Saturday, November 05, 2005
for the latter's outrageous distortion of the words of the late Cpl Jeff Starr.
Jeffrey Starr's uncle wrote the Times, asking the editors to "honor Jeff by completing the story."
There was no response.
Reporter James Dao, who wrote the article, did reply to one complaining reader, insisting "there is nothing 'anti-war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr," and then questioning whether anyone who hasn't been in Iraq has the right to "object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear."
Late yesterday, the Times released a statement defending Dao's article as "entirely fair," since it noted that Cpl. Starr had "remained convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do."
That's just pathetic.
Fairness — and accuracy — demanded more than simply a mention that Jeffrey Starr supported the war. And if his letter was worth quoting because of what it revealed about his state of mind, it was worth quoting in its entirety.
Jeffrey Starr's final letter speaks as persuasively and convincingly — yet simply — as anything else that has been spoken or written about why the war was rightly named Operation Iraqi Freedom.
His words are an eternal testimonial to the heroic tradition of the United States Marine Corps and to the enduring nobility of his unqualified — indeed, saintly — personal sacrifice.
The disgraceful abridgement published by The New York Times profanes Cpl. Starr's heroism; that the newspaper seems not to understand what it has done is equally shocking.
Comments: Post a Comment