« The Friends of Our Enemies | Main | Multiculturalism Blossoms in France »
November 4, 2005
NY Times Steals the Meaning of a Hero's Death
If anyone doubts that the New York Times will stoop to any low to demoralize our country and our troops in hopes of bringing about the defeat of democracy in Iraq and the triumph of Islamic terrorism, check out Michelle Malkin's recent piece in the New York Post.
Malkin refers to yet another dreary Times article intended to convince us that there is just no use to fighting, in which the Gray Lady tells a grotesquely distorted version of the story of Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, a patriot who kept reenlisting because he believed in ideals beyond the grasp of the skittering cockroaches who write for the Times. Starr died in action, as he well knew he might. He also knew what he was dying for, writing in a letter:
Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. 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.
In order to make Starr's ultimate sacrifice look as pointless as a traffic accident, the above passage was stripped down to this:
Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. "I kind of predicted this," Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."
As Malkin reminds us:
When you read The New York Times (if you still bother to read it), always ask:
What is the Times not telling me?
The answers are invariably more compelling — and newsworthy — than what the paper actually deems "fit to print."
For more on the NY Times' shameless distortion of the words of our soldiers to suit their propaganda purposes, have a look at The Mudville Gazette.
Hat tips: Varla, Times Watch
Posted by Van Helsing at November 4, 2005 8:02 AM
Comments
I wouldn't compare the NYT's distillation of the Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr story to the pointlessness of a traffic accident as much as it makes the war look like a hapless suicide march. I had to re-read the NYT version, without the context of the cause that Cpl. Starr was fighting for, before I fully realized that the NYT portrayed the final message more as a suicide note than as a vindication of the war. What dismays me more, is the fact that the NYT did not mention the name of the 2,000th soldier to die anywhere in the article, but instead misused a select few soldiers for their own purpose. As a newspaper carrier who delivers the NYT among other papers, I expected the extra bulk in the Oct. 26th edition to be extra coverage of the 2,000 fallen heroes, but instead found that there was an extra large auto advertising section. The NYT misused the deaths of the wrong soldiers for commercial purposes.
Posted by: the paperboy at November 4, 2005 6:21 PM
Anyone who still regards The Times as a purveyor of serious news needs a lesson in reality.
The leader of the liberal mis-reporters, the NYT is a disgrace to the banner of journalism.
Posted by: James Shott at November 5, 2005 9:37 PM
