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
The New York Times aka the old gray whore, is the enemy of America.
The civil discourse has ended and the next step may be civil war if Murtha/Pelosi/Kerry have their way.
A second Vietnam pacifist debacle will not be allowed. The rules change.
Excuse me? O'Reilly has been the most prominent basher of the NYT in all of the media. He has taken them to task better than any other commentator. I don't defend BO, you have to give him the NYT trophy.
A stopped clock is right twice a day. BOR never explained why he was against the Swift Boat Vets.
Well done. Yes, they are on the other side. Abu Graib got 38 days page 1 coverage. The last item the Slimes did likewise: Watergate. They and the Compost did not report Lieberman's comments. There is not enough time to recount their bias. They are traitors to the Fourth Estate and this country. May karma bite them in the butt in the biggest of ways...
I didn't know he was required to. Again, I don't defend BO. He has his good moments and his bad moments. He has certainly awakened some minds, though. But he has butted heads with the water carriers at the NYT more and better than anyone I know.
>>I didn't know he was required to....
Well as the inhabitant of the "no spin zone" Bill sure does a lot of spinning. Of course he is required to explain himself, it's his job.
WRT the NYT, has the NYT even noticed that BOR is on their case?
I don't know, maybe I'm the only one who noticed.
I don't listen to BOR often (can't stand the TV show and only watch TV when on a trip), but I have heard him take the NYT to task. I thought it was good. BOR still tends to drive me crazy.
Five years or so ago, I would have agreed with you. After all, how many Americans are truly willing to actively work against their own country's leadership at the expense of losing a war, and inviting all of the death and destruction that would entail? Not many. But many of those who are in fact possessed of such mind now inhabit the editorial offices and newsrooms of America. By choice, they are citizens not of America, but of the "World". In this context, "The World" means the International Left.
In order to advance their agenda, they do not not merely need a Republican Administration to fail, they need America to fail. Only in that way can the Progressive agenda can be advanced, for these misguided souls have decided that the US - not Islamofascism - is the greatest threat to world peace. Their fantasy is that we can coexist with Radical Islam if we only were to adopt the European vision - cooperative, non-interventionist, socialist, and apologetic. The New York Times virtually bleeds this worldview on its front page on a daily basis.
He drives everybody crazy, including me. But he drives the MSM ultra crazy. THAT is why he is utile.
It just depresses me to think that the TimesSelect has been so wildly successful that it will save the paper and prevent the layoffs of any employees.
Al-Qeada
I hope The Times is on the same side we should all be on. We are in a conflict that could and should have been avoided. We had Saddam in a vise with our military controlling the skies over Iraq, and as many weapon inspectors in his country as we wanted. He couldn't move a pea shooter without us knowing it. Saddam was looking for a way out and we turned a deaf ear to him. We could have won what we sought, now we could lose the entire Middle East.
We reap what we sow.
Welcome to FR, littlemiss! Do you like kitties? I do.
ping
Your naivete is foolish as it is dangerous.
I take it you guys have computers in different rooms!!
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.