby damaging their utility to the corporate machine. Or perhaps Obama, having analyzed the Kerry case, is doing things differently.

It strikes me that Kerry put his refutations out there, made his speeches, and expected the media to do their job somewhat honestly. He truasted that there might be some remnants of decency left in the system, and he was wrong.

I don't fault Kerry for his supposed inactions in 2004--especially after the remedial education you keep providing me :dunce: --but when Kerry's corrective measures had such little effect, think we all learned something. Something very disquieting about the intransigence of the media in accomplishing their task of killing Kerry's campaign. Obama comes along after that lesson has been delivered, and he seems to have some remedies for it.

I think a lot more people are jumping up & down & screaming this time than did 4 years ago. Ordinary people. Certainly I didn't write an Amazon review of Corsi's first book, but I certainly did this hime. Hundreds of others joined me.

And maybe some of the corporate bosses are getting tired of oil-and-war based administrations. Maybe we aren't the only ones who think it's time for a change. Maybe at least some of the big guys have pulled their attack dogs off the Democrats.

[blm]

3. I'm more cynical than you. ;) IMO, it's Dan Rather's lawsuit, McClellan's book and KOs ratings

that have moved the media field a few more inches in the direction of the truth. Left blogs HAVE been getting a bit more access to the corporate media microphones this goround, but again, because of mounting pressure as you say, from US.

[karynnj]

4. Who do you think the Obama people looked to for some answers on this

Many people on Obama's team are from Kerry's. In addition, this is something Obama did speak to Kerry on. So, in addition to being able to look at what happened in 2004, they got whatever ideas he had. (I'm not impling that these are all the ideas the Obama campaign had) It was, per Obama, one reason he opted out of public financing - avoiding the financial squeeze Kerry faced with a 13 week general election to Bush's 8 week one. (Not to mention hate radio and Fox News should have been charged to Bush!)

There are differences too - Bush is below 30% - in 2004 they were cowed by Bush. Look at the difference in how they handled real gaps in Bush's record and charges against the official record in Kerry's. They are treating Obama more fairly. In addition, there was no surrogate for Kerry as prominent and strong as Kerry has been for Obama.

There are also more tools now - imagine there was youtube then. Kerry could have sent his refuting the charges - which the media did not cover - to his 3 million list suggesting angry letters to the networks, and passing it to everyone they knew.

Fortunately for Obama, 2008 is a different world than 2004.

[blm]

5. Heck, in 2004 most of the best known Dems were siding with Bush and no way would they be seen

publicly defending Kerry or siding with HIS positions on terrorism and Iraq war. They didn't want to be on Rove's radar then and feared being painted as soft on terror for questioning Bush's decisions the way Kerry and other primary Dems did throughout that campaign.