Apparently, corporate media does not want the Tim Walz stolen valor question to go away just yet.
But, according to CNN's Brianna Keilar, Vance "may be an imperfect messenger" on the issue.
"Because we have, as you introduced him, as a combat correspondent, which is what [Vance's] title was," Keilar told her CNN colleague Dana Bash Thursday. "But when you dig a little deeper into that, he was a public affairs specialist, someone who did not see combat, which certainly the title ‘combat correspondent,' kind of gives you a different impression. So he may be the imperfect messenger on that."
However, Keilar is herself being disingenuous here.
JD Vance enlisted in the Marine Corps with the Military Occupational Specialty 4341
Vance enlisted in the Corps as a combat correspondent, or 4341 military occupational specialty, according to his service record, which was provided to military.com by the service on Monday. He served for four years, from 2003 to 2007.
The duties assigned to that MOS are as follows:
Combat correspondents gather news and feature information for use in command newspapers, magazines, and websites, on AFN radio and television, and for internal and external release; respond to queries from the civilian media; perform media liaison functions during operations/exercises; conduct community relations programs; produce print and photographic materials; and edit/produce command newspapers and/or magazines and assist in the management and production of Marine Corps websites.
JD Vance’ own response to this is direct and on point
Vance told reporters Wednesday, "I served in a combat zone. I never said that I saw a firefight myself, but I've always told the truth about my Marine Corps service. That's the difference."
But Keilar also allows the question to turn back onto Walz’ misrepresentations of his own National Guard service—specifically Walz’ own intimations that he did see combat when he did not.
Is CNN milking the Tim Walz story for another round of the news cycle or two? Yes. Are they doing it for ratings? Almost certainly.
Is it keeping a damaging and distnctly anti-Kamala Harris narrative alive? Ultimately, yes. Whether that is the intent or merely coincidental collateral damage we are left to speculate on our own.
