Should This Be A Credibility Issue?

The other night I saw, OutFoxed, the excellent new documentary concerning the methods used by Fox News to deliver the Republican party-line night after night, and one point in particular that was raised stuck with me.

The documentary does a good job of showing that one of the strongest contributions that wholly-owned Republican news subsidiaries like Fox News make for the right is that they serve to take what should be a devasting fact against their side, and try to make it into into a credibility contest, a he-said, she-said. Thus, when facts are really bad for them, like with Richard Clarke, they know they can't defeat the facts, but instead will settle for a tie -- a "no one really knows what the real truth is" result, which is actually a victory for them, because the real truth IS objectively bad for them. So, when Richard Clarke testified, the spin on Fox News was, well, Richard Clarke says this, but "some other people say" (another one of their favorite techniques -- hiding their bias behind "some other people") that Clarke can't be trusted. So, boy, we don't know what to say about this, but it looks like a draw.

I see the same thing happening with the Swift Boat veterans against Kerry. Since, as Jon Stewart has pointed out, having a Democratic presidential candidate who is a decorated war-hero is pretty devasting to the Republican party, they've decided to cut their losses and try to create a "tie." So you have scurrulous, unfounded attacks against Kerry's war record -- and, presto! "Boy, we don't know what is the truth, but it's real muddy now." Robert Novak makes this strategy almost transparent in his latest column. "Mission Accomplished?"



- posted by Joshua @ 12:38 PM