BOSTON GLOBE FABRICATES-FReeRepublic Exclusive

BREAKING: BOSTON GLOBE FABRICATES (as usual, plagiarists attack USA)
FReeRepublic Exclusive [Howie Carr, are you listening?]

Yesterday, the entire front page top-of-the-fold story in the Boston Globe was a libel
on US forces. It was inaccurate and made up by the Boston Globe.
The actual pictures was AP and had the headline,
"U.S. Army Stf. Sgt. Chad Touchett, center, relaxes with comrades from
A Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, following a search in
one of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s palaces damaged after a bombing,
in Baghdad Monday, April 7, 2003.(AP Photo/John Moore)."

So what was done?
The Bow-tied Clinton-bum kissers at the Boston Globe attacked the US forces
by MAKING UP a caption, and replacing the original (above)
with the following:
BOSTON GLOBE: Tues 4/8/03
"Staff Seargeant Chad Touchett enjoyed a cigarette yesterday in a presidential
palace in Baghada. US troops rifled through files and helped themselves to souvenirs."

The fabricating Boston Globe fabricated their byline, and within hours
all radio talk shows began attacking US forces as the Boston Globe's
team of fabricators and plagiarists maliciously intended.
CONCLUSION: Their Boston Globe editors, plagiarists, and fabricators have helped
THEMSELVES and their captive readers to their own "truth" yet again.

Is there a FReeper who can organize a FReep of this vicious deliberately-misleading inaccuracy?

I am a journalist. To be specific, my job in journalism is designing pages, writing headlines and writing photo captions.

I've also been a committed conservative since age 10, going on 35 years now.

I say this to establish my credentials to speak here ... and to tell you that you are WAY out in the ozone on this.

First off, the AP includes a recommended caption on every photo. A newspaper is under no obligation or requirement ... repeat, NO obligation or requirement ... to use that caption. Most of them are poorly written because they are written by the photographers themselves and not by writers. I have "winged" it and written my own captions based on my view of the photo hundreds if not thousands of times in my nearly 25 years in the business.

Quite frankly, I might very well have used the cigarette line myself because it was a little more compelling. I placed a picture of two Brits lighting up in the paper a few days ago because it was a cool photo ... one of the Brits was a tank driver and he was sitting up in the entrance to the tank and lighting up for a colleague who was standing on the side of the tank. They looked supremely confident like it was just another day at the office and it was a compelling photo, and I didn't worry about any anti-smoking types calling to complain.

Secondly, the thing about the soldiers going through the palace for souvenirs ... in other words, looting, although that is kind of a perjorative term ... was not a falsehood, it was most definitely mentioned in the story that this photo (which I saw when going through the available photos that night) and several others accompanied, because I personally read every word of that story, wrote a headline for it (mine was something on the order of "U.S. troops make themselves at home in Saddam's palace") and placed it in my newspaper. And in hindsight, I probably should've used a pullout paragraph or something in boldface about them taking souvenirs because that is also cool and IMHO is no big deal. I mean, like victorious soldiers haven't helped themselves to the spoils of war for hundreds of year. A guy who lived down the street from me when I was a kid had a dagger he took off a German he killed in World War II and he was quite proud of it, and I always beheld it with awe.

So if our guys did help themselves to some of Saddam's toys ... again, so what? Big fat hairy deal! It's no insult to our guys.

Bottom line, I certainly have no use for the Boston Globe in a lot of ways, and I don't deny that there is bias in the media (I can curl your hair with stories of what it's been like trying to work in the trade as a conservative for a quarter-century), but don't go crazy and start seeing devious, eeeeeeevillll conspiracies in each and every thing and call for Freeping when you have no idea of what you're talking about.

No that certainly wouldn't have been acceptable as a caption because not only would it have been slanted, it would've been a lie.

My point is that I don't see any untruth or, as much as we'd like to see it, any slant here. It's what happened.

I think the response to this touches on something I said in a thread about Pfc. Lynch the other day. We conservatives get so anal and fearful and worried and have our antennae up 365/24/7 thinking that the libs are just waiting there to pounce on any and use every single, solitary, little thing they can do or can get their hands on to hammer us.

In many cases, that is true, and I certainly don't want us to put our antennae down and I realize that we're in a war here just as well as we are over there.

Basically, though, I think we give our enemies too much credit sometimes, and don't give the American public enough credit for their ability to see through that garbage and filter out the bias and slant.

They voted for him because we put up two bad candidates against him. Great men, truly distinguished Americans who served their country well, but bad candidates nonetheless.

But I really grow weary of hearing about Slick here. He's irrelevant and we make him relevant by continuing to bring him up. He beat us like a drum, but he's gone and he ain't coming back. We need to get over him and accept the fact that he will never wear the orange jumpsuit he so richly deserves. I think that's what fuels the constant dwelling on the fool here ... I think a lot of FReepers, in their heart of hearts, still think that will happen someday and he'll finally get his comeuppance, but it's not going to happen. I don't waste my time worrying about Clinton anymore. $%&(#@% him!

>>BTW We were told specifically that we would enjoy a court martial if we looted ANYTHING during GWI. There were several officer inspections of our gear to check for booty.<<

Well, if you had looted, I would have supported you wholeheartedly! What is wrong with a little levity at Saddams expense in the midst of unimaginable horror and hell? What is wrong with sitting in some tawdry, gold-painted chair in the midst of a bombed out room with glass all over the floor, to relax for a moment with a cigarette? Or even taking souvenirs?

The capacity for moments of humor and levity in the midst of unimaginable horror are traits that make us human, and also able to survive enduring neurocognitive stress.

Sheesh--I am appalled at the ignorance of those who would deny these young people a moment of relief. (And I think our country won't be healthy again until all those peacenik hippies from the sixties are dead.)

risa

You are correct in your analysis of the situation (of course; you are the one experience in this stuff).

I would rather love to see several nasty letters written in to the Globe for this; I realize that no real legal action is necissary or deamed in this sitation.

My problem with this caption, and the similar things that happen, is that it is an attempt to smear our military. Or, even if the journalist who wrote the caption was just naive and didn't think about the effect it would have on people reading it and how he/she should give more respect to the Marines in the picture and to the military in general, this person is still in the wrong. Yes, I know, they were simply doing their job by using a more 'sensational' headline, but why not show more respect and quit trying to sensationalize everything! I have met one person who works for the Globe who was conservative, but I would almost lay money down that the journalist who wrote this caption was a liberal.

My main point is that that there comes a point where you suddenly quit showing any respect whatsoever for those men and women who protect you, your peace, and your life at their own free will. This caption crossed that line. The reason why this caption crossed that line is because of the references to activities that are generally deemed 'bad' by the general public. The basic idea of this caption was that everyday PFC and LCPL Joe are wandering through the palace, tearing things apart and picking up things that they want to take home to their moms and girlfriends or keep for themselves....i.e. taking them...i.e. looting...i..e. stealing--and we all know what the general public thinks about stealing. It also used 'sensational' words to describe them pilfering through files and the like throughout the palace, which would also be generally considered bad.

I also wonder about the cigarrette part...From the picture I saw, I could not tell whether the guy actually had a cigarrette in his hand or simply had his hand up by his mouth. Unfortunately, I am on a public computer, and a Mac at that (I don't know how to use Macs and generally avoid and despise them), so I can't blow the pic up and take a closer look at it. I plan on doing that tonight as soon as I get back to my computer. In the meantime, I wonder if the original story that went with the picture said anything to confirm that this guy was indeed smoking... I do agree that it's no big deal; only very naive and dense people don't understand that everyone is human, and even Marines sometimes have addictive habits, including smoking. One cannot expect a person with a habit as such to completely give it up cold turkey when they are deployed and the item is still available, so, it is perfectly acceptable for this to be occuring.

BUT, still, I don't want to see a large number of guys in the military who are smoking, because that gives a misrepresentation to the general public. I see a lot of pictures of guys with glasses on, as well as of the women in the military, giving the impression to those portions of the general public who know nothing about the military and don't wish to take the time to actually research, that there is a high number of women in the military, as well as an unproportionately high number of those who wear glasses.

I think the biggest issue is that most journalists could care less about and aren't trying to represent things in the most proper way; instead, they are just trying to get 'the' story...

Now that I have spent a significant amount of time (much more time than I wanted) explaining my exact thoughts on the subject, I should take off, b/c, like I said before, I'm in between classes--and I should be doing work right now...

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.