Conservative media boosts Stolen Honor

The New York Times, a right-wing propaganda rag, gave a somewhat positive review to Stolen Honor. A sample:

“Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,” the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.

Watch Stolen Honor

That fishwrapper broadsheet is a Republican mouthpiece!

One comment

  1. Chet

    Kinda taking it out of context, aren’t you? Here’s the thrust of the review:
    This histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film does not do much more damage to Senator John Kerry’s reputation than have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s negative ads, which have flooded television markets in almost every swing state…
    The imagery is crude, but powerful: each mention of Mr. Kerry’s early 1970’s meeting with North Vietnamese government officials in Paris is illustrated with an old black-and-white still shot of the Arc de Triomphe, an image that to many viewers evokes the Nazi occupation of Paris. The Eiffel Tower would have been more neutral, but the film is not: it insists that Mr. Kerry “met secretly in an undisclosed location with a top enemy diplomat.” Actually, Mr. Kerry, a leading antiwar activist at the time, mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971…
    Instead, the film shows lesser-known young, long-haired antiwar activists preparing witnesses to testify to war crimes. In the film these men seem to be prompting a fellow veteran to describe a massacre he did not witness. But one of the veterans, Kenneth J. Campbell, a decorated marine who is now a professor at the University of Delaware, recently sued the filmmakers, claiming the film was edited to take out clips in which Mr. Campbell made clear that only soldiers who witnessed the atrocities firsthand would be allowed to testify.
    Those kinds of distortions are intended to hurt Mr. Kerry at the polls. Instead, they mainly distract viewers from the real subject of the film: the veterans’ unheeded feelings of betrayal and neglect.
    I don’t really see what part of that you could consider “almost positive”, without heavy emphasis on the “almost.”