Thursday, March 22, 2007

U.S. Navy: What's going on with this woman?

False stories are also a part of war and politics. From the Navy Times, March 22, 2007.

The New York Times (and Magazine) hates the war, loves feminism, sees all women as "victims" of the brutish patriarchy.

"The March 19 Sunday New York Times Magazine cover story was a gripping account of the emotional problems some female veterans suffer as results of their war experiences, sexual assaults or both.

One of the women featured in the story was a former builder constructionman Amorita Randall, 27, who served six years as a Seabee. Randall told the Times that while in the Navy, she was raped twice — in 2002 while she was stationed in Mississippi, and again in Guam in 2004. She also told the Times that she served in Iraq in 2004, which the Times reported as fact but which it now appears was not the case.

It appears none of the above happened. However, and allegedly NY Times is planning a "correction". Did the NY Times "verify" the woman's account of service pre-publishment? No. Sayeth the NY Times Magazine:

The magazine did not call the Navy to check Randall’s Iraq story sooner, Marzorati said, because they believed that checking rank, years of service and time in Iraq “would be a perfunctory thing.”

Might the New York Times Magazine change its title to: The Mike Nifong News -- all the news which SHOULD have happened.

1 comment:

MataHarley said...

Dishonesty, lies and agenda in the media. One of my main blog topics here, girl... Notice how many "media rants" postings there are for me, and that's just those I can find in the archives!

More and more I am of the belief that "journalists" must have some sort of prequalifications to "practice", Alia. Sounds radical in some ways, but here's the basics... and I'm still mulling over the "hows".

1: Journalists enjoy a brand of legal immunities the rest of us do not have for actions such exposing national secrets. Even in the CIA identities protect act from the 80s. Consequently, they can print lies and trash (and do) sans research and confirmation, protect their sources (who may have lied), and suffer no consequences. It's frightening to see anyone who can call themselves "the press" rise above laws. And heaven knows, there's enough "leaking" of intel and military strategy nowadays that this is really dangerous stuff. Every military campaign in this war has been broadcast in detail to the enemy months in advance. How smart is that??

2. Major media have the power to influence and control public opinion with their reporting... and thereby elections and the direction of policy/polls/pols. The press is, in essence, the educator of voters.

Considering that we mandate education requirements from our teachers in public and private school systems, should we not also require some for journalists entrusted with this omnipotent power?

3: I also think that all journalists be required to disclose their personal opinions as a disclaimer with their news. As in debates, where you know from where each side originates, one can then assess their purported "news" accounts more accurately when you are aware of their personal views.

The point here is NO ONE is "objective and unbiased" unless they are completely in the dark about an issue. It's more likely that someone in the journalism field is far more opinionated than the rest of us by personal exposure.

I actually blog-ranted on this already. But I think it was a time you were buried under domestic stuff... LOL

Oddly enuf, it was about one year earlier that I also posted an article by ANSHEL PFEFFER if the Jerusalem Post that echoes much of the same. I guess I must have absorbed that logic without making the connection when I did the February "media rant".