View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2008, 07:18 AM
Toby Toby is offline
Banned
Analyst
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,943
usa us north carolina
Toby has much to be proud ofToby has much to be proud ofToby has much to be proud ofToby has much to be proud ofToby has much to be proud ofToby has much to be proud ofToby has much to be proud ofToby has much to be proud ofToby has much to be proud ofToby has much to be proud of
Credits: 13,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri View Post
The medal was *awarded* on the 22nd. So what you're complaining about is that the NYT didn't run a story saying Bush would be awarding the medal in a week.

Horrors.
ABSLOUTLY! HE WAS FROM NEW YORK! EVERY OTHER NEWS PAPER IN NEW YORK COVERED IT! YOU WOULD FIGURE THE FACT THAT SOMEONE FROM NEW YORK RECIEVING THE MEDAL OF HONOR WOULD BE BIG NEWS IN NEW YORK! RIGHT? THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS. THE NEW YORK TIMES WANTED TO DO AS LITLE REPORTING ON THIS AS POSSIBLE! BILL OREILLY EVEN CALLED THE NEW YORK TIMES 3 TIMES AND THEY GAVE NO COMMENT AND THEY WOULD NOT APPEAR ON HIS SHOW!

http://www.legacy.com/Soldier/Story....sonID=14469233

UNFIT TO PRINT?

October 13, 2007 -- Every major daily paper in New York took note of President Bush's deci sion to bestow the first Medal of Honor of Operation Enduring Freedom on Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy - a Long Islander who gave his life for his country and his fellow SEALs.

Every paper but one, that is.

And it shouldn't be particularly hard to guess which one.

By now, most folks know exactly how much The New York Times despises the U.S. military.

How it detests any mission that involves U.S. troops - whether to protect Americans by killing terrorists or to help stave off a bloodbath in the Middle East.

How the paper works tirelessly to promote its anti-war, anti-military agenda - even in its supposedly objective news pages.

So while Bush's announcement merited stories and appreciative editorials in The Post, The New York Sun, the Daily News and even the front page of liberal Newsday, it shouldn't be all that surprising that the Times didn't publish a single word about Murphy's well-deserved honor.
What did the paper of record focus on yesterday? No fewer than three stories reported on how Americans had killed innocent Iraqi civilians.

Regarding the war, of course, the Times' "coverage" was pernicious long before the fighting began.

Since then, it has focused obsessively on the mistakes and sins of American GIs (Abu Ghraib, anyone?) - and rarely has it played up U.S. victories.

Indeed, it would be hard to cite a news outlet more responsible for sapping U.S. morale - and emboldening America's enemies - than the Times.

But Murphy was a New Yorker.

He served with unusual valor and distinction in Afghanistan.

When Taliban militants ambushed his four-man team in 2005, he risked his life scrambling to an open spot to radio for help. He got his call through, but was later killed in the battle.

Surely even editors at the Times could have had the heart to report - if not honor - such courage and self-sacrifice.

Unless, of course, they're so blinded by their disdain for America's fighting men and women and their missions that they just can't muster the decency to do so.

That must be it.

Last edited by Toby; 03-16-2008 at 07:24 AM.
Reply With Quote