Saturday, October 13, 2007

NY Times Ignores Hero

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.

Yet all too predictable.
The posthumous award of the nation's highest battlefield honor to a Long Island war hero has become an other black mark for the Gray Lady.

The New York Times carried not a whisper of news yesterday about the bestowal of the Medal of Honor to Navy Lt. Michael Murphy of Patchogue - the first time the honor has been given for action in Afghanistan.

Area veterans, as well as Murphy's neighbors, were outraged - but not all that surprised - that the paper carried nothing about Murphy in Friday's editions, unlike The Post, The Daily News and Newsday, which all carried prominent reports and photos.

"If he had killed 15 people, he'd be on the front page of their newspaper," fumed James Casey of Malverne, a Vietnam vet and past commander of the state American Le gion organization.

"It's amazing that a Long Islander and a New Yorker can receive the highest commendation this country can bestow and the Times doesn't see fit to mention it - especially on the heels of the Gen. Petraeus ad," said Casey - referring to the paper's decision to run a full-page ad from a liberal group con taining the headline words "General Betray Us."

The Times seemed alone in ignoring Thursday's White House announce ment of Murphy's honor.

In addition to the local coverage, some out-of-town papers, including The Denver Post and The Los Angeles Times, covered the news with their own reporters.

One Medal of Honor recipient, Col. Jack Jacobs of Morris County, N.J., who fought in Vietnam, said, "You'd think it would be fairly substantial news that ought to get reported. It's kind of troubling that it's not."

A Times spokeswoman said yesterday afternoon that the paper does plan to run something about the award - though she didn't say exactly what.

President Bush will present the medal to Murphy's parents at a White House ceremony Oct. 22.

It wasn't the first time the Times gave short shrift to such a story. The paper ran just one paragraph about the posthumous awarding of the Medal of Honor to Cpl. Jason Dunham, a U.S. Marine from upstate killed in Iraq in 2004. That paragraph ran in January in the middle of a story about congressional opposition to Bush's Iraq war plans.
Don't expect any of the Times' stable of America-hating columnists to mention this either.

The Post editorial nails it.
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.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin weighs in.

No comments: