Posted by debrazza on Sat Aug 2, 2008 at 3:08 AM Pacific

The coming Swift Boating of Obama: A major test for the media

Guest post by debrazza

How will the media treat the two upcoming anti-Obama books coming out?  Media Matters asks the crucial question,

In covering forthcoming anti-Obama books, will media repeat Swift Boat coverage mistakes?

The question of whether the media will be complicit in the Swift Boating of yet another Democratic candidate is a question we all have to prepare ourselves for.  Media Matters has been doing yeoman's work documenting the clear falsities in both publications.  The books in question are "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" by Jerome Corsi, co-author of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" and "The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate" by David Freddoso.

Now before we continue, it is important to remember back to 8 years ago how a book filled with rumor by a discredited author was handled by the media and the book's publisher.  The lede in this story in Salon is all you need to know how the media responded to "Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President" by J.H. Hatfield.

The publisher of a controversial new biography about George W. Bush has halted publication of the book after published reports opened up serious questions about the veracity of the book's claims, the publisher's fact-checking process and the credibility of the author, J.H. Hatfield.

Fast forward from 2000 to 2004, we also all know how the media treated a book filled with demonstrable lies about John Kerry's service record, written by a disreputable man.  Media Matters has documented that Corsi is a bigot and misogynist.  We also know for a fact that the assertions in his book were not true.

Sticking with Corsi, Media Matters has already documented that three claims in his book are just easily and demonstrably not true.  Moving on to Freddoso, Media Matters finds that one allegation in his book runs completely contrary to repeated investigative reporting by credible journalists and major news organizations and a second is not only contrary to easily investigated facts, but also contrary to reporting by another news organization.

This latter case is a favorite hobby of mine, which is the willingness of "journalists" to stand by the work of reporters that have been proved untrue (cue Judith Miller) and then to either ignore or disregard previous reporting on an issue that is inconvenient to their narrative (cue Anbar Awakening before surge).

We are at a major fork in the road for the media.  Where they decide to go from here could have major impacts on the outcome of the race. The major question for the media is whether they will apply the John Kerry standard or the George Bush standard.  We already know that these books have major factual inaccuracies that are either easily identifiable or exactly contrary to reporting done by their colleagues.  So, as far as I stand, the media have two options.  Option one is to ignore these publications as the libelous tripe that they are.  Option two is stand by their colleagues reporting and point out that these books are riddled with easily identifiable errors and investigate the easily debunked claims.  We are not talking about finding the truth about a war zone 40 years ago.  We are talking about events that occurred during the Clinton Administration.

The choice is theirs, but that doesn't mean we should sit back and let it happen.