12
Oct
Stolen Honor: the Moon Connection
The Sinclair Broadcasting Group — that wonderfully fair and balanced media firm that made news in April for refusing to run a Nightline program in which Ted Koppel read the names of American soldiers killed in Iraq — is up to its old political tricks again. This time the controversy centers on what WILL appear on as many as 62 television stations owned or managed by Sinclair: a suspect documentary highly critical of John Kerry’s antiwar activities thirty years ago.
The film, “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal” is produced by Carlton Sherwood, a former reporter for the Washington Times, which of course is subsidized and controlled by the controversial Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his followers in the Unification Church.
Sherwood bills himself as a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist. According to its website, his film “investigates how John Kerry’s actions during the Vietnam era impacted the treatment of American soldiers and POWs. Using John Kerry’s own words, the documentary juxtaposes John Kerry’s actions with the words of veterans who were still in Vietnam when John Kerry was leading the anti-war movement.” And its publicity claims that Stolen Honor features devastating testimony by former POWs of the demoralizing impact of John Kerry’s war-crimes accusations had on them more than 30 years ago. As Sherwood said in a March 12 story on (where else?) Fox News, “He knew as an officer that those were lies. It never happened. He was principally responsible for cementing the image of Vietnam veterans as drugged-out psychopaths who were totally unrestrained and who were a murderous hoard.”
But what sort of investigations does Sherwood actually undertake? He won his Pulitzer for investigative reporting of a Catholic scandal involving the Pauline Fathers of Doylestown, Pennsylvania — but he also is well known for his subsequent spurious investigation of Moon’s Unification Church. Sherwood maintains that when he began, he was hoping to uncover dirt about Moon, but ended up concluding that the Rev and his followers “were and continued to be the victims of the worst kind of religious prejudice and racial bigotry this country has witnessed in over a century.”
A closer look at Sherwood’s “investigation” of the Moon organization, however, sheds considerable light on the Sherwood style of investigation — and thus on the credibility of the allegations contained in “Stolen Honor.” As revealed in my film “The Resurrection of Reverend Moon” which was broadcast in 1992 on the PBS documentary series Frontline, a Unification Church aide to Moon says he reviewed and changed Sherwood’s book before publication. As the aide noted in a letter I obtained, this was done in order to help the Unificationists best “silence critics.” Here’s an excerpt from the film transcript:
Narrator: “Is the New Birth Project continuing? In June 1991, Inquisition, a new, purportedly independent investigation of Moon’s 1982 tax fraud prosecution, was released by a Washington publisher, Regnery-Gateway. Its author, Carlton Sherwood, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter who once worked for the Washington Times.
Inquisition has a curious history. It was printed once before, by an obscure publishing house called Andromeda. The phone number listed for Andromeda in a leading publishing directory is the home phone of former Reagan National Security
Council official Roger Fontaine — also an ex-reporter at the Washington Times. When we called, Fontaine’s wife Judy answered and said she knew nothing about Andromeda.
Then she told us that the company was bankrupt and that Inquisition was published by Regnery-Gateway. Alfred Regnery is the head of Regnery-Gateway. “
Regnery: “It is not unlike a lot of other books we have published. It is a story that deals with the First Amendment, which is something that is very dear to publishers, of course.”
Narrator: “Alfred Regnery was told by Carlton Sherwood that the Moon Organization would purchase one hundred thousand copies of Inquisition — at least according to former Washington Times editor James Whelan, another Regnery-Gateway author. But Alfred Regnery denies it.”
Regnery: “I never said that to Jim, and I’ve never had any conversation with what’s his name-Bo?”
Narrator: “Bo Hi Pak.”
Regnery: “I’m not even sure who he is.”
Narrator: “One week after talking to Regnery, FRONTLINE obtained a copy of a letter addressed to Sun Myung Moon. The letter was written by James Gavin, a Moon aide.
Gavin tells Moon he reviewed the ‘overall tone and factual contents’ of Inquisition before publication and suggested revisions. Gavin adds that the author ‘Mr. Sherwood has assured me that all this will be done when the manuscript is sent to the publisher.’ Gavin concludes by telling Moon, ‘When all of our suggestions have been incorporated, the book will be complete and in my opinion will make a significant impact… In addition to silencing our critics now, the book should be invaluable in persuading others of our legitimacy for many years to come.’ Although he refused an on-camera interview, Carlton Sherwood told Frontline that the Unification Movement exerted no editorial control over his book. When we visited Gavin’s office in McLean, Virginia, our request for an interview was refused.”
And here’s how ‘Stolen Honor’ portrays Senator Kerry’s antiwar activism, according to its transcript:
“In other wars, captured Americans subjected to the hell of an enemy prison were considered heroes. In other wars, they were not abandoned. In Vietnam, they were betrayed. Little did the American prisoners of war imagine that half a world away events were conspiring to make their precarious situation even more desperate. That an American Naval lieutenant after a four-month tour of duty in Vietnam was meeting secretly in an undisclosed location in Paris with a top enemy diplomat. That this same lieutenant would later join forces with Jane Fonda to form an antiwar group of so-called Vietnam veterans, some of whom would be later discovered as frauds who never set foot on a battlefield. All this culminating in John Kerry’s Senate testimony that would be blared over loud speakers to convince our prisoners that back home they were being accused and abandoned. Enemy propagandists had found a new and willing accomplice.”
Mark Hyman, Sinclair’s vice-president for corporate relations (who doubles as a conservative news commentator on its stations) said the company would broadcast Stolen Honor because it is newsworthy. And as news, the documentary — which will be run commercial-free — may be exempt from federal regulations requiring equal time for Senator Kerry’s campaign to respond. Instead, the Kerry camp is calling on supporters to boycott Sinclair advertisers and demonstrate against its stations, while a group of Democratic senators -including Kerry’s mentor, Senator Edward Kennedy — are asking the Federal Elections Commission to investigate, charging that the doc is not news but really a political advertisement favoring Kerry’s opponent, President Bush.
Sherwood’s allegations in Stolen Honor echo those of the anti-Kerry veterans group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and two of the former prisoners who appeared in that group’s veracity-challenged television ads — including one who was a Bush campaign volunteer — were interviewed in Sherwood’s film.
Why do so many in the US media continue to treat Moon’s Washington Times as a mainstream national newspaper? Why are its columnists continually given national exposure while their boss is laughed off the airwaves?
Moon and Fox
October 12th, 2004 at 11:41 amMoon and McLaughlin
Moon and Bush
It’s interesting that the attacks on Dan Rather concerning the ANG “documents” addressed the substance of the information being presented, with peripheral assertions concerning Rather’s motives, while the attacks on Sinclair (and the SwiftVets) appear to focus on the messengers, but completely ignore the substance of the message. If the function of the media is to examine the message for veracity, why is there no inquiry into the claims being made?
October 12th, 2004 at 3:37 pmTom, it seems to me that many of the attacks on CBS News did in fact center on Dan Rather’s motives, (see ratherbiased,com, etc.) rather than the substance of his report — which after all did seem to buttress the information in the dubious documents. Remember Killian’s secretary saying that the documents didn’t seem to be real — but that the sentiments expressed in them did?
Also, the Swift Vets ‘message’ seems to have been pretty much debunked by most objective analysts, such as campaigndesk.org, factcheck.org, and the like.
So I guess I just don’t agree with your basic premise — but go ahead and show me I’m wrong with some facts!
October 12th, 2004 at 4:22 pmSinclair is being pressured. Pure and simply. The Republicans will do anything if they can get away with it. It’s there game. Maybe Sinclair can play this commercial to sort of even it out.
http://www.davidmajka.com/kerry-commercial
October 12th, 2004 at 7:27 pmThere’s a “flash boycott” of major Sinclair partners being organized at
http://newsgobbler.typepad.com/boycott_networks/
October 12th, 2004 at 8:48 pmWith regard to Sherwood’s book “Inquisition”, which was vetted by Moon aide James Gavin, I can say that I met James Gavin while I was myself a member of the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon. Though I did not know Gavin well, he was one of the students of the Unification Theological Seminary in Barrytown, New York, who began their education at Moon’s seminary in 1980, the same year I left UTS to work with Moon’s church in Los Angeles. It is safe to say, then, that Gavin’s viewpoint would be that of a true believer in Moon; he would refuse to believe that there could be anything wrong with anything Moon has ever done, and he would assume, a priori of any evidence, that any negative publicity about Moon proceeds from malice and selfishness and does not have basis in fact. It is safe to say, then, that Gavin would have purged Sherwood’s book of even the slightest indication that Moon might be guilty of any wrongdoing.
October 13th, 2004 at 7:56 pmAs a member of the Unification Church I find it interesting how people use Rev. Moon and his connection to something only when it is to discredit or confuse. He is such a wonderful person who is doing so much good in the world.
October 14th, 2004 at 2:24 pmSinclair is Using Force
Sinclair is using the “law of the jungle” to broadcast anti-Kerry propaganda, that is, they have the physical capacity to do it, so they are going to do it. Sinclair knows the FCC, the entity that is supposed to protect the public interest, will do nothing in response.
This situation is dangerous to civil society. This situation encourages the law of the jungle; if Sinclair is going to use it’s brute power and affect a done-deal, and the FCC is not going to intevene on behalf of the public, the public will be encouraged to respond according to rules of brute force itself, ie, the law of the jungle.
October 15th, 2004 at 1:06 pmRory,
The premise is not that the underlying theory is or is not credible, but that the basis for the claims has not been analyzed. While we don’t know all of the facts concerning the Swift Vets claims, those facts are available through release of Kerry’s records (which even the DNC confirms has not been allowed due to his refusal to execute the proper forms). Once all of the facts become available, an intelligent decision can be made.
On the other hand, the Bush campaign claims to have released all military documents, and has provided an argument in support of the position that Bush had fulfilled his commitment, and was no longer required to perform any further flight duty (which would explain the failure to undergo further flight physicals.)
In opposition to the Bush documents, CBS has offered admittedly falsified documents to support a theory. Until you get past the authenticity of the documents, why should they be used as a portal to the underlying argument?
In court proceedings, a party is required to lay an adequate foundation for testimony before the testimony may be considered. In this case, the lack of foundation due to admittedly falsified documents should preclude consideration of the arguments contained in those documents. It is the failure of CBS to even consider this requirement that causes great concern. If not for this court rule (and journalistic standard)the hearsay rule would go “out the window”; in terms of journalism, we would all be reduced to the standards of the Weekly World News.” Is it your position that, had CBS investigated the documents and found them to be fraudulent, CBS was free to explore the underlying argument without revealing the questionable nature of the source?
As to the SwiftVets being “debunked” by the information described in factcheck.org and others, many of the “facts” are questionable, as they are derived from documents that may or may not have been created by Kerry (e.g., the after action reports), but were then relied upon by officers further up the chain of command to make decisions about awards. Until the remainder of the verified records from the Dept. of Defense are released, no one, including the Swift Vets, can testify with any certainty as to the validity of the awards.
On the other hand, Sinclair’s piece seems to be supported by two things that have been established: Kerry’s own conduct, in his testimony before Congress and actions in meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong representatives in Paris, as well as the effect of his actions on various individuals who were being held prisoner in Hanoi at that same time.
And that truly is the bottom line. The attacks on Sinclair are just about the messenger, whereas there is no challenge to the authenticity (but not necessarily the accuracy) of the information to be presented. Based on the above analysis, Sinclair should get his argument to the jury, and CBS shoud not.
I realize that, since this argument was first blogged, the FCC has determined that Sinclair should be allowed to go forward. But the argument should still be considered. After all, many of the positions presented by Michael Moore as “facts” have been so derided that he is now forced to admit his movie is an opinion piece, rather than an editorial. If we fail to make the inquiry, we will all be the worse off for it.
October 17th, 2004 at 3:56 pmI am unimpressed by your argument, silly as it may have been.
October 17th, 2004 at 4:40 pmJust what is “silly” about the argument, ‘galld’ - or are you merely proving my point by attacking me as being “silly” since you are unable (or unwilling) to discuss the substance?
Curious.
October 18th, 2004 at 10:24 amI usually find the posting of discredited right wing drivel to be humorous but your writing style lacks any and all wit, charm and brevity. Hence, we have to rely on your missive for facts, of which there are none. My use of the word “silly” was meant to be complimentary.
Have you cleaned your sheets as of late?
October 18th, 2004 at 12:33 pmNow, now — let’s be civil :>)
We wouldn’t want to give proof to John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, would we?
October 18th, 2004 at 3:18 pmAfter viewing the link referred to by Peacemaker I now understand my error - I believed I was engaging in an intelligent discussion with Rory O’Connor, not the guys from South Park. By the way, just because we have anonymity, and the postings are disagreeable to you, does not presume my statements are from the right wing. Unless, thai is, you’re talking about the “right wing” of the IQ scale, with which you may not be quite as familiar.
October 18th, 2004 at 3:31 pmDoh! Good one, Tom. But seriously –getting back to “intelligent discussion”– you make some interesting points… nothing that should be so easily derailed by galld’s quips.
I’m not sure however I completely understand your distinction between authenticity and accuracy when applied to Stolen Honor. Do you really think “attacks on Sinclair are just about the messenger”?
Overall I applaud your call for inquiry — after all, how many of us spattering our opinions across the blogosphere have seen the film? And despite analyses like this one are there not many among the left that would look the other way from a hypothetical (try fantasy world) mandated broadcast of F911, which as you point out contains its own distortions?
October 18th, 2004 at 4:00 pmAnd everyone should pay strict attention to the alien abduction stories.
The Swiftboatvets are a bunch of lame Nixon hacks who’ve been hanging around for thirty years waiting for something to do.
Read the book, written by a Nixon droid and a raving anti-Catholic. People with as little credibility as that should be mocked and ignored since they are living in a universe not known to the rational.
I try my best.
October 18th, 2004 at 5:13 pm