« Seriously confused about the concepts of demagoguery and jihad | Main | Beldar's young skeptics view "Sky Captain" »

Sunday, October 03, 2004

MSM still clueless about basic details of Kerry's military record (and SwiftVets' claims)

Tom Maguire of Just One Minute points out that NYT reporter Lawrence K. Altman (who reports that he's a physician-reporter himself) felt obliged to make a derogatory reference to the SwiftVets while writing an article about Sen. Kerry's medical history and health, but revealed a complete lack of understanding of either Sen. Kerry's war record or the SwiftVets' allegations.  Per NYT's Dr. Altman:

Mr. Kerry's injuries as a young man, however, seem to have given him more trouble — political trouble, that is — than his shoulder surgery.

A group of veterans has challenged the validity of the three Purple Hearts that Mr. Kerry received for wounds he suffered while serving on Swift boats in the Vietnam war. These critics suggested that the shrapnel that hit him in one mission was rice, not metal.

However, CT scan X-rays taken at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston document that two pieces of metal shrapnel are embedded deep in Mr. Kerry's left thigh, next to the femur, said Dr. Gerald J. Doyle, Mr. Kerry's personal physician in Boston who reviewed the X-rays at the request of this reporter, who is a physician. Doctors treating the wound in 1969 decided to leave the shrapnel in place. "One piece of shrapnel is about the size of a bullet, the other a bit smaller," Dr. Doyle said.

Mr. Kerry said, "I can't tell you I really feel it," but "it's back in here somewhere," as he slapped his thigh.

As Tom writes, this is indeed a thigh-slapper, at reporter-doctor Altman's expense.  Kerry has three Purple Hearts, the first for a tiny shrapnel injury to his arm sustained on 02Dec68; the second for a shrapnel injury to his leg sustained on 20Feb69; and the third, according to the medal citation, for a bruise to his arm sustained on 13Mar69.  The "accusation" that Kerry was also treated for "rice" blown into his butt earlier in the day on 13Mar69 from careless behavior around a grenade used to blow up a rice pile has its origins not from the SwiftVets, but from Kerry supporter and rescuee James Rassmann, as reported in Brinkley's Tour of DutyEven the most fundamental, basic research that any junior high school newspaper reporter would have done would have alerted the NYT's Altman that the metal shrapnel thigh wound from on 20Feb69, and likewise the Purple Heart medal resulting therefrom (that is, Kerry's second Purple Heart), has never been seriously contested by the SwiftVets.

Physicians and reporters are both supposed to get their patient's/subject's "history" before drawing and recording their conclusions.  Physician-reporter Altman flunks — badly — in both capacities, and the NYT once again shows that its editors and fact-checkers completely lack even the most basic familiarity with Kerry's military record and the SwiftVets' claims to catch such errors.  I repeat, this would be embarrassingly for a junior high school newspaper, and falls well below the journalistic standards of tens of thousands of blogs from either side of the political spectrum. 

The Kerry campaign has consistently refused to release medical records, including those relating to Kerry's Vietnam wounds, for inspection by genuinely independent outsiders, insisting instead that the public's "right to know" is sufficiently satisfied by peek-and-tell sessions with friendly reporters.  When the NYT sends someone to do the peeking who's either unprepared, an idiot, or perhaps both, how seriously are we supposed to take the rest of his or the NYT's reporting on Kerry's medical history?

The New York Times' Public Editor is Daniel Okrent — [email protected].

Posted by Beldar at 12:30 PM in Mainstream Media, Politics (2006 & earlier), SwiftVets | Permalink

TrackBacks

Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to MSM still clueless about basic details of Kerry's military record (and SwiftVets' claims) and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


» Beldar aggravates an open wound from Media Lies

Tracked on Oct 4, 2004 6:07:09 PM

Comments

(1) MD made the following comment | Oct 3, 2004 2:14:23 PM | Permalink

I'm still a bit confused that some continue to expect the NY Times to conform to some notion of journalistic integrity, and that letters to its "ombudsman" will change something.

The NY Times is committed. It has made its decision (actually made many years ago). It has no interest in any independent notion of journalistic integrity. That is a mere talisman the Times will refer to when expedient, but hardly affects its operations.

The NY Times is overtly partisan; this is not mere appearance, or an occasional lapse, it's a way of life. Complaints about "fact-checking" or "background" or "fairness" are irrelevant (and probably amusing) to them. They have an agenda and they have no intention of diverting themselves for the sake of quaint journalistic abstractions.

(2) JB made the following comment | Oct 3, 2004 2:35:10 PM | Permalink

I do find some reson to be skeptical about this Kerry claim. If the wound amounts to a fragment the size of a bullet lodged near the senator's femur, that ould be a very serious wound indeed. However, the fact that Kerry missed little any duty for any of his wounds leds me to believe that this claim is also one of the Senator's exaggerations.

Again, the extent of his wounds can only be resolved if Kerry releases his medical records, something that he refuses to do.

(3) MaDr made the following comment | Oct 3, 2004 3:02:33 PM | Permalink

Yes, it continues to confound me why anyone would every be surprised by anything coming from the NYT.

I saw recently, can't remember where or who, someone putting the NYT in pithy perspective:

Shady Lady (instead of Gray Lady) and

All the news that's fit to invent

(4) Tom Maguire made the following comment | Oct 3, 2004 3:32:00 PM | Permalink

Upon closer inspection, the passage in "Tour of Duty" compounds the comedy/mystery.

From the Times:

The author Douglas Brinkley wrote in "Tour of Duty," his account of Mr. Kerry's Navy service, that the young officer injured his arm and suffered "a slight concussion" when he was thrown against the bulkhead of a Swift boat.

What we see on p. 317 of Brinkley's "Tour of Duty" is this, as he describes the aftermath of the March 13 incident:

"Kerry and the other wounded men received medical attention aboard a Coast Guard cutter... In addition to getting his arm patched up, Kerry, who had suffered a slight **concussion**, also had bits of **shrapnel and rice** extracted from his backside".

How Mr. Altman found one detail and missed the other is a question I would love to hear him answer.

(5) T made the following comment | Oct 3, 2004 4:16:30 PM | Permalink

My theory is that this sloppiness is almost deliberate. When they keep on making these small yet annoying errors and they're pointed out, it's almost like - see what happens when you nitpick over 30 year old details? How could anybody keep track of this insignificant stuff... Well, this is too complicated and Bush cheated to skip his physical too, so let's just move on...

(6) dennisw made the following comment | Oct 3, 2004 7:37:35 PM | Permalink

B.You really demolished this article.

(7) Connecticut Yankee made the following comment | Oct 3, 2004 7:54:36 PM | Permalink

JB: Another physician posted the following over at Little Green Footballs: (the "Self-Inflicted Wounds thread, comment #137):

As a physician, I opin that the report below is not possible.

A piece of shrapnel the "size of a bullet" that had penetrated deep enough to make removal difficult would have caused extensive soft tissue damage on its passage in (much as the shock wave of a bullet does). This is especially true if something penetrated all the way to the femur (long leg bone). It would have resulted in an injury that Mr. Kerry would not have walked back to duty with same-day.

The reported findings are not consistent with the historical reports.

Any other physicians want to chime in?

NYT: On Kerry’s Journey to Health, Stops for Shrapnel and Cancer

However, CT scan X-rays taken at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston document that two pieces of metal shrapnel are embedded deep in Mr. Kerry's left thigh, next to the femur, said Dr. Gerald J. Doyle, Mr. Kerry's personal physician in Boston who reviewed the X-rays at the request of this reporter, who is a physician. Doctors treating the wound in 1969 decided to leave the shrapnel in place. "One piece of shrapnel is about the size of a bullet, the other a bit smaller," Dr. Doyle said.
---[end of LGF comment]

Hope this helps!

(8) Beldar made the following comment | Oct 3, 2004 8:38:13 PM | Permalink

Thanks for the link, Connecticut Yankee. I'm no physician either, but I did have a metallic device roughly the size and shape of a pacemaker implanted for a while. I was given repeated written and oral warnings — very vigorous ones — that while it was implanted, I was not to undergo any CT scans. (I'm not sure if that was for my protection, the machine's, or both.) This strikes me as another reason to be skeptical of the thoroughness of NYT doctor-reporter Altman's report, but mine is strictly a lay skepticism.

What's hillarious to me about this, of course, is that in the most routine fender-bender involving personal injuries, the defendant immediately acquires via subpoena and/or compelled written consent from the plaintiff, the plaintiff's entire medical records. Kerry expects us to accept, on faith, his own doctors' evaluations, or those of obviously unprepared and possibly unqualified "journalist experts," even though he's seeking something far more meaningful than a modest personal injury damages award.

(9) Beldar made the following comment | Oct 3, 2004 8:41:04 PM | Permalink

Tom, the guys on PCF 3 — the boat struck by the mine — actually did have serious concussions. That may have been what confused Brinkley; or it could have been an exaggeration made directly in an interview with Kerry. We'll never know unless and until Kerry authorizes the rest of the world to see what Brinkley's seen.

(10) ncoic6 made the following comment | Oct 4, 2004 7:09:34 AM | Permalink

Another point from the NY Times article:

" Doctors treating the wound in 1969 decided to leave the shrapnel in place."

How can the NYTimes know that? Did they interview those doctors?

The answer lies (if it is at all evident) in the unreleased Kerry records.

(11) jukeboxgrad made the following comment | Oct 4, 2004 11:16:29 AM | Permalink

It's possible that I don't understand some aspect of this, so my apologies in advance if I'm missing something.

Beldar, you said "the metal shrapnel thigh wound from on 20Feb69, and likewise the Purple Heart medal resulting therefrom (that is, Kerry's second Purple Heart), has never been seriously contested by the SwiftVets."

Are you saying that only Rassman, and not SBVT et al, have claimed that Kerry has rice in his butt?

This thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227318/posts) seems to demonstrate that the idea that Kerry has rice in his butt, and only rice (no metal) is a fairly well-accepted right-wing meme. Here's a representative comment from the thread: "Shrapnel infers metal. Kerry has rice in his butt."

I have a funny feeling that thread is not an aberration.

If that's true, what's all the fuss about Altman?

(12) John Van Laer made the following comment | Oct 4, 2004 12:19:16 PM | Permalink

Just one minor exception to MD's comment that letters to the NYT ombudsman rarely produce results. Last week we saw a huge kerfuffle in the blogworld about two articles in the NYT that claimed Kerry had met with "both sides" in the Paris peace talks when in fact he met with both halves of the enemy delegation.

There must have been an avalanche of complaints, because on Wednesday 10-29 they did publish a straightforward correction. If only that were true more often.

(13) antimedia made the following comment | Oct 4, 2004 4:53:59 PM | Permalink

MD says he's confused why anyone would "expect the NY Times to conform to some notion of journalistic integrity, and that letters to its "ombudsman" will change something."

Who says anyone does?

There is a great deal of relevance in reporting these sorts of gross errors not because the Times will correct them but because blog readers need to understand the reality of old media.

I write an entire blog on nothing but old media lies and errors. I don't expect anyone in old media to listen. In fact my blog exists precisely because they didn't listen (to my letters to the editor.) When bloggers discusss old media errors it is for the benefit of their readers. Trying to remove the spots from an old leopard is a useless task.

The comments to this entry are closed.