BBC and Kerry
I have mentioned before the BBC not mentioning the "Swift Boat Vet " allegations, including the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. Because John Kerry brought them up in a speech they do provide a little coverage:
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Vietnam dominates Bush-Kerry fray
US presidential contender John Kerry has accused rival George W Bush of using a front group to launch underhand attacks on his Vietnam war record. ...TV ads - paid for by a Republican supporter in Texas - of Vietnam veterans accusing Mr Kerry of lying and exaggerating about the actions for which he was awarded his medals.
So they don't mention any specifics or provide any links - the only "related links" are to:
Senator John Kerry
Kerry presidential campaign
Lee Roystone website
While the stories are interesting the reason this whole saga is fascinating from a blogger point of view is summed up by Dean's World "The big story is, the universe recently changed when no one was looking. .. Everybody who watches politics is talking about a story the mainstream press is choosing to either completely ignore, or to dismissively sniff at."
As Frederick Turner says at TCS
The "mainstream press" may be in the process of squandering a precious resource that its leaders no longer have the institutional memory to recognize as the source of its legitimacy and its living. In the last few years -- essentially since 9/11 plunged us into a new world, a new agenda, that the press did not understand -- the major organs of civilized journalism, once trusted by the billion most effective people on the planet, have given away their credibility upon a trifle.
Everybody now recognizes that such voices as CNN, the New York Times, the BBC, the Washington Post, the major TV networks, the New Yorker, the Guardian, etcetera, are now the express and all-but-explicit advocates of a very special point of view, one with specific political goals. Those goals are certainly different from those of al-Jazeera or the socialist press, but they are in their own way as coherent, exclusive, and unquestioned.
This collective view emerged as a rather well-intentioned product of an age of wild hope, ill-informed academic speculation, and youthful optimism about the world. Nurtured in the great European and American universities, it was statist, existentialist, anti-religious, suspicious of any science that did not support its views, snobbish, pacifist, anti-technological, hedonistic in practice, puritan in theory, postmodernist in its tastes, committed to a social rather than an individual morality, hostile to the virtue tradition, sentimentally Romanticist in its attitude to Nature (which, in an unconsciously Creationist turn, did not include human beings), relativist about cultural differences, legalistic, optimistic about human nature, and deeply hostile to the marketplace. In one sense it was a nostalgia for the aristocratic European world of our collective rose-tinted memory, when the virtues of artists and intellectuals and university-educated people were recognized automatically, and merchants and financiers were "rightly" despised. In another sense it was a yearning for the dear lost days of revolutionary fervor, moral certainty, "free" sex and callow cynicism about tradition and respectability. It was escapist in its worship of Otherness -- cultural, social, political, economic, ideological, sexual, biological -- and conformist in its anxious attention to the next move of its "coolest" current leadership.