NYTimes article: Tell the Times what you think of this hit piece on Kerry

Reaction to the NYTimes hit piece on Senator Kerry that attacks him personally for 'dividing the Democrats' and being 'unpopular' in general.

Read these: http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/06/post_137.html#002874

These criticisms are dead right. The Times refuses to name who is calling Kerry by these demeaning terms and exactly who is saying that he is undermining Dem efforts to move forward in the '06 elections.

Write to the Times at: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html

And let them know how you feel about this kind of drive-by shoddy journalism.

Thanks! I think this is an important issue and the Times should be held accountable for their double-standard on how they report on Republicans versus how they report on Democrats.

Thanks!

This is what Salon had to say about the two amendments and what the American people really want: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/06/20/iraq/index.html?source=newsletter

On Iraq, Kerry Again Leaves NY Times Fuming?

John Kerry has it right. The U.S. public is angry about the lies the administration has been feeding us for over three years now to justify their activities in Iraq.

When given the opportunity to help enlighten us as to the very real differences between Democrats and Republicans in this matter, why is the New York Times instead choosing to highlight disagreements among Democrats?

Why not talk instead about how Democrats all agree that there can be no permanent U.S. occupation? And how the administration refuses to say the same?

Republicans: permanent occupation of Iraq
Democrats: NO permanent occupation.

Sounds like a big difference to me. John Kerry has it right, no matter how loathe the Times is to admit that possibility.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1474980&mesg_id=1474980


I'm on the road now. Will do more when I'm back.

To the Editors,

Whatever personal vendetta or dislike the Times may have against John Kerry, it must stop infiltrating your reporting.
Ms. Zernike's piece is as full of venom as it is devoid of facts.
The senator, for instance, never supported the war itself, but a resolution that authorized the President to use force in Iraq when all other otions were exhausted.

Since then -in light of the President's failure to use those other options, and in light of the reasons for the Iraq invasion becoming ever more muddled and non-existent- Senator Kerry has repeatedly criticized the administration and has been consistent in his view that the war itself is wrong.

This is just one egregious example of Ms. Zernike's twisting the facts into an unrecognizable shape.

Her aim was clearly twofold;
First to portray John Kerry in a less than positive light; to have him appear politically calculating, a thorn in his fellow Democratic senators' side, and an object of ridicule by said senators (see the poorly sourced statement of Sen. Dodd 'winking behind Kerry's back').

Second to perpetuate the Republican talking points and the myth that the Democrats are deeply divided over the Iraq issue. This is not the case at all, and Ms. Zernike, I suspect, knows this.
The divisions are minor and over semantics, and the overall consensus of the Democratic senators agrees with the majority of the American people; The war is a mistake, and we need to get our troops home.

As a final note, I point Ms. Zernike and the Times to a piece of reporting on this same issue that can be used as an example of how it should be done;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Ms. Sidoti, an AP writer, tells the same story as does Ms. Zernike, but oh the difference! Her reporting is honest, fair, unbiased, and informational. In short, the kind of reporting that is slowly becoming extinct in favor of sensationalistic, unfactual, agenda-based drivel.

Regards,
Kerstin Levenson

To the Editor,

I am writing concerning the article that appears in your paper titled, “On Iraq, Kerry again leaves Democrats Fuming” appearing today, June 21, and written by Kate Zernike.

Pardon me, but on what level does this absolutely nasty smear piece, directed squarely at Senator John Kerry, reach any level of journalism? It contains, unnamed Democratic sources willingly using Republican personal and political talking points to demean and mischaracterize a good man and an honorable public servant. Senator Kerry is the man who should be President. To suggest, that Democrats would have run such a man as this article portrays is not only insulting to the Senator, but also insults the integrity of the Democrat Party. Ms. Zernike seems to suggest that differing opinions are not welcome in our party when in fact we are the party of ideas- especially when it comes to a new direction on the Iraqi war and the War on Terror. Debate and consensus is what sets the Democrat Party apart from the tow the line Republican Party.
I perceive this piece on all levels to be an attack against Senator Kerry’s principled stand against the current administrations Iraqi War policy and Senator Kerry’s and Senator Feingold’s amendment, which is, in my opinion, a well though out position that deserves to be heard and debated. A majority of Americans are calling for fresh ideas on controlling and conducting these two conflicts-the Iraq War and the War on Terror. A majority of Americans want to see our soldiers come home. And many Americans are concerned about how being bogged down and preoccupied in Iraq encourages Iran and North Korea to conduct their business while we are too busy to notice.

The New York Times should be ashamed of itself for allowing this sorry “hit piece” to pass as anything remotely resembling a fair and balanced piece of journalism.