DATE: 8/25/2004 09:02:00 AM
Un-Friggin'-Believable - Some journalists are asking whether the Swift Boat story has gone on too long. Quote:
"What I've heard from colleagues is that people feel it probably has had too long a life," said Frank James, a Chicago Tribune reporter. "We wish someone would put a stake in this vampire." For most reporters, finding out that a candidate for president has lied about his official biography would be a story "with legs" and the coverage would be defined not by the miniscule attention span of reporters, but by the willingness of the candidate to deal with the issue. In other words, the longer a candidate went without addressing it, the longer the story would last.
On a big story, reporters would be doing their own homework, finding their own sources and writing stories based on actual...you know...REPORTING. On this one, they are content to simply write 'he said/he said' stories about the controversy without doing any actual work. They've done it before, on stories such as: cocaine use, Enron, National Guard service, etc...
Note the pattern? Anti-Bush stories: exciting. Anti-Kerry stories: boring.
What media bias?