By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
September 15, 2004
Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News, last night observed plaintively that “everything has changed” in the field of journalism “because of the Internet.” The result, he feared is the “redefining” of politics. Everything he says on air, he complained, “is taped by the far left websites” who then try to “trip him up” by quoting what he has said. This unfortunate development is “almost isolating” politicians. His guest, Larry Sabato, agreed that “reporters complain” they can’t get interviews with candidates.
As one of those Internet journalists who refer to what people have REALLY said, rather than simply making it up to fit my views, I admit I had to chuckle at that. I’ve been trying to warn other journalists for almost 10 years that the Internet was going to change politics AND journalism. In fact, I created my website during the 1998 Congressional campaign because I was convinced the time had come when there were enough people accessing the Internet that they should have access to the facts and actual views of candidates, from the candidates' own websites, rather than the mostly inaccurate opinions supplied by a growing band of professional news commentators and political “handlers” thinking up slogans and "selling" politicians like they were dishwashing detergent. That was six years ago.
O’Reilly also complained that the Internet “bloggers” had figured out “within minutes” that the recently released 1972 “documents” supposedly “proving” George W. Bush didn’t serve out his 6 year enlistment in the Texas National Guard were forgeries. It seems they were typed in Microsoft Word, which didn’t exist in 1972. O’Reilly seemed a bit threatened by the speed and the knowledge of those mostly youthful “bloggers.”
Those who get most of their news from the Internet simply are not going to vote on what some forged document says about what Bush was or was not doing in the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam War more than 30 years go. In fact, MOST American voters just are not interested in what was going on 30 years ago in Vietnam.
Let’s take Bill Clinton for example. He was elected in 1992 and re-elected in 1996 – despite the fact that he totally dodged the Vietnam War. In 1968 Bill Clinton was classified as 1-A on March 20. He was ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969. He didn’t show. He then was re-classified as 1-D after enlisting in the Army Reserves on August 7, 1969 and takes the oath of enlistment. He failed to report to his duty station at the University of Arkansas ROTC in September 1969. He was in England. On October 15, 1969 he organized and led an Anti-War demonstration in London. to England – where an induction notice was mailed to him. After that, the record gets murky. On October 30, 1969 Bill Clinton was reclassified by his Draft Board as 1-A. On November 15, 1969 Bill Clinton organized and led another anti-war demonstration in London.
On December 3, 1969 Bill Clinton wrote to Lt. Colonel Holmes, who headed the University of Arkansas ROTC at the time, to explain why he had not shown up as ordered by had gone to England instate. That letter, which was placed in the Congressional Record on July 30, 1993 by Rep. Dornan of Califnornia, states in Clinton’s own words: “When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against.”
So much for duty and honor and for draft-dodging the Vietnam war being of much interest to the voters in 1992 and 1996.
Let’s also take John Kerry for example. He served for 4 months in Vietnam, collected 3 purple hearts, none of which caused him even an hour of bedtime, and requested release from the war theater based on those purple hearts. He returned home in April 1969 and on January 3, 1970, at his own request he was released from active duty, but was in the reserves until released in 1978. It was during those years as a reserve officer that Kerry was a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against War, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that US soldiers had committed war crimes, i.e. they “had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
This is a bit reminiscent of Benedict Arnold’s heroism at the Battle of Saratoga, then deciding to betray his country by turning West Point over to General Howe. It was a small group of teen-agers that discovered and blocked his treachery that would have caused George Washington to lose the Revolution.
However, according to the polls, approximately half the voters are supporting John Kerry for President anyway. But then, a lot of 18th Century Americans supported Benedict Arnold, too.
Does this sound like to you that the American people really care at this point who is and who isn’t a war hero? I personally think probably they SHOULD be more interested than they have been – especially in 1992 when voters turned down a true war hero, George H.W. Bush, who joined the Naval Air Force soon after Pearl Harbor. He was the youngest pilot in the Navy when he received his wings and was shot down over the Pacific by Japanese antiaircraft while on one of the 58 missions he flew in World War. He was rescued from the water by a U. S. submarine and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery in action. Hoping to follow in his father’s heroic footsteps, the young George W. Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard to learn to be a fighter pilot.
While the Vietnam War is still important to baby-boomers, it really isn’t important to others. Today the large baby-boomer generation is fading away as a new generation – an Internet generation – is becoming voter age. The Internet generation just doesn’t believe much of anything people like Bill O’Reilly, Dan Rather, or political handlers tell them. They want to know the facts, not some old guy's opinion. As one young man told me, they are “sick of all the lying garbage” they are deluged with these days, and want to know where they can find the facts.
And, today’s young people increasingly know where to find the facts. It isn't from TV talking heads. They have their own opinions and don’t really care what yours are. Sorry, O’Reilly. You, Dan Rather and lots of other 20th century journalists are simply out-dated and obsolete.
To Comment: Mary Mostert