Nyt tries to ride it out

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on July 27th, 2017 at 01:07 pm

Michelle Malkin has lots more on the New York Times’ misrepresentation of Cpl. Jeffrey Starr. Also from Michelle: behold, the faces of peace!

Posted by Tim B. on 11/02/2005 at 11:24 AM
    1. I especially like the bozo with the flaming orange mohawk.  It looks like his head is on fire, but I guess that could describe a lot of them.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2005 11 02 at 01:08 PM • permalink


    1. The NYT defends Dao’s treatment of Cpl. Starr by refering to the way other, now deceased, soldiers in the article are reported to have backed the war. But when you read the whole piece it is obvious that the tremendous sadness of these soldiers’ parents is being exploited politically.  If it wasn’t, why would Dao have excised what was not only a key passage in Starr’s letter but such a direct rebuke to the gloomy defeatism that infects every word he writes.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 2005 11 02 at 01:42 PM • permalink


    1. … and add a question mark.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 2005 11 02 at 01:44 PM • permalink


    1. Anyone can take a letter, a book, or other writing and use a word, a phrase, a sentence, or paragraph to support a certain theme or point of view.  However, when they do it, they must do it carefully for it loses the context from which the excerpt was lifted.

      Where the context of the excerpt is different from the theme or point of view being made by the party using the excerpt, it is an unfair use of the words at a minimum.  Where the meanings of the two writings are the opposite, this is nothing less than journalistic fraud.

      The editor should know better.

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 11 02 at 02:05 PM • permalink


    1. Dao, meet Mary Mapes. Mapes, Dao. Please don’t have kids.

      Posted by Gary from Jersey on 2005 11 02 at 02:40 PM • permalink


    1. The NYT response to complaints about its reporting of Cpl. Starr’’s last written words to his loved ones is disingenuous, to say the least. What we have here is the lame
      attempt to justify the distortion of a dead mans intended message for what are
      transparently political reasons. But what can we expect: only the latest in a long history of journalistic crimes by the NYT, many of which have resulted in the death of innocent people.

      Posted by stats on 2005 11 02 at 03:33 PM • permalink


    1. what’s michelle’s reference to the aussie aboriginies all about??

      Posted by vinny on 2005 11 02 at 04:30 PM • permalink


    1. Time for a non-ending and noisy protest gauntlet (and advertiser boycott) of the NYT offices.  They’ve dishonored far too many.

      Posted by Ari Tai on 2005 11 02 at 05:32 PM • permalink


    1. Dao: “you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven’t, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?”

      And Dao ‘should know’ that he chose to totally ignore the idealism, nobility, courage and patriotic commitment that this soldier expressed in his fine defence of freedom.

      This shows Dao’s moral bankruptcy and cynical manipulation of feelings, all in the cause of stopping this allied campaign dead in its tracks.
      I write as an Australian.

      Posted by Barrie on 2005 11 02 at 05:56 PM • permalink


    1. Vinny, Malkin makes the big mistake of comparing herself with the liberal Margaret Mead, who made her name by being unknowingly conned by the Samoans she studied.
      Mead’s research was exposed only many decades after she became famous – by an Australian!
      I hope Malkin’s book is not like Mead’s in any way..

      Posted by Barrie on 2005 11 02 at 06:07 PM • permalink


    1. The NYT’s writer and Editor are scum, pure and simple!

      They denigrated the memory of Cpl Starr by misrepresenting him originally, and they continue to do so by attempting to defend their actions.

      Posted by TonyP on 2005 11 03 at 04:03 AM • permalink


    1. Hrm. Those mugshots. Not nearly enough tilting for my liking. Clearly heartless bastards, the lot of them.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2005 11 03 at 08:18 AM • permalink


    1. The burden of “in memory of’’ is to speak for those who can no longer speak, and do it correctly. In fact the burden is there before death too, but it is not so easily noticed. It becomes acute after death.

      If you don’t act as if you notice that burden even after death, it may be that you’re a sociopath. I mention it because it seems to fit the NYT.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2005 11 03 at 10:15 AM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the “pending” list and you won’t be able to log in. All accounts that are “pending” for more than one week will be deleted.