Times and WaPo Jump On Board Trump Camp Swift Boating of Walz

Sergeant Scribbles. LOL
- Although it helps with alliteration, Vance never made sergeant and left as a corporal (E-4).
Walz also had a 4 year old daughter at the time of his retirement. His family wanted him home, it was time to get out.
Vance, like every republican ever, is just projecting.
And for people not military adjacent, 20 years is the length of service for full retirement. That's how long people who go the distance with the military stay in. He was already 4 years past that.
Lol, how is Vance saying this about him? And with a draft dodger as his partner.
"After graduating from Middletown High School, Vance joined the US Marine Corps, where he served from 2003 to 2007 as a combat correspondent in a non-combative role, including a six-month deployment in the public affairs department in Iraq."
It worked for Kerry who saw and led men in sustained combat versus Bush, who hid from the war in the national guard.
While we should keep making this comparison, do so in public too! But don't be surprised if the media keeps amplifying this.
Also, Walz had his retirement set before the unit knew it was deploying. That's not something you can typically take back, another sergeant major would already be lined up for the position. So to say he "avoided" is a complete lie. Vance knows this too.

I don't remember much of the Kerry campaign, but didn't he lean into his service record? The stolen valor argument is much weaker seeing as Walz has never claimed he's seen active combat.

Regardless, it's incredibly disappointing to see reputable news outlets bat for Trump just because the Dems have two ever so slightly left-leaning people on the ticket.

They are clutching at straws. Every step the Democrats have taken since Biden decided to withdraw from the race has tripped the Republicans out. They had no game plan for that contingency, and they are still several steps behind and frantically playing catch up. They are falling back on their old negative handbook tactics. Hopefully they don't work. Because that Swiftboat Vets thing against John Kerry was really stupid. The only thing that was more stupid back then was that so many idiot voters believed it.
ETA: Some of these newspapers / media outlets are really freaked out, but only about Walz. They were fine when it was just Harris because she's very moderate. Her choice of Walz (which was a smart choice because it reinvigorated liberal voters towards her) is the thing that they are stressing out over, because of the (tax) implication.
There's a documentary about it because the Swift Boating was such bullshit.
Several of the swift boaters themselves recanted after the Questionable Victory of GeeDubz part II.
- Can't find the documentary, here's a relevant article:
  On Friday, the group, who served with Mr. Kerry in Vietnam, sent a letter to T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oilman who helped finance the 2004 attack advertisements, taking him up on a challenge he issued last November: that he would give $1 million to anyone who could disprove a single charge the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made against Mr. Kerry.
  . . . Mr. Pickens did not reply.
  So Mr. Kerry’s veteran allies took up the cause. In a 12-page letter — with a 42-page attachment of military records to support their case — they rebut not one but several of the accusations of the Swift boat group.
  The veterans offer to go through Mr. Kerry’s record and the video with Mr. Pickens “page by page, frame by frame.” And they demand an apology, to them “and to the American people.”
  Of course, none of this is new. Extensive news media accounts undermined the Swift boat charges in 2004, pointing out that some of the Swift boat critics had written statements in Vietnam lauding Mr. Kerry for extraordinary bravery in the incidents they later said he made up. One critic had himself received a medal for heroism during a hail of gunfire he later claimed Mr. Kerry had concocted to win his third Purple Heart.
  But that did not blunt the political impact.
  Ah yes. Texas scumbag T. Boone Pickens, the Musk of his day, funded the whole smear campaign.
  And it's a reminder that republiQans do not give one good goddamn how true something is or not. If it has "political impact" they'll use it.
- And please not, this is literally the same person trying to swift boat here - Chris LaCivita, now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.
  Grifters all the way down the trump camp
It's equally weak because it's all bullshit. The problem is that the press isn't willing to assess truth on this kind of thing, and then center that.
- Remember Kerry was miligned by much of the veteran community because he protested against the war in Vietnam. The swiftboat claims helped to fit into a narrative that his service record was flawed, especially against GWB's controversial record with losing flight status with the Air National Guard.

Bezos trying to keep his tax loopholes I see

Sulzburger too unfortunately.
- Absolutely, both grubby little dragons greedily gobbling up as much as they can to make number go up.
Bezos and Musk owned newspapers like the deregulation guy, more at 11

This doesn't work very well when the top of your own ticket features someone who didn't serve in the military in any capacity whatsoever and probably has the thinnest skin of any US president in history.

To be fair, George W. Bush's proxies successfully ran the original swift boat attacks on Kerry even though he served in the Air National Gaurd while Kerry fought in Vietnam. Not saying it's an exact one to one comparison, but it wouldn't be the first time a veteran managed to smear someone who actually served.
- I think people operate on a belief of fairness that obviously does not actually apply in real life. Bush was a draft dodging rich kid and Kerry actually got injured and awarded for heroism, but media manipulation made Kerry's service an issue. That Trump is a big sack of lumpy turds isn't going to save us from hypocritical false attacks being drummed up because the media wants excitement.
- It's literally the same person trying to swift boat here - Chris LaCivita, now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.
  These grifters are so fucking transparent, if people would only pay attention.
- Bush did have the advantage of having pictures of him flying fighter jets in an era when the mainstream pretty much worshipped anything to do with military hardware. IIRC he even flew a fighter jet and landed it on the carrier for that infamous "mission accomplished" photo op.
  Even though the times have changed a bit, I bet that Trump would get a boost if he could fly a fighter jet. Not sure if he'd even be safe to be a passenger on one unless they kept the throttle at like 20%.

Having read them both, the Post does put a lot of focus on former colleagues, though I think they come across as having an agenda more than legit criticism. I don't really get the beef with the Times' coverage at all though. They cover literally the same points as TPM. No idea what leads them to say that the coverage is "more egregious and spurious than you’re probably able to imagine."

TPM:

The attacks aren’t just “like” the Swift Boat attacks from 2004. They’re literally the work of the same guy. Chris LaCivita was the strategist who ran the Swift Boat attacks in 2004 and cut the commercials. He’s now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.

NYT:

But Mr. Vance’s comments were also reminiscent of the “Swift boat” attacks in 2004 that effectively cast doubt on the military exploits of Senator John Kerry, then the Democratic presidential nominee. A key strategist behind those attacks, which helped doom Mr. Kerry’s bid for the White House, was Chris LaCivita, who is a senior strategist for the Trump campaign.

TPM:

The overriding point here is that Walz didn’t just say, well, I might get deployed. I’m outta here. It is well-documented that he was already planning to run for Congress, had been discussing with fellow guardsmen for some time whether he would retire as part of his plans to run for Congress and in fact had already announced his run months before he retired.

NYT:

But Joseph Eustice, a 32-year veteran of the national guard who led the same battalion as Mr. Walz and served under him, said in an interview on Wednesday that the governor was a dependable soldier and that the attacks by his fellow comrades were unfounded . . . Mr. Eustice recalled that Mr. Walz’s decision to run for Congress came months before the battalion received any official notice of deployment, though he said there had been rumors that it might be deployed.

The NYT repeats the lie in the headline, but buries the truth down in the article. The result is that people see the lie, and not the truth.
Very few people encountering an article on social media actually read it; something like 2% do so much as click through.
This pattern basically guarantees that a huge numbers of people will have a false belief.
- The times headline is stating what the news is, which is that a claim was made:
  Vance Attacks Walz’s Military Record, Accusing Him of Avoiding a Tour in Iraq
  Which is a factual statement of the news. The times piece presents the claim made, and the refutation of it and the evidence without ever making a direct claim one way or another. I e , unlike an opinion piece, the times isn't making a subjective assessment or value statement.
  Given that, what other headline can they give? Adding adjectives like "spurious" or "misleading" would be editorializing unless they are quoting an independent authority on the subject.

Vance and the two MAGAts who made the claims in the first place are full of shit. Walz filed papers to run for Congress on Feb. 10 2005. He retired from the military on May 16, 2005. His unit didn't receive an alert order for mobilization until two months later.

Records show Walz officially filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Feb. 10, 2005.

In March 2005, the National Guard announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard, according to an archived press release from Tim Walz for U.S. Congress.

"I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on the specifics of the deployment," said Walz in the March 2005 statement.

The statement continued: "As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or Iraq," said Walz, who indicated at the time he had no plans to drop out of the race. "I am fortunate to have a strong group of enthusiastic support and a very dedicated and intelligent wife. Both will be a major part of my campaign, whether I am in Minnesota or Iraq."

The Minnesota Army National Guard told CBS News that Walz retired on May 16, 2005. CBS News has asked Walz to clarify when he submitted his retirement papers.

The Minnesota National Guard told CBS News that Walz's unit — 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery — received an alert order for mobilization to Iraq on July 14, 2005 – two months after Walz retired, according to Lt. Col. Ryan Rossman, who serves as the Minnesota National Guard's director of operations. The official mobilization order was received on August 14 of the same year, and the unit mobilized in October.

Against Captain Bonespurs? Ha ha! HA HA HA! Get out of here with that shit. "Democracy dies in we're going to do some cheerleading for the dictator anyway."

CADET Bonespurs. FTFY
They're comparing him to Mr Camera Fobbit. But the fact that most civilians don't understand what I just called Vance is the problem. Walz stuttered once, nearly 2 decades ago, talking about guns and they're trying to whip that into him making this constant claim.

What is this headline? Fucking garble. Every word capitalized, reads like shit. All the headlines are written in this weird way lately

- -in America
  We don't do that much in Europe
Title case or headline case - Wikipedia
But arguably that headline is garbage title gore. The "On" should be "on" the very least and "Swiftboating" would make it more comprehensible.

This is the important part, "The attacks aren’t just “like” the Swift Boat attacks from 2004. They’re literally the work of the same guy. Chris LaCivita was the strategist who ran the Swift Boat attacks in 2004 and cut the commercials. He’s now the co-manager of the Trump campaign."

He lost the election because he made a lot of lofty promises with the energy and enthusiasm of a half eaten grapefruit.

It was just hard to be excited for the guy.

Meanwhile Dubya comes out and lies through his teeth and you knew it but boy he could work a crowd.

Ohio. Electronic. Vote. Tabulation. Irregularities. Karl Rove.

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

New York times is not left of center anymore. This bot is arbitrary. Mods please pin it to the bottom. It's seriously fucking up the feed for a LOT of people. I don't care how much Ground News is paying for the real estate.
- They are very upfront about the bot describing bias against the American center and not the global or whatever "objective" standard people try to insert. By that metric, center-left perfectly describes NYT. Their editorial board has posted multiple times describing Trump as an unfit candidate and they have historically endorsed the democratic candidate. They're obviously not even American leftist and they're not center-left on the global scale, but it's all relative.
  I personally like the extra information and those who don't are free to block the bot. I have seen commentor twisting themselves into absolute pretzels to avoid admitting that they can simply block the bot.
- seriously fucking up the feed
  Sure. lol Dramatic much? Oh the poor feed is suffering so, so greatly, it's changed sooooooooo much now. Look, it's completely different now!
  That said, I do kinda like the idea of it being pinned to the bottom. I don't think that would hurt anything, everyone would still see it.
  Could at least make it not upvote itself, then it'll kinda just tend to stay down there naturally.

Neither the Post nor the Times' articles do what TPM says they do, though.

They both report (accurately) on what Vance said, and then both report (accurately) on why it is bullshit. The Post article maybe does a little more BoTh SiDeSing than the Times one, as it it is written in a manner to make it seem like the Harris campaign was being evasive. But neither gives any impression that Vance's claims were correct.

What they're doing is putting the lie in the headline, where lots of people read it, and burying the truth paragraphs down in the article. Because very few people click through to articles, but just see headlines, the impact is to leave a large chunk of the public with a false belief.