QandO

February 18, 2004

Media Watch: The tale of one story
Posted by McQ

By now you’re aware of the fact that George Bush visited the troops at Ft. Polk, LA. Being former military myself, I can appreciate that sort of a gesture from the commander-in-chief, especially in time of war. Of course during the war when I was in, all I could look forward too were either visits by LBJ or Nixon. Not a great pair to draw too, but I’d have still appreciated the effort.

Based on the stories I’ve read, Bush was much appreciated at Ft. Polk where he spoke with troops, ate and MRE with a departing National Guard unit and visited with the families of soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq. Frankly, that’s what leaders should do and I tip my hat too him for doing this.

Probably the most interesting thing about his visit was the difference in coverage among some major print media outlets. Let me share them with you.

The WaPo essentially made the story about Bush being “embattled over gaps in his service to the Guard during the Viet Nam war.” After essentially rehashing the controversy, they found a guardsman to give a rather lukewarm but positive statement concerning Bush’s service:

Herster said Bush's relatively risk-free Guard service was as honorable as his own. "Anybody who served their country is doing his duty, whether it's Vietnam or the war on terrorism," he said.

Risk free? Someone, anyone, please tell me when flying a jet fighter became 'risk free' or even 'relatively risk-free'?

The NY Times headlined the story as “Amid Iraq-Bound Guardsmen, Bush Acts to Blunt Foes' Barbs”. Again, all about the story concerning Bush’s Guard duty. The inference is that pure politics drove the visit.

President Bush on Tuesday defended the war in Iraq to cheering troops here and then had lunch with a National Guard unit on its way to Baghdad, a visit that combined Mr. Bush's role as commander in chief with his political need to rebut attacks on his own service record and foreign policy.

So per the NYT, it was driven by a “political need”to rebut these attacks. But they’ve BEEN successfully rebutted, at least based on the evidence I’ve seen. But by implying this need, the Times could then question the timing of the visit.

The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, told reporters en route here that the trip to Fort Polk had been arranged "several weeks" ago, before Democrats raised questions about whether Mr. Bush had fulfilled all his duties as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

As for the guardsmen he visited, what did they thing about Bush’s Guard duty?

Several members of the 39th Brigade said in brief interviews after the president's speech that they were not aware of the controversy over Mr. Bush's record.

You’re kidding right? We know that WaPo was able to find at least one, and what about the Atlanta Journal-Consitution?

Soldiers brushed off the flap about Bush's record. Staff Sgt. Jim Lee, an Arkansas guardsman, said: "I think he did his duty. We're certainly supportive of the president. We're all guardsmen, so we know what happens when you transfer from one state to another. The records get convoluted."

Pfc. Allen Harmon, also from Arkansas, said: "In a sense you've got to look at people's past. But right now, he's doing a good job."

Pfc. Willie Wade, a guardsmen majoring in education at Grambling State University, said: "I wondered [about Bush's Guard flap] when I first saw it. I take it he fulfilled his duty. They showed the papers."

Where were these guys when the Times was wandering through the unit? Just as importantly, note the point Sgt. Lee makes about how records get screwed up in the guard. Think this is playing well with those who know better?

Of course before giving the AJC a complete pass, they too were bound and determined to keep the Bush Guard service at the front of the story as well.

Snapping a sharp salute before cheering soldiers, President Bush put his credentials as a wartime commander in chief on display Tuesday against suggestions that he ducked his military duty as a child of privilege during the Vietnam War.

He flew F-102 all-weather interceptors for 2 ½ years, but he “ducked his military duty”. That’s an amazing spin on active service in a very dangerous part of it.

Probably the most surprising of the lot was the mostly objective report found in the LA Times. Entitled “Bush Warns Not to Be Complacent About Terror Risk”, the article mostly stayed with the story line of the headline. But it did bring up the question of Bush’s guard service and the timing of the event. However, in my opinion, it was brought up fairly and handled in a fair manner, unlike most of the others.

White House officials said recent scrutiny of the president's National Guard service had not influenced his decision to visit the base and meet with National Guard troops. However, two base officials said they had learned of the visit only within the last week.

"There's no relation to recent events," McClellan said afterward. He added that White House officials had been talking to Pentagon officials about the trip for several weeks, but he could not comment on when base officials had been notified.

Of course McClellan wouldn’t have had anything to do with notifying the base, that would have been the Pentagon’s job, and thankfully this particular commander-in-chief doesn’t tell the Pentagon how to do their job.

So there you have it ... the same story presented by 4 different major newspapers.

Agendas?

You decide.

TrackBack