No bias at the NY Times at all

[mreye]

In "paying tribute" to the 2,000th soldier killed in Iraq this week, the New York Times ran a story that included a small portion of a "what if, after death" letter intended for the  girlfriend of Marine Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr after he was killed in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30th.  The bit of the letter the New York Times chose to profile was a blatant attempt to stamp out the principled ideals of the letter's author.  The full content of the letter found on Cpl. Starr's computer (which the New York Times had also received) was forwarded to Michelle Malkin by his uncle. He was upset by the New York Times misrepresentation of his nephew's clear understanding of the current conflict.

The New York Times' omission is highlighted in bold:

 

“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."

 

 

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/deadbloggers

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yeah, this is kind of an important chunk of the letter to leave out. The fact that he was re-upping for a third stint certainly implies he beleived in the justness of what he was doing, but omitting the rationale given in his own words seems to be a disservice.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nobody should be surprised by this. I know Im not.

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah its misfortunate when the press hacks off important bits of stories. Or makes them up. You know, whatever.

[Balta1701]

Judith Miller. Patrick Fitzgerald himself has said that if Judith Miller (and the White House) had not been covering up, lying, and fighting legal battles to prevent them from having to testify..."we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005". In other words...Judith Miller's legal battle may very well have prevented the Bush Administration from facing pre-election indictments.

 

The NY Times does some stupid Democratic things. But they do plenty of stupid Republican ones too. You want to tell me that open indictments against the Administration couldn't have shifted a few hundred thousand votes in Ohio or Florida?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Judith Miller got Bush his war almost single-handedlhy.

 

The WHIGs tell her that some aluminum tubes are for weapons-grade uranium enrichment and an 'independent' source from Chalabi's gang verifies it. The WHIGs tell her to go get some WMD information and a guy in a baseball cap points to a spot n the ground in the desert and Chalabi verifies at and says 'yup, the weapons evidence is buried here.'

 

Way to verify a story. Way to get played, Judy. Thanks for the war.

 

NYT is going to have to spend years living up to its 'liberal rag' hype before it even comes close to making up for the bulls*** they ran as news that helped push America into war.

[Balta1701]

Judith Miller got Bush his war almost single-handedlhy.   

Ok, I'm as big of an opponent of Miller's Iraq work as anyone, but even I'm no where near willing to go so far as to say that Judith Miller got Bush his war single handedly.

 

She was a nice cog, but that was a major machine they had built up there. Up and down the list, virtually the entire Republican media apparatus was turned for an entire year to the task of hyping up Saddam's WMD's to the point where the American people would feel there was no other option.

 

Miller was nice in that she got front page NYT scoops. But go read the WaPo editorial page. Go watch some old Fox News. Go watch some old CNN or NBC Nightly News when the Republicans were lashing out at the inspectors. Go listen to Rumsfeld openly lie on Meet the Press ("we know where the weapons are. They're around Tikrit and Baghdad").

 

It was so much more than Miller. Without Miller, that war still would have happened. They would have just found someone else to be their shill.

[FlaSoxxJim]

You're right, of course. But Miller's involvement just pisses me off to no end. And you are right that she was a shill. She was promised some exclusive scoops and she ate it up.

 

I guess the NYT ombudsman has reccomended she not even be allowed on the newsroom anymore.

 

Has anybody ever had a Pulitzer Prize revoked before?

[Texsox]

You're right, of course.  But Miller's involvement just pisses me off to no end.  And you are right that she was a shill.  She was promised some exclusive scoops and she ate it up.

 

I guess the NYT ombudsman has reccomended she not even be allowed on the newsroom anymore.

 

Has anybody ever had a Pulitzer Prize revoked before? 

No but several have been reviewed.

 

The most famous also led to war

 

NEW YORK -- The 1932 Pulitzer Prize awarded to a New York Times reporter accused of deliberately ignoring the Ukrainian forced famine will not be revoked, an administrator for the journalism awards said Friday.

 

"The board determined that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case," said a statement from Sig Gissler, Pulitzer administrator.

 

A review of Walter Duranty's work was launched in April by a Pulitzer subcommittee. In the 86-year history of the awards, no Pulitzer has ever been revoked.

[mr_genius]

Suprise, suprise... the NY Times prints more shotty journalism.

 

the paper is a joke.. they know it, i know it, everyone knows it.

[Texsox]

Suprise, suprise... the NY Times prints more shotty journalism.

 

the paper is a joke.. they know it, i know it, everyone knows it.

 

The Times is as perfect as the humans that work there and the humans they cover.

[mr_genius]

The Times is as perfect as the humans that work there and the humans they cover.

 

 

Philosophize !

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The good Doctor of Journalism -- Hunter Stockton Thompson once quipped: "So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here -- not under any byline of mine or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms."

 

I have to agree.

[Balta1701]

The good Doctor of Journalism -- Hunter Stockton Thompson once quipped: "So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here -- not under any byline of mine or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms."

As long as I can trust the box scores, I'll be moderately happy.