Posted on 08/12/2008 6:37:19 PM PDT by lieutenant columbo
Gawker.com notices that the New York times never balked at calling McCain a "fighter pilot" until this year.
Their full commentary is at this URL:
http://gawker.com/5035890/times-retracts-12-years-of-calling-mccain-fighter-pilot
An excerpt:
"The Times published two amazing corrections this morning, starting with one stating that the newspaper had erroneously called Republican presidential candidate John McCain a "fighter pilot" on Sunday and in "numerous other Times articles the past dozen years." Wow, a correction that spans more than a decade! When McCain was famously shot down over Vietnam, he was flying his usual plane, a small jet aircraft known as the A-4 Skyhawk, which the Times now refers to as an "attack aircraft." That's a safe and widely-agreed upon label for the plane pilots dubbed "Scooter" (heh), but the newspaper needn't have apologized for calling it a "fighter." Many in the aviation community regard it as precisely that....
The Times should not be so easily cowed, particularly when 12 years worth of coverage is at stake. The newspaper no doubt did its own investigation, and "attack aircraft" is a more appropriate term for the A-4 than "fighter" — it's not the "F-4" after all — but there's no need to backtrack from using a perfectly accurate alternative name."
Here's the actual New York Times "correction," which can be found at this URL: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html
"An article on Sunday about Senator John McCain’s campaign management style described his role as a Navy pilot in Vietnam incorrectly. He flew bombing missions as an attack aircraft pilot, but he was not a “fighter pilot.” (The error has appeared in numerous other Times articles the past dozen years, most recently on April 9 and on Dec. 15, 2007.)"
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Pettiness, thy name is the New York Times.
IIRC th A4 Skyhawk was used as an agressor aircraft in the 80s at Top Gun. That would go a long way toward making it a fighter.
“Attack” sounds much more theatening than “fighter”. Morons.
At what point will the NYT correct their use of the word “newspaper” when they apply it to what it is they do?
And nobommer wasn’t even in long pants yet.
How small can they be?
I suppose the NYT could also make an argument that “assault weapon” would be an appropriate description for this aircraft.
I always thought that the correct term for any Navy flyer
was...”Aviator”
The IAF still flys them, dont they?
Once again the NYT prompts me to say, “READ MY TAGLINE”. Do these people really think we can’t see through them?
bump.
Bump.
And, bump.
We can safely assume a correction on their coverage of the Haditha Marines is on the to-do list. We just don’t know what year.
Except that the A-4 doesn’t go supersonic and was nevere intended to be a fighter. But it is a great little jet. If I were ultra rich, I would get an A-4 as one of my toys.
Funny coming from the MSM, which has always called all military aircraft “fighters”, all tracked vehicles or wheeled vehicles with be guns “tanks”, and all naval vessels “battle ships”.
that is the point. To libs "Attack" does sound threatening.
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.