Unfortunately, it is "safe to say" - all too safe, apparently - that press reports say something they manifestly do not say. The only people who care about what the reports actually say, instead of what they would say if only the Republican smear machine were in control of all media, are liberals and the "liberal media" (f/k/a "McCain's base"). That's what fair and balanced means to conservatives - if a false accusation about a liberal gets out there, it is the job of the "liberal press" (more accurately described as the "objective press") to refute it; they shouldn't expect the conservative media to do their work for them. Since the constant theme of the conservative press is that the objective press can't be trusted, this means that there can never be a conclusive refutation of a smear - all issues are "they said/we said", and which side you pick depends not on what was actually said, but rather on whose side you're on.

This is of course the story of the Swift Boaters. If their allegations had been true or mostly true, the objective press would have reported the actual truth even though it would not have benefitted Kerry - that's what objectivity means. But, the allegations were mostly false, so that's what they reported. The reporting did not, however, get through to those who wanted to believe the smears, because they've been trained to distrust the objective press, and there was no one in the conservative press willing to print the truth.

Isn't Tucker Bounds the same spokesflunky who came up with the doozy about "the candidate does not really speak for the campaign" after McCain said payroll tax increases might be on the table to fix Social Security?