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.
