<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Friday, August 19, 2005

Do you really want to trust a newspaper's military analysis... 
...when their editors don't know the difference between a rocket and a mortar?

Comments:
They seem to have a crappy knowledge of the capabilities of the Kearsarge and Ashland as well.
 
Check again, Jason. This article claims to be directly quoting a military press release. I'll bet a squid wrote it.
 
I was referring to the headline, which is usually written by a staff copy editor, rather than the reporter.

The article refers specifically to a Katyusha-type rocket.
 
You're correct, but if you look at the part in quotation marks, the headline writer was cutting straight from the press release. Us Army dudes know a Katusha's a rocket, but the quote calls it something like a "rocket mortar". Can't blame the press if the press release is FUBAR. I don't defend them often (this may be a first), but in this case...
 
What's the problem? The Katyusha is a rocket, and is accurately described in the article:
"... Katyushas -- highly inaccurate, unguided weapons used by Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas to attack northern Israel."

which is more descriptive than most other articles on this incident. Do a Google News search on this incident - and see all the wire reports with titles that say:
"Rocket strike targets US in Jordan" (Guardian Unlimited)
"Attackers Fire Missiles at US Navy Ship" (Guardian Unlimited again)
"Double missile mayhem" (Melbourne Herald Sun)
and my favorite:
"Missiles strike US navy ship in Jordan, Israeli airport" (China Daily)

I know you hate the Post and Times, but sometimes you jump on them too quick...
 
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!