Powerline notes a correction in the New York Times. The Times had said that Kerry had met with both sides in Paris during the Vietnam War when he actually he only met with the North Vietnamese. Read the examples - they'll make your blood boil. Here is Hindrocket's perceptive conclusion.

Notice that when the Times mentions the Swift Boat Vets, it usually makes a point of saying that their claims are "unsubstantiated." In the three instances cited above, the Times used the claim that Kerry had met with "both sides" in Paris to imply that the Vets' ad was false or unfair.

Only it wasn't. What the Vets said was true. Kerry didn't meet with "both sides," as the Times has now admitted; he met with both of the two Communist delegations. The Times misinformed its readers in order to defuse the impact of the Vets' ad and to promote Kerry's candidacy.

Why, exactly, does the Times (along with virtually every other mainstream media source) persist in repeating the mantra that the Vets' ads are "unsubstantiated"? What is "unsubstantiated" about footage of Kerry testifying before a Senate committee? What is "unsubstantiated" about the meetings with Communists in Paris, about which Kerry boasted in 1971? What is "unsubstantiated" about the ad in which Stephen Gardner says that Kerry's boat was never in Cambodia?

Given today's correction, do you suppose the Times will start referring to Kerry's responses to the Swift Boat Vets' ads as "unsubstantiated"?