I saw this over at RNS the other day. Now, the MRC is a rabidly partisan outfit, but I thought it was interesting. Is the media going after Bush more than Clinton on this Vietnam issue? Should have gone after each the same?

For that last question, I tend to think no. Bush appears to have skipped out on time in the Guard, disobeying orders. I think that’s bigger than avoiding the draft, especially for a war he didn’t support. Neither did anything illegal, it appears (neither were arrested), though. And on both issues, the public didn’t really care.

Also, Bush’s Guard service was mostly ignored in 2000. I’d say this time period is more comparable to Clinton in 1992, with neither being incumbents. Of course, this means comparing Clinton in 1996 with Bush in 2004, which leaves coverage of Bush ahead. But then, no new information was discovered in 1996, and there were no documents Clinton was withholding that could have cleared his name.

Back to the MRC report. Does the coverage of Bush’s Vietnam-era service outweigh Clinton’s (or Clinton’s lack of)? A quick scan of reports from the nightly news broadcasts of NBC, CBS, and ABC, looks like this:

Bush-National Guard:

7 CBS
5 ABC
7 NBC

Clinton’s draft avoidance:

4 ABC
4 CBS
- NBC

LexisNexis doesn’t have NBC Nightly News transcripts before 1996. Giving MRC the benefit of the doubt, they appear to be correct on the number of Clinton stories (they say 10), but over on Bush stories (they say 25). MRC touts this as just two months versus one year, but that’s misleading, seeing as all but one of the Clinton stories I found come from April or earlier. I’d say their point still stands. So is this the “liberal media” going after Bush for something they gave Clinton a pass for? Caveats listed above aside, I’m not really sure. Let’s look at some newspaper coverage (time periods are all roughly the same):

NY Times:

Bush: 13 stories
Clinton: 13 stories

Washington Post:

Clinton: 12 stories
Bush: 16 stories

Note: These are pretty quick perusals and aren’t indicative of type of coverage. They include editorials.

So, pretty close. Those are estimates, and quick ones at that. But the point remains the same. It’s not that clear there was much more coverage, and it’s pretty easy to explain if there was. No “liberal media” allegations needed. And then there’s the fundamental problem with this whole thing: amount of coverage doesn’t really say much. The type of coverage isn’t explored, and that’s what’s important. Another thing about the report: off to the side there’s a picture with 3 quotes. These quotes look pretty obviously true to me. It’s sheer partisan blindness to think Bush military records solve anything. All in all, the MRC seeks to attack the media as left-wing Bush haters, but they present a simplified, maybe exaggerated, account to do it.