The Bush War Record Controversy

Conservatives countrywide are congratulating themselves for unearthing yet another case of blatant bias in the ever-liberal media. After a Sept. 8 “60 Minutes” episode featured dubious documents regarding President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard, Republican bloggers and pundits have excoriated CBS News for sloppy journalism. And, predictably, the media attention afforded to this presidential race got even more issue-light as controversy swirled around the documents’ authenticity.

While first vehemently defending the documents, last week the network’s brass—including Dan Rather himself—issued statements admitting that the documents were of questionable authenticity, if not questionable content. Apparently, the memos included evidence that Bush’s commander was pressured to “sugar coat” the president’s profile and cited other blemishes on Bush’s record; however, after obtaining the opinion of numerous experts, it appears that the memos were most likely written on a typeface not available on the antiquated typewriters of the 1970s—suggesting scandal. Yet, according to an Associated Press article, “[t]he news division continued to insist that the general thrust of the documents was accurate: that a commander felt Mr. Bush had been shirking his duties and receiving preferential treatment because of his connections.” Now there’s a surprise.

This past February, after the public received the good news that the commander-in-chief had spent a valorous 82 days in the National Guard—courtesy of dusty microfiche files released by the White House—there was immediate controversy. It seemed Bush was paid for those nearly three months of service, yet his actual attendance was highly debated.

What these new documents, authentic or not, bring to light is really inconsequential. The gist of Bush’s record is quite clear. Rather than devote any more time to this overwrought scrutiny of war records—of both Bush and Kerry—it’s time for the media and the public to focus on a record that is really important; that is, their respective records as public servants. But instead of focusing on substantive debate on the candidates’ political records, it seems that the media cannot ignore the lure of sensation. The major news networks’ excessive concentration on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s crusade to mar Kerry’s courageous Vietnam record this summer and their continued focus on these suspect documents now demonstrate a frustrating disregard for solid coverage of real issues.

Of course, a media network as powerful and pervasive as CBS ought to be held accountable for its reporting, ensuring that any information it receives—and broadcasts—is authentic. But a presidential election that could radically change the course of the country is looming. Without more media coverage of topics that really matter—issues more vital than whether Bush skipped out of service or if Kerry’s war medals were merited—America’s voting public will be left uniformed and unprepared come November.