Posted on 12/02/2005 3:55:17 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
Ten more American soldiers, all Marines, were killed today (Friday) near Fallujah while on foot patrol. Anticipating the coverage by the New York Times on these deaths, I ask, “What side is the Times on?”
The Times was created before the Civil War. So, it covered that war, the bloodiest that America has ever fought in percentage of the population who were killed. That was also the most costly, in percentage of the national wealth spent in it.
But did the Times make any attempt to cover that war death by death, profiling and decrying every single soldier who fell, as it has done in the War on Terror? No, it did not.
Then came WW I, the third most costly war in percentage of population killed, and percentage of national wealth expended? Did the Times cover it death by death? No.
Then came WW II, the second most costly war by those two measures. Did the Times cover that war, death by death? No.
Nor did the Times cover the Korean War, that way. Nor the Vietnam War. Nor the Gulf War.
Only for the War on Terror has the Times focused on every individual death, and on Cindy Sheehan, the unfortunate, and deranged, mother of just one of those soldiers.
Before I continue, I say this. In no way do I minimize the gut-wrenching sense of loss parents of every soldier killed, feel at the loss of their son or daughter. I know how it feels to put a child in the ground, dead suddenly at the age of 21. Nothing makes that sense of loss go away. Ever. (No, my son did not die in the military. But the loss is no greater or less for the cause of death.)
The point is that the Times, and many other media in the mainstream, are spending time wallowing in each individual death in this war, as never done in any prior war prior. Why?
Had the Times spent the same amount of space and ink on each individual death in the Civil War and all wars since, it would have worked its way through the Civil War dead, and WW I. It would probably now be near the end of reporting on the dead from WW II.
The current war reporting in the mainstream media occurs in an historical vacuum. The blood cost of prior wars is never placed side by side with the carnage which occurred at places like Gettysburg, the Somme, Omaha Beach, or Iwo Jima, to name a handful of hundreds of historical examples. Why are these comparisons not presented?
The only logical answer is that the Times is on the other side in this war. Its publisher, editors, reporters want the United States to be defeated now. Therefore, they exaggerate the blood costs of this war, by dwelling on every death and ignoring the historical context of all other American wars.
There are similar examples of the bias of the Times coverage on subjects other than American deaths. The Times trumpeted the discovery of “secret prisons” in which particularly dangerous and knowledgeable captured terrorists (they are not soldiers by any definition in the Geneva Conventions) have been held in foreign nations. This involves less than 200 captured terrorists. And the lives of maybe thousands of Americans can be saved by obtaining the information that this select group of terrorists possess.
Did we have “secret prisons” for the interrogation of Germans or Japanese or Vietnamese or North Koreans in those respective wars? Perhaps we did, but if we did the Times and other media did not report on efforts to obtain information from “high value” captives those other wars. Competent conduct of any international war would dictate special attention to special captives. But only in this war is the Times both printing and obsessing over such an activity.
I would like to see the President of the United States challenge the New York Times to choose sides in this war, as it has in every war since the Civil War. It’s no guarantee that the Times would choose to side with the United States. And I could create a short list of employees of the Times would resign in disgust if it did.
The President will not directly attack a major media institution in that way. So, I do. To the New York Times: Which side are you on in this war? If you lack the integrity to answer the question in plain English, your future coverage of this war will answer for you. If it continues as it has been so far, the conclusion is that you support the other side in this war.
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
John / Billybob
"All the news that fits, we print."
Old grey whore bump.
NYT doesnt want America to lose. It wants to sway public opinion against the current sitting party in power.
The Gray Lady has begun to experience deteriorating health. So sad that she's going out in much the same way as a humbled Dan Rather. Thanks to such people as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and, such media as the internet, the news that's fit to print is no longer determined by some incense burning, up-east bed-wetter.
It wants IMPEACHMENT - I have never seen such a bunch of crying babies as the current generation of Liberal RATS. Also see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1532955/posts
You go, congersman. These (fifth) columnists need to be called out!
Not all media is horrid. The subject of this article is my nephew and he is now back in Iraq on the ground. We're very proud of him and prayers are appreciated.
"Bringing up baby"
Father reunited with family after six-month deployment
Published Monday January 31 2005
By MICHAEL R. SHEA
The Beaufort Gazette
Six months ago Capt. Paul Jonathan Blair witnessed the birth of his third child, Avery Michelle, only to be sent to Japan for a training mission three days later.
After many long days and nights, Blair and eight Marine pilots of All-Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 533 returned to American soil Sunday.
Wives and children, friends and family rushed the four F/A-18 Hornets as the last members of the Hawks climbed out of the two-man cockpit on the pavement at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort.
"He's been delayed two weeks, so my oldest keeps saying 'It's not today,' and today I'm saying, 'Yes, it is today!" said Myrnee Blair, with 6-month-old Avery Michelle in her arms and 2 year-old Paul Jonathan III grappling her leg, before the jets touched down. Three year-old Parker Camille Blair ran in circles around her mother and siblings.
Her husband spent the half-year based in Japan running training missions in Thailand, Hawaii, Australia and Guam.
Avery Michelle was born July 22.
"They do all kinds of training from the pilots to the mechanics. Air-to-air, air-to-ground and they always participate with the host countries," said Cpl. Mikah Sneed, with the station's public affairs office.
The rear party is always the last unit of the squadron to come home. On Jan. 21 the main body of the Hawks landed as the remaining Marines, all pilots, handled the administrative details, like closing out hotel accounts, Cpl. Sneed said.
Capt. Blair met his wife and children with a kiss. Avery Michelle looked at her father and broke into a laugh, despite the 30 degree wind.
"Where'd you get those tap shoes?" Blair asked 3-year-old Parker Camille.
"From my home," she responded, before wrapping her arms around her daddy's neck.
Blair takes a video camera on all his deployments.
"He'd video himself reading stories to the kids and send them to us. We're big picture, video people," Myrnee Blair said before her husband's F/A-18 touched down.
With three children under 4 years old, Myrnee enlisted help for the six months her husband was away.
"I ran home to my parents in Dallas. Big things always seem to happen when we have babies," she said. Paul Jonathan was born March 17, 2003, the day President Bush issued his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.
This time around the family of five only has a few weeks to get reacquainted. Blair leaves for training in Virginia Beach on Feb. 28. "We're going to stay with him for two weeks," Myrnee said. "But then he's deployed back to Iraq."
The next deployment was the last thing on the captain's mind.
"It feels great to be home," he said.
Copyright 2005 The Beaufort Gazettes horrid.
The NYT does not view itself as an American newspaper, but rather as an international newspaper. Therefore, it intentionally eschews the American viewpoint, and tries to reflect the viewpoint of the rest of America's adversaries.
NY Slimes is not an American paper any longer. It's per propaganda...an enemy to America.
Tonight on Fox News discussion about the excellent economy (and Iraq) concluded that it is indeed a media problem. Good news about the economy or Iraq is ignored. The Times et al just do not want to say anything good about this administration. I don't recall Nixon being treated this poorly.
It is clear.
In my opinion...
The New York Times has the same agenda as the Terrorists in Iraq.
They want things to go badly. We all know what that means. Dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
They would never admit as much, and I am sure that at a PERSONAL level they would not wish for those things. The problem is, at an ideological level, they long for those things.
With Liberals, ANY illusory, utopian end justifies the means, no matter what evil or bloody means that entails. They all view those "means" as the "price that must be paid" as a rationalization.
As in: "It is terrible that those men were killed, but...they shouldn't be there anyway, and maybe if more of them get killed the President will remove the troops or resign..."
Very nice and right on target.
I would also add the selective stories coming out of Iraq that are exclusively negative.
Our troops are doing some wonderful thing in Iraq. Our media is ignoring that daily, yes even the NYT.
Ditto! It's past time for the media to be called out on their bias against America and her troops!
Dan Rather is not the least bit humbled. He still declares his story was true, and that he was attacked by the right wing.
BOR is an idiot who's in the tank for Rather.
trick question, right? |>:
Only part of the Baby Boomer generation grew up. Many who didn't are Democrats.
I'd say leaving a 40 year job of national prominence because of poor journalism is a little humbling. You've had worse?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.