Friday, October 12, 2007
NY Times is AWOL on the Medal of Honor Story
No mention whatsoever of Lt. Murphy's heroism or his Medal of Honor in the print version of the New York Times today - at least in the "A" section.
Jus' sayin.
The Times did run the AP version of the story on their Web site, but you had to search for it. It had zero home page visibility.
Further, compare and contrast this story, featured on the front page of today's times, with the story that, apparently, WASN'T fit to print.
Message: A welfare bum in Japan is worthy of the New York Times' sympathetic and prominent coverage. An American warrior gives his life in the service of his country and his men, and receives the Medal of Honor, is not.
If anything encapsulates the dysfunction at the New York Times, it's this.
Splash, out
Jason
More from me on this theme here.
Jus' sayin.
The Times did run the AP version of the story on their Web site, but you had to search for it. It had zero home page visibility.
Further, compare and contrast this story, featured on the front page of today's times, with the story that, apparently, WASN'T fit to print.
Message: A welfare bum in Japan is worthy of the New York Times' sympathetic and prominent coverage. An American warrior gives his life in the service of his country and his men, and receives the Medal of Honor, is not.
If anything encapsulates the dysfunction at the New York Times, it's this.
Splash, out
Jason
More from me on this theme here.
Labels: New York Times, soldiers' issues, The media
Comments:
Lt. Murphy and his men died because they were accidentally discovered by shepherds and they let them go, fully knowing, according to the one survivor, that they were placing themselves in jeopardy. And that bastard Carter yesterday attacked our military and government intelligence agencies saying he KNOWS the government allows torturing of prisoners. The NYT falls into the same category as Mr. Carter.
If the toughest warriors in our military had just killed the shepherds, they and the members of the rescue team would probably be alive today and no one would have known; but no, as Americans and honorable members of our military, they wouldn't do that.
As a result of their humanity and bravery, something that the military receives little credit for from the anti-war Left, the shepherds are alive and 19 SOF died. May they all rest in peace and in good conscience for doing what was as morally right regardless of the consequences.
If the toughest warriors in our military had just killed the shepherds, they and the members of the rescue team would probably be alive today and no one would have known; but no, as Americans and honorable members of our military, they wouldn't do that.
As a result of their humanity and bravery, something that the military receives little credit for from the anti-war Left, the shepherds are alive and 19 SOF died. May they all rest in peace and in good conscience for doing what was as morally right regardless of the consequences.
Honor has a price, and often a steep one.
Moral relativism is cheap and easy, at least on the surface. I suspect, however, that it eats away at its practitioners in such a way to make them extremely uncomfortable with those individuals who will not accept the cheap and easy.
Post a Comment
Moral relativism is cheap and easy, at least on the surface. I suspect, however, that it eats away at its practitioners in such a way to make them extremely uncomfortable with those individuals who will not accept the cheap and easy.
