As to My Opinion on the NYT’s ‘Veteran Rape’ Article
…when I saw the magazine headline article and cover photo, all I could do was roll my eyes, snort in disgust and look away. I never read it. Now that at least one story was proven to be bullshit 6 days prior to release, I am vindicated in my display of non-compassionate-ism. But the question lingers in our sultry air…”yet the Times let it fly anyway?” It gets worse. The kicker is at the end of their correction. Then you have to look at when the correction…never mind.
The cover article in The Times Magazine on March 18 reported on women who served in Iraq, the sexual abuse that some of them endured and the struggle for all of them to reclaim their prewar lives. One of the servicewomen, Amorita Randall, a former naval construction worker, told The Times that she was in combat in Iraq in 2004 and that in one incident an explosive device blew up a Humvee she was riding in, killing the driver and leaving her with a brain injury. She also said she was raped twice while she was in the Navy.
On March 6, three days before the article went to press, a Times researcher contacted the Navy to confirm Ms. Randall’s account…
…On March 12, three days after the article had gone to press, the Navy called The Times to say that it had found that Ms. Randall had never received imminent-danger pay or a combat-zone tax exemption, indicating that she was never in Iraq….
…it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced that she did….If The Times had learned these facts before publication, it would not have included Ms. Randall in the article.
So, since the bogus story had already been PRINTED in the magazine, rather than correct it immediately or ~ GOD FORBID ~ REPRINT the magazine, they ran the erroneous article anyway on March 18th. The mea culpa appears seven days later, on March 25th.
It is now clear that those at the New York Times did not serve with ‘journalistic integrity’, but may have become convinced that they did.
Media | tree hugging sister | 
March 26, 2007 1:59 pm
Subscribe
I’ve become convinced that I served in the Battle of New Orleans under Gen. Jackson, and I’ll tell y’all my story just like I’ll give it to the nice reporter from the NYT. I swear it’s true.
See, in 1814 I took a little trip along with Col. Jackson down the mighty Missisip. I took a little bacon and I took a little beans, and I caught the bloody British by the town of New Orleans. Well, I fired my gun and the British kept a coming, though there wasn’t quite as many as there was an hour ago. I fired once more and they began a running, right down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
The story is fake but accurate; I mean we know all those unejumakatehd soljers are just aminals, anyway.
(Wel, crys for halp AR rooteenlee igknord.)
And here I was a sport not mentioning your whole Anna Nicole Smith’s baby’s father…convincement.
I fired…but I didn’t necessarily hit anything.
I love the whole “but may have become convinced that she did” treatment. I guess that’s the softer, lovlier way of calling someone a “f$%@ing liar” nowadays.
It’s just further proof that media doesn’t give a shit about integrity or honesty. It also destroys all those opinion polls claiming that the majority of Americans are against this war. After all, those opinions are being formed on incomplete info and even outright lies.
Even Baron Munchausen wasn’t this convinced…
Hmmm.
1. “Halp me Jon Kerri I’m in Irak and bein’ rapped!”
2. Honestly this is one reason why I really don’t like having women in the military. The PC stuff is ok for civilian life but military life can be stressful enough as it is, throw in combat and the toughness factor goes up.
The fact that American female POWs are routinely gang-raped is another reason I oppose having women in the military.
Oh, now I have to kick your ass, ed.