Here’s a question for you, Mr. Dixon: why didn’t you or any of your reporters at Hearst ever question Chris Shays about his claims regarding his military record? You work for the newspaper group that operates a virtual monopoly in Shays’ congressional district. Why didn’t you ever question his account of how he got out of the draft: that he served in the Peace Corps instead? And why are you questioning Blumenthal’s integrity on his military record, when you never raised questions regarding Shays’ integrity in claiming CO status in 1972 during the Vietnam War, while later pushing hard for the Gulf War and for the invasion of Iraq? Why didn’t you think it odd that a man who had claimed to his draft board that he believed that fighting in any war was immoral, and that he would refuse to take up arms in defense of the United States would have no qualms whatsoever in supporting sending others to war?
Why not revisit that situation, especially now that Shays is piling onto Blumenthal about his statements regarding Vietnam? If Shays believes he has something to say about Blumenthal, why won’t you question Shays about his own actions during Vietnam? The public record shows that Shays’ lottery number of 5, which should have assured that he was drafted, came up in December, 1969. Shays always contended that he didn’t have to go into the military because he was serving in the Peace Corps. But Peace Corps service was never a basis for a deferment. So why don’t you demand that, since he’s making an issue out of Blumenthal’s military record, he make public his own records with the draft board?
Now that everyone is looking at our politicians’ records from forty years ago, why don’t you finally look into Mr. Shays? Or is it only Democratic politicians who have their draft records scrutinized by Hearst?
See this article from the Columbia Journalism Review
Campaign Desk — May 19, 2010 01:27 PM
Blumenthal Blunders
NPR shines where the Times didn’t
By Clint Hendler
“..“Every time he talked about his military record, he was quite clear that he had been a military reservist and never came close to suggesting he was in Vietnam,” said (former Hartford Courant reporter, Mark) Pazniokas.
All of that is vital information of the sort that should have made it into the Times’s piece, and would help readers grapple with precisely how, when, and if Blumenthal has either misstated his service record or stated it in a way that leaves it open to misinterpretation. (The Times did write that, at a recent debate, Blumenthal said that he had not served in Vietnam.)
Blumenthal’s presentation is messy here, meaning that the Times has a story. But they’re doing everyone a disservice by over-selling it.
The press record on Blumenthal’s service is messy too, perhaps even messier than the candidate’s. That confused reporting doesn’t reflect well on the reporters and editors who created it, nor on the politician and handlers who took insufficient effort (if any) to set it straight.
But, as (NPR’s Davis)Folkenflik’s article shows, the Times failed to present valuable context that would help voters weigh a potential candidacy-ending charge
I regret that the Blumenthal story was not broken by a CT newspaper—including you—-Doesnt say much for the quality of our state press….what say you, Ken?
Here’s a question for you, Mr. Dixon: why didn’t you or any of your reporters at Hearst ever question Chris Shays about his claims regarding his military record? You work for the newspaper group that operates a virtual monopoly in Shays’ congressional district. Why didn’t you ever question his account of how he got out of the draft: that he served in the Peace Corps instead? And why are you questioning Blumenthal’s integrity on his military record, when you never raised questions regarding Shays’ integrity in claiming CO status in 1972 during the Vietnam War, while later pushing hard for the Gulf War and for the invasion of Iraq? Why didn’t you think it odd that a man who had claimed to his draft board that he believed that fighting in any war was immoral, and that he would refuse to take up arms in defense of the United States would have no qualms whatsoever in supporting sending others to war?
Why not revisit that situation, especially now that Shays is piling onto Blumenthal about his statements regarding Vietnam? If Shays believes he has something to say about Blumenthal, why won’t you question Shays about his own actions during Vietnam? The public record shows that Shays’ lottery number of 5, which should have assured that he was drafted, came up in December, 1969. Shays always contended that he didn’t have to go into the military because he was serving in the Peace Corps. But Peace Corps service was never a basis for a deferment. So why don’t you demand that, since he’s making an issue out of Blumenthal’s military record, he make public his own records with the draft board?
Now that everyone is looking at our politicians’ records from forty years ago, why don’t you finally look into Mr. Shays? Or is it only Democratic politicians who have their draft records scrutinized by Hearst?
See this article from the Columbia Journalism Review
Campaign Desk — May 19, 2010 01:27 PM
Blumenthal Blunders
NPR shines where the Times didn’t
By Clint Hendler
“..“Every time he talked about his military record, he was quite clear that he had been a military reservist and never came close to suggesting he was in Vietnam,” said (former Hartford Courant reporter, Mark) Pazniokas.
All of that is vital information of the sort that should have made it into the Times’s piece, and would help readers grapple with precisely how, when, and if Blumenthal has either misstated his service record or stated it in a way that leaves it open to misinterpretation. (The Times did write that, at a recent debate, Blumenthal said that he had not served in Vietnam.)
Blumenthal’s presentation is messy here, meaning that the Times has a story. But they’re doing everyone a disservice by over-selling it.
The press record on Blumenthal’s service is messy too, perhaps even messier than the candidate’s. That confused reporting doesn’t reflect well on the reporters and editors who created it, nor on the politician and handlers who took insufficient effort (if any) to set it straight.
But, as (NPR’s Davis)Folkenflik’s article shows, the Times failed to present valuable context that would help voters weigh a potential candidacy-ending charge
Hell of a bell to un-ring, eh Ken….
The New York Times hasn’t had regular coverage of Connecticut in at least three years, when their last reporter left the Capitol Press Room.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/times_defends_posting_of_clipp.html
I regret that the Blumenthal story was not broken by a CT newspaper—including you—-Doesnt say much for the quality of our state press….what say you, Ken?