The NY Times had a story about a fallen hero and misrepresented the facts by omission. Michelle Malkin has a letter written by the fallen soldier’s uncle to clarify the situation.
Does anyone believe the MSM anymore?"
Sphere: Related Content
Oct
28
2005
28
2005
Here’s what I don’t get: the Times noted that he strongly believed in the mission. Malkin posts evidence of that, and then claims that the Times was dishonest (by stating facts? By not posting the whole letter? By publishing true propositions?).
To jpe:
Quote from the NYT: “Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq.”
What Cpl. Starr wrote but was not published by the NYT: “I don’t regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.”
If you believe the former communicates what the latter so powerfully did you are so sadly mistaken my friend. So many Americans and it seems the NYT have no concept of putting country and the fight for freedom ahead of self. His words should have been on the front page of or at least the lead in the article. But since Cpl. Starr’s beliefs didn’t align with the NYT’s world view, you can understand why they were omitted.
A Retired Marine. Semper Fi
JPE,
Are you really that asinine?
Do you understand how wholly ignorant you sound?
Here are two anti-Israel New York Times falsehoods from today:
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/508-IRIS-Exposes-2-Anti-Israel-New-York-Times-Falsehoods.html
If you believe the former communicates what the latter so powerfully
Newspapers are in the business of presenting facts. If you want powerful and touching, go flip on Lifetime for Women.
Again, are you that naive, JPE?
What is clear is the slant/spin/disengenuous nature in which they presented the facts…if you cannot see how the facts were obscured by the way in which they parsed that letter, then you really need to stick to The Cat in the Hat or something befitting your reading level.
Even the most strident liberal should admit this is spin and not as pure as the driven snow…come on, now, you are not fooling us and your argument has no merit. You are being quite transparent here in a public fora…