MSM’s Investigative Filter: Borja & Kerry

While catching up on the Cesar Borja story, I was struck by one sentence in the New York Times’ account of how it unraveled the differences between some key facts versus what the family, politicians and the press presented.

Mrs. Borja and her son said that The New York Times was the first newspaper to ask them for documents showing Officer Borja’s actual duties at ground zero.

(I’m not concerned here with the details of the Borja case. For those who want further details, please see the NYT’s article linked above, or the summary at USA Today’s blog On Deadline, and the Editor & Publisher recount of the N.Y. Daily News appeal to truthiness.)

What struck me about what the New York Times did in this case is that it did what we expect quality journalism to do: investigate important topical stories. This highlights a substantially more important story about which mainstream journalism not only dropped the ball, but with knowing irresponsibility: John Kerry’s military service.

Investigation is a key role of journalism, which journalists themselves recognize as a core function and fundamental to their relative competitive value, credibility and future. When it is performed well -- completely and without prejudice to whose ox is gored – media investigations contribute mightily to keeping our politicians more honest, to the integrity of our public discourse and to sounder policies.

It is not investigation, but another matter – of driving public opinion and policy -- when media bestow unto themselves the right to expose national security secrets or publish one-sided stories based on anonymous sources. This is usually fairly transparent, and undermines the relative competitive value, credibility and future of mainstream journalism.

A related matter – abjectly failing to investigate a major, contentious issue, particularly when there is considerable credible evidence to merit further investigation – also undermines the relative competitive value, credibility and future of mainstream journalism.

At this point, although he will run for re-election as senator from Massachusetts, still a position of power, John Kerry’s aspirations and larger impact on the nation’s future are over. But, the impact continues in much public argument about his self-description as a war hero and its demolishment by the sworn statements of almost all of those who served in the same unit and experienced the details.

Based on my extensive files of news articles, columns and blog posts from during the 2004 campaign (most of which are likely off-line by now anyway so I won't frustrate you with links that don't work), simply summed up, the major media failed to publicly or energetically demand that John Kerry present his full military records and his diary, in order to let the public better know the truth. Instead, most of the major media just denigrated the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, without any independent investigation of their well-documented challenges to Kerry’s self-descriptions. Even after the 2004 election, in June 2005, when Kerry released some form of his military records to just three friendly mainstream organs, they refused to make them public to see what details were within or determine whether complete. The major media did not, either, pursue release of Kerry’s diary from Vietnam.

The New York Times is to be commended for asking to see the documents related to the Borja story, and sharing the details with the public. Would that it and its brethren had done similar in 2004-5, or will in the future. The mainstream media has a lot of catch up to do to re-establish its core value and credibility in order to have a brighter future than portended by its present course of declining attention from readers and watchers.