MSM/DNC Military Writings/"Reporting"

[Annie]

Mucho links, quite depressing:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/003757.html

November 02, 2005
Lying Times
Greyhawk

Michelle Malkin has a follow up report on the storm brewing over the New York Times' use of selective quotes from a final letter home from an American GI.

For those who might not have known, the Times took these words from US Marine Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr:

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

And edited them down to this:

Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. "I kind of predicted this," Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

In her update she notes that although the Times refused to respond to her inquiries, the "reporter" did attack at least one of the readers who had responded to this hatchet job:

Have you been to Iraq, Michael? Or to any other war, for that matter? If you have, you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven't, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?

I've been to Iraq. And I characterized the Times disgraceful use of the words of an American hero as intellectually vacant moral cowardice. I was being generous.

Because I've seen numerous examples of such behavior on the part of the New York Times over the past several months. All involve selective quoting, misquoting, or simply claiming a GI said something without actually quoting them at all. Most range in repugnance from mildly annoying to grossly reprehensible - but in what I believe is the worst case they appear to attempt to frame a soldier for murder.

Let's look back on a few examples of New York Times attacks on American GIs, shall we?
*****

Last year the Times edited a quote from reporter Kevin Sites about a then-notorious shooting incident in Fallujah, and changed a remorseful young man into a cold-blooded killer concerned only that his actions had been caught on film:

Kevin Sites describes the immediate aftermath of the shooting of one of the thousands of insurgents in Fallujah (emphasis added):

For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.

At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.

Clearly the Marine is responding to Sites belated identification of the individuals as having already been treated and disarmed (a point which the Marine need not accept as Gospel anyway). But now watch the NY Times work it's "magic", making the key quote disappear:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 21 - A marine who appears to shoot and kill an unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner in an NBC News video was not aware that the incident was being recorded, and moments later approached the cameraman with seemingly remorseful words - "I didn't know, sir, I didn't know" - according to the first public description of the events by the cameraman, Kevin Sites, since his brief and somewhat ambiguous initial report.

There are no clarifying remarks to follow, and no verbatim quotes from Sites' web page. (A feat I was able to accomplish with ease.) Sites was clear on what it was the Marine didn't know - but that didn't fit the Times' storyline. Pathetic.

*****

Earlier this year the Times doctored an op-ed piece written by milblogger Phil Carter, who had just been notified he was going to Iraq.

I'll let them explain, without changing any of the words:

The Op-Ed page in some copies of Wednesday's newspaper carried an incorrect version of the below article about military recruitment. The article also briefly appeared on NYTimes.com before it was removed. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.

They explained it further afterwards:

"Within 10 minutes" after receiving the changes, he recalled, "I said, 'No way.' Those were not words I would have said. It left the impression that I was conscripted." His call-up was "not a surprise," he told me, because he had actually "volunteered" for mobilization. (It's not clear when the editors first learned that he had volunteered for active duty.)
<...>
This sort of give-and-take is standard practice on the Op-Ed pages. "We try to clarify and improve copy," said Mr. Shipley. "We do this for the benefit of our contributors, many of whom are not professional writers.

That time I added emphasis - making the last line bold. It's curious, that not writers bit - considering that Phil has a great, well written blog, has been published in Slate (more than just that one link), and also at least once previously in the New York Times. So since "not a writer" doesn't apply they must have had some other reason for changing his words.

We can only guess what that might be.

Phil was a living person, so they were forced to correct their "error".
*****

Other examples of the contempt the New York Times feels for the American GI can be found in the stories where they claim to speak for the troops without ever actually quoting one supporting their claims. Last summer they concocted a story claiming that the troops were complaining that Americans aren't suffering enough as a result of the war:

WASHINGTON, July 23 - The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war.

From bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military's war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?

Once again - the exact opposite of the truth. I've never met a GI who wasn't proud of the fact that because of his or her service Americans are able to live lives of peace and prosperity - it's fundamental to what we do. The Times false characterization of troops complaining about this topic is absolute character assassination - and it's unforgivable.
*****

One thing should be obvious - you can't trust anything you read in the New York Times. They once proudly boasted of "all the news that's fit to print." It's a shame the honest truth is something they now find unfit for their pages. They are reduced to waging a war based on lies.
*****

With that in mind, this email from a soldier addressing the NY Times reprinted at Michelle's site offers damn good advice:

Should I die in Iraq, on this, my third tour, my wife will have in her possesion, a letter from me to be released to the press, should some slimy dirtbag like you try to make it look like I served in anything other than an honorable manner.

*****

I'm cruising through the archives, will post more examples soon. If you're aware of any other cases of the Times misquoting GIs please feel free to add them to the comments.


Posted by Greyhawk at November 2, 2005 08:58 PM

 

[Annie]

It looks like some others cared about this NYT disgrace:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nypost/2005...xIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

There is saintliness in a soldier's prospective acceptance of an honorable death in combat. To diminish such a deed, especially in service of a political agenda, approaches sacrilege.

So it was with the manner in which The New York Times last week noted the death of Cpl. Jeffrey Starr, USMC, of Snohomish, Wash., who was killed in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour of duty in
Iraq.

The young Marine's death was a centerpiece in the Times' coverage of America's 2,000th combat death in Iraq.

The newspaper's overview of the war is no secret: To hear the Times tell it, Americans are being slaughtered for no reason in an unjust war.

To bolster its argument, the Times last week publicly slandered the memory of a genuine American hero — Cpl. Starr.

In a profile of multiple-tour vets, the Times wrote about Starr — who served in the First Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment — and quoted from a letter to his girlfriend found on his computer after his death. "I kind of predicted this," it read, referring to his death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

There it is — dark, foreboding, pessimistic, without any suggestion that he believed he was in Iraq for a valid purpose.

But, as columnist Michelle Malkin disclosed on these pages two days ago, after hearing from Starr's family, there was more to his letter — much more.

"I don't regret going," he wrote. "Everybody dies — but few get to do it for something as important as freedom."

Nor did he have any doubts or questions about his mission: "It may seem confusing why we're in Iraq, [but] it's not to me. . . . I'm here trying to help these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives.

"To me, that is why I died," wrote Starr. "Others have died for my freedom — now this is my mark."

Again: "Others have died for my freedom — now this is my mark."

Those words ought to be chiseled in granite somewhere.

But, for The New York Times, they weren't fit to print.

After all, they don't mesh with the anti-war message relentlessly promulgated by the self-proclaimed paper of record.

Jeffrey Starr's uncle wrote the Times, asking the editors to "honor Jeff by completing the story."

There was no response.

Reporter James Dao, who wrote the article, did reply to one complaining reader, insisting "there is nothing 'anti-war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr," and then questioning whether anyone who hasn't been in Iraq has the right to "object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear."

Late yesterday, the Times released a statement defending Dao's article as "entirely fair," since it noted that Cpl. Starr had "remained convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do."

That's just pathetic.

Fairness — and accuracy — demanded more than simply a mention that Jeffrey Starr supported the war. And if his letter was worth quoting because of what it revealed about his state of mind, it was worth quoting in its entirety.

Jeffrey Starr's final letter speaks as persuasively and convincingly — yet simply — as anything else that has been spoken or written about why the war was rightly named Operation Iraqi Freedom.

His words are an eternal testimonial to the heroic tradition of the United States Marine Corps and to the enduring nobility of his unqualified — indeed, saintly — personal sacrifice.

The disgraceful abridgement published by The New York Times profanes Cpl. Starr's heroism; that the newspaper seems not to understand what it has done is equally shocking.

 

[Stephanie]

It looks like some others cared about this NYT disgrace:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nypost/2005...xIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Man, I don't know how anyone can put out a dollar to buy that paper??
They earn their reputation for bieng called the NYslime. :nine:

 

[Annie]

Man, I don't know how anyone can put out a dollar to buy that paper??
They earn their reputation for bieng called the NYslime. :nine:

No joke! I can't believe that some others in the media didn't slap them just because this was SO over the top!

 

[Annie]

No joke! I can't believe that some others in the media didn't slap them just because this was SO over the top!

Well the uncle was on Scarborough Thursday:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9925624/

Family of dead Marine upset with N.Y. Times
Uncle of man killed in third tour in Iraq, says paper edited letter improperly
TRANSCRIPT
MSNBC
Updated: 3:20 p.m. ET Nov. 4, 2005

Corporal Jeffrey Starr, a 22-year-old Marine, was killed in Iraq in April during his third tour of duty there. Last week, 'The New York Times' ran a story about soldiers that were killed while they were serving multiple tours of duty to coincide with the 2,000th death over in Iraq.

The 'Times' presented an excerpt of a letter written by Starr intended for his girlfriend in the event of his death. Yesterday, the deceased Marine's family slammed the paper for censoring that letter, cutting out a long passage where Starr talked about what was in his heart, praising America’s mission in Iraq, what he was doing and the soldiers that he was fighting alongside.

Starr’s uncle, Timothy Lickness joined Joe Scarborough on ‘Scarborough Country’ Thursday to discuss the misrepresentation of his nephew’s memory.

To read an excerpt of their conversation, continue to the text below. To watch the video, clcik on the "Launch" button to the right.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, ‘SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY’: 'The Times' published this portion of Starr’s, and he wrote this
“I kind of predicted this. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances.”

And this is the part they censored out:
"I don’t regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq. It’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live, not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators, to do what they want with their lives. To me, that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom. Now this is my mark.”

First of all, I have just got to say, what a remarkable young man that this young American hero is. How are you and the family reacting to what 'The New York Times' did a few days ago, where it seems to me like they exploited this young man’s final letter home to his loved ones to try to make a political statement?

TIMOTHY LICKNESS, UNCLE OF KILLED U.S. SOLDIER: Well, I think our reaction was not so much anger as it was disappointment.

We really are not a bitter family. We are not a family that holds grudges. We want to honor Jeffrey, and so we wanted the rest of his story to be told. I did write to 'The Times,' and I asked them, I thought very politely, if they would run the rest of the story. I did not get a reply.

But the story did get out, and that’s what we are happy about. We are actually pleased that the rest of Jeffrey’s story is getting out.

SCARBOROUGH: So, after “The New York Times” censored Jeffrey’s letter, and especially the part that really is at the heart of what he was feeling over there about this mission, you contacted “The Times.” And you are telling me they did not respond to your letter?

LICKNESS: Well, I did it by Internet, and I got a reply back saying that they had received it and they would get it to the right department to respond or do something with, but, since then, I have not heard anything.

And, quite frankly, I never really did expect that they would do anything. I was just hoping they would, but I didn’t expect them to. If I just may correct something, Jeffrey was killed on Memorial Day, on May 30, not in April.

SCARBOROUGH: How’s Jeffrey’s parents and other loved ones responding to this?

LICKNESS: Well, if you are speaking of this being the story in “The Times,” I don’t think anybody is all that surprised.

We are disappointed. I think that’s the part of it. Although what is ironic, by them leaving out the most important part of Jeffrey’s letter, it’s gotten more publicity, so in one sense, the whole episode really does honor Jeffrey, because this story has gotten a lot more publicity than it would have had “The Times” actually run the whole letter.

SCARBOROUGH: And had they actually printed the truth of the matter there.

and Tim Blair wrote this Friday (Links to Sheehan) at site:

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/moral_authority_shunned/

Friday, November 04, 2005
MORAL AUTHORITY SHUNNED

The NYT’s selective editing disgrace reaches the New York Post:

The family of a Marine killed in Iraq slammed The New York Times yesterday for selectively excerpting a letter he wrote predicting his own death, while the paper scandalously ignored a long passage in which he praised America’s mission.

"I thought they hadn’t finished the story, that they hadn’t told the whole story,” said Timothy Lickness, the uncle of Cpl. Jeffrey Starr, 22, who was killed in Ramadi in April during his third tour in Iraq.

"I wrote to the Times and said it would be proper to honor Jeff by completing the story. They never responded."

Perhaps Starr’s family should camp outside of the NYT’s building until the editor agrees to meet them. How long might he hold out against the family’s moral authority?

Posted by Tim B. on 11/04/2005 at 07:00 AM