New Yorker Wins Medal of Honor, NY Times Ignores
Posted on October 13, 2007
It will be interesting to see the New York Times try to wiggle an excuse to get out of the consequences of this, if they even have the decency to try. It will be interesting to watch the backlash and the apologists. It is interesting, but sadly not shocking.
This doesn’t need much added to it:
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.
Indeed, it wasn’t hard to guess. Every chance they get to reveal our secrets to the enemy, they have delivered. Every chance they get to destroy morale, report negatively on the war efforts, or defame our troops, they go page one. I stand with the New York Post in awarding the Times the Medal of Dis-honer.
What do you think the New York Times focus on instead?
What did the paper of record focus on yesterday? No fewer than three stories reported on how Americans had killed innocent Iraqi civilians.
It makes me sick.
AJ Strata says there will be backlash:
The man died in the service of his country, receives one of its top commendations and the NY Times impugns him by turning their back on his life story. Well, that will create a backlash as most Americans will now be returning the favor to the NY Times and turn their backs on it. I would bet this just may be the moment the NY Times went out of business. Optimistic? Harsh? I’m not so sure. How else do you honor the man and all those who died or were injured fighting for us? Even if you don’t agree with the war or how we got in it, most people would find this an even worse infraction in simple human decency. You honor them by making clear the contempt and disgust we hold for such a petty act. And no pretend excuse will save them from their just desserts. In fact it may make the matter even worse.
Almost shocking and certainly sad. It’s a wonder New Yorkers don’t run the paper right out of town for this one. But then perhaps it mirrors at least a majority of New Yorker’s sentiments, too?
The writer of this article from the New York Post assumes that anybody working at the al Qaeda Times of New York™ has any idea what the word valor means…
We figure if Lt. Michael Murphy was alleged by John Murtha to have gunned down innocent civilians, the New York Times would have noted the story; in all likelihood, on page one.
But the fact a local hero was bestowed with the Medal of Honor doesn’t even merit a mention in the alleged paper of record is disgraceful.
There is more. You can bet that in not one of the stories about civilian casualties was the enemy’s war crime of camouflaging himself as a civilian mentioned, not his war crime of using human shields. However, Murphy’s story was fascinating as was the story of his wonderful parents who live on Long Island. The in gratitude of the NY Times for their sacrifice shows the real heart of the liberal and it is a black hole.
I’m calling this act willful because they cannot claim that they didn’t know as they received the same press release all the other area papers received. It’s willful because the decision not to print the story comes from an editor who decided that the item is simply not “newsworthy†enough.
In journalism we offen say, “If it bleeds, it leadsâ€. Obviously the New York Times is uninterested in the blood of a fallen American hero.
Michelle Malkin has a post honoring this hero.
Hot Air:
If Lt. Murphy had been accused of war crimes, you can bet where the NYTimes would have placed the news. Front and center.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Fallen Heros, News, Politics As Usual, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
7 Responses to “New Yorker Wins Medal of Honor, NY Times Ignores”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
New York’s Daily Pravada once again clearly displays that its’ Chief Censors a.k.a. editors are truely the epitome of “Fonda Savant”: bewildered human beings who possess some remarkable special aptitude to choose the wrong side of societal ethical and moral issues. Fonda Savants strive to incite rage amongst Veterans who proudly served and their brothers & sisters that have given their lives for our country.
It does “us” little good to even comment other than just to vent… NY Times Chief Censors are far too busy looking at child porn with their fellow ACLU displaced communist recreants to read our rhetoric.
We learn that all the major paper printed the story but one. How many “major” papers are there when this ref ils made? NY Times, LATimes, Was Post and WSJ–and that is it!
Now whether or not the story was ignored, or skipped for whatever reason clearly the NY Post is hardly the place to tell us about good journalism!
You don’t like the NY Times? hey. Don’t read it. But if you must babble on and on about that which you don’t like then you have a real problem and ought to focus on that which you do like. I am sorry that the pieces posted above is so filled with venom and nastiness…and yes, I have served a few times in our military.
You should actually read before making responses.
Every major daily paper in New York
It’s sad that people give their life for freedom and people at the New York Times couldn’t care less as they are in their own little world.
I am sad, but not surprised about it.
Do you all know what the Post had on its front page on the day it reported the story on Lt. Murphy? A naked man running around New York City. He no doubt did it for attention and the Post played right into his naked hands. Surely if you think a naked man is more newsworhty than a hero receiving the highest honor given in the land, you cannot condenm the NY Times for not reporting on it at all. What’s more, the naked man made the front page again on the following day. They gave his reason: He was having a bad day. What nonsense. They shouldn’t be condeming anyone. In fact the only reson they are doing so is because the Times is their rival.
If it was an oversight it is a huge mistake which the Times should apologize for and correct immediately.
If it was a deliberate omission the Times’editors should be ashamed of themeselves for not honoring this
young hero and any public castigation is well deserved. Sign me Ex-vet and Liberal.