About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

News reports failed to mention Stolen Honor filmmaker's "defamatory" right-wing activism

October 06, 2005 5:31 pm ET
image

6 Comments

In reporting that filmmaker Carlton Sherwood has filed a defamation lawsuit against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), alleging that Kerry directed people to call Sherwood an "extreme right-wing activist," the Associated Press, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Philadelphia Daily News all described Sherwood as a journalist and a veteran. But all three curiously omitted any mention of Sherwood's career as a right-wing activist -- seemingly an important detail, given that the crux of Sherwood's lawsuit is his claim that referring to him as an "extreme right-wing activist" is defamatory.

Sherwood is the producer of the discredited film Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, an attack on Kerry unleashed shortly before the 2004 presidential election that was widely criticized as an inaccurate partisan hit. The Boston Globe said it "indubitably qualifies as a slur against John Kerry" and described it as "an anti-Kerry attack ad masquerading as a documentary." Sinclair Broadcast Group, the largest owner/operator of TV stations in the United States, had announced its intention to air Stolen Honor on its stations a few weeks before the election; after organizations and individuals, including Media Matters for America, raised concerns and launched actions including an advertiser boycott and shareholder litigation, Sinclair backed down and instead aired a program that showed only a few minutes of the film. The weekend before the November 2004 election, the conservative website NewsMax.com purchased airtime on TV stations across the country to show Stolen Honor.

From an October 6 Philadelphia Inquirer article:

Journalist Carlton Sherwood of Harrisburg claims in a federal suit that Sen. John Kerry stole his honor.

The Democratic presidential nominee defamed him while attacking his anti-Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal during last year's campaign, Sherwood argues in the suit, filed this week in Philadelphia.

[...]

Sherwood's suit claims that Kerry directed the Democratic National Committee to falsely label the film's financiers and producers "extreme right-wing activists" just before it was to run.

The suit also names as a defendant Kerry's Pennsylvania campaign manager, Anthony T. Podesta. In "a widely circulated e-mail," Podesta called Sherwood a "disgraced former journalist" who had "crawled out of the gutter," and a "Bush hack," according to the suit.

The Inquirer article, like articles in the Philadelphia Daily News and by the Associated Press, referred to Sherwood simply as a "journalist" and a Vietnam veteran, but omitted any mention of his history of working for conservative causes -- information that, given the allegations in his lawsuit, would seem far more relevant than his status as a Marine veteran.

As Media Matters detailed in 2004, Sherwood is a confidant of former Bush administration Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge; was chosen to "create and manage" a "key Bush Administration public outreach program"; was an official in the Reagan administration; worked for the conservative Washington Times; and wrote a book, published by the conservative Regnery Publishing, defending Washington Times owner Rev. Sun Myung Moon -- a book described by a Moon aide as an effort at "silencing our critics now."

The articles likewise ignored the controversial nature of Sherwood's co-plaintiff, the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF). The AP described the group solely as "a combat veterans group"; the Inquirer simply referred to the group as "Sherwood's co-plaintiff." But despite the impression created by the AP and Inquirer, VVLF is more than just a "combat veterans group"; according to a January 21 NewsMax.com article, it is a "legal defense fund" founded by Sherwood. VVLF is led by partisan anti-Kerry and pro-Republican activists. Among them:

Finally, the Inquirer referenced long-discredited smears against Kerry by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (which merged with a group of Vietnam veterans who supported Stolen Honor to become Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) without noting that the attack it cited is false:

Leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that accused Kerry of lying about his service to get medals, have circulated an e-mail soliciting money to support Sherwood's co-plaintiff, the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation.

No credible evidence that Kerry "lied about his service to get medals" was ever produced. Kerry's military records contradict Swift Boat Veterans' claims about him.
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by fantagor (October 06, 2005 5:52 pm ET)
         

      So it must be the word "extreme" that set him off. Instead Kerry should have said "bloviating". More accurate, and the absolute truth.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (October 06, 2005 8:52 pm ET)
         

      this lawsuit has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. more whiny right wingers. like the people who won't supposedly come on o'reilly's show. o'reilly: "but i'd love to have you on the show". gop pundit: "sniffle. and i'd love to be there. but those meanies at mmfa will print the transcript of what i say and point out where i'm wrong. sob." o'reilly: "heartless bastards."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pamela leavey (October 07, 2005 12:14 pm ET)
         

      "The group fronting for Carlton Sherwood in the filing of this lawsuit is the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, who weren’t even in existence during the 2004 campaign. Their website states they were launched on “05/05/2005.”"

      [link to blog.thedemocraticdaily.com]

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bingo (October 07, 2005 4:25 pm ET)
           

        You are, of course, aware that VVLF was not a party to this dispute until they were sued by both Campbell and Bjornson on August 25th? Are you suggesting that the VVLF's filing of this suit is unrelated to those filings? Come now...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by waves (October 07, 2005 1:18 pm ET)
         

      I voted for John Kerry I have always considered him a Vietnam War Hero but after going to Project Vote Smart I now have to reconsider.

      If vote smart is correct on his voting record he is just another smoke and mirrors Senator

      Vietnam Veterans of America Year: 2003-2004 Issue: Veterans Issues Website: [link to www.vva.org] Vietnam Veterans of America Congressionally chartered, nationwide veterans service organization working for the employment, education and health of Vietnam veterans." The following ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the organization in that year. MA U.S. Senate Jr John Forbes Kerry Democrat 0%

      Year: 2003 Issue: Military Issues Website: [link to www.ncoausa.org] Non Commissioned Officers Association Our membership consists of enlisted service members - active duty, veterans and retirees - from all five branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, including the National Guard and Reserve."

      MA U.S. Senate Jr John Forbes Kerry Democrat 0%

      Year: 2003-2004 Issue: Civil Rights Website: [link to www.lulac.org] National Hispanic Leadership The National Hispanic Leadership Agenda identifies and analyzes public policy on Hispanic issues, "prepares and disseminates consensus-based policy agenda that specifies the nature and scope of Hispanic concerns and needs throughout the country" and "promotes greater awareness of and attention to Hispanic concerns among the general public."

      MA U.S. Senate Jr John Forbes Kerry Democrat 100%

      That is just a small sampling of his voting Record check out Vote-Smart.org for your representative's

      In my humble opinion it is time to Peacefully clean house

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotherjoe (October 07, 2005 2:35 pm ET)
           

        What the hell is your point? There are quite literally hundreds of special interests groups, many of which overlap in their concerns without overlapping their political ideals. Just because a group *says* it does this or that, doesn't mean that their specific interests or goals match a politician's own personal views. Just because a couple of veterans' groups scored Kerry a 0, doesn't mean their lack of endorsements was more important. Kerry has been a greater supporter of veterans than many members of Congress (including former Representative, and now, Vice-President, Dick Cheney), even if *some* veterans' groups don't appreciate him.

        Unless you know the EXACT issues that a specific special interest group used as its criteria for the "grading", you can't just issue a blanket dismissal of a candidate's positions. That is one of the serious flaws of Vote-Smart; the site doesn't provide the actual votes by which the interest groups are using to grade. I'd also note that some issues a group considers "important" may have absolutely no connection with the group's actual purpose. (Just as a hypothetical, if the VVA supported an amendment banning flag-burning, that doesn't really coincide with what the group says is its mission. It doesn't mean, however, the group isn't avid in its support for such. If that were the only VVA "issue" on which Kerry voted, and his vote didn't match the group's preferred choice, then that would be enough for a zero. But, it doesn't make Kerry a poorer candidate overall.)

        Another point is that you can't always go by just a single year's voting. That one group, the Non Commisioned Officers Association, actually rated John Kerry a "100" the two previous years (so, in an overall percentage reading, that would average out to a 67% rate; the actual percentage could be much different depending on how many specific votes were counted in each of the three years--10/10 the first year, 18/18 the second year, and 0/5 the third year would be 28/33, or roughly 84%, while 5/5 the first year, 7/7 the second year, and 0/12 the third year would be 12/24 or a mere 50%).

        Report Abuse