Thread: The Liberal New York Times Ignores Medal Of Honor Recipiant

UNFIT TO PRINT?

UNFIT TO PRINT?
October 13, 2007 -- 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.

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.

Indeed, it would be hard to cite a news outlet more responsible for sapping U.S. morale - and emboldening America's enemies - than the Times.

But Murphy was a New Yorker.

He served with unusual valor and distinction in Afghanistan.

When Taliban militants ambushed his four-man team in 2005, he risked his life scrambling to an open spot to radio for help. He got his call through, but was later killed in the battle.

Surely even editors at the Times could have had the heart to report - if not honor - such courage and self-sacrifice.

Unless, of course, they're so blinded by their disdain for America's fighting men and women and their missions that they just can't muster the decency to do so.

That must be it.
........................................

Michelle Malkin » In honor of Lt. Michael P. Murphy

THE NEW YORK CRIMES

Hot Air » Blog Archive » The New York Crimes


The New York Post rightly rips into the Old Gray Lady for failing to mention
“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:”
“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 MoveOn.org ad,” said Casey - referring to the paper’s deci sion 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.
If Lt. Murphy had been accused of war crimes, you can bet where the NYTimes would have placed the news. Front and center

This is a shame but then maybe by printing this story, someone would think that the paper supports the war on terrorism. It is really sad but the paper is privately owned and has the right.

I bet he'd rather be alive than have a medal or notice from a newspaper. And you calling the NY Times liberal is like Ron Paul Michael Moore calling NYPost Conservative. It means nothing considering your perspective. Republicans are bathroom flies.

I would say that is much better treatment than Cindy Sheehan has got from New York Post or FucNews. So, if you think the guy deserves some press make a collection and buy a classified.


Apparently Medals of Honor have been dumbed down for todays military too. I say BFD, if this is all he did:
<<"When Taliban militants ambushed his four-man team in 2005, he risked his life scrambling to an open spot to radio for help. He got his call through, but was later killed in the battle.">>

Originally Posted by toxic

I would say that is much better treatment than Cindy Sheehan has got from New York Post or FucNews. So, if you think the guy deserves some press make a collection and buy a classified.

So your justifying the New York Times actions by how you saw your hero Cindy Sheehan treated?

The real shame is that this rag will still sell papers and very few Liberals will boycott it for it's anti-American stance.

Originally Posted by itsplayed

The real shame is that this rag will still sell papers and very few Liberals will boycott it for it's anti-American stance.

All you need to do to prove that your right is to look at the liberal replys on this thread!

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

So your justifying the New York Times actions by how you saw your hero Cindy Sheehan treated?

Yeah. I'd say Cindy Sheehan has more balls that the Navy Seal who simply scarmbled to save his own ass:

Apparently the Medal of Honor has been dumbed down for todays military too. I say BFD, if this is all he did:

<<"When Taliban militants ambushed his four-man team in 2005, he risked his life scrambling to an open spot to radio for help. He got his call through, but was later killed in the battle.">>

Originally Posted by toxic

Yeah. I'd say Cindy Sheehan has more balls that the Navy Seal who simply scarmbled to save his own ass:

Apparently Medals of Honor have been dumbed down for todays military too. I say BFD, if this is all he did:

<<"When Taliban militants ambushed his four-man team in 2005, he risked his life scrambling to an open spot to radio for help. He got his call through, but was later killed in the battle.">>

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case! The liberal mentality posted above!

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

UNFIT TO PRINT?

UNFIT TO PRINT?
October 13, 2007 -- 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.

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.

Indeed, it would be hard to cite a news outlet more responsible for sapping U.S. morale - and emboldening America's enemies - than the Times.

But Murphy was a New Yorker.

He served with unusual valor and distinction in Afghanistan.

When Taliban militants ambushed his four-man team in 2005, he risked his life scrambling to an open spot to radio for help. He got his call through, but was later killed in the battle.

Surely even editors at the Times could have had the heart to report - if not honor - such courage and self-sacrifice.

Unless, of course, they're so blinded by their disdain for America's fighting men and women and their missions that they just can't muster the decency to do so.

That must be it.
........................................

Michelle Malkin » In honor of Lt. Michael P. Murphy

THE NEW YORK CRIMES

Hot Air » Blog Archive » The New York Crimes


The New York Post rightly rips into the Old Gray Lady for failing to mention
“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:”
“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 MoveOn.org ad,” said Casey - referring to the paper’s deci sion 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.
If Lt. Murphy had been accused of war crimes, you can bet where the NYTimes would have placed the news. Front and center

Oh yeah dumbass... and the NY Post is a model of objective journalism. You are pesky little fool aren't you?

And with Rupert Murdock buying outlet after outlet i.e. Wall Street journal, I worry that journalism in the hands of men like Murdock are beholden to the owner of the publication and not to The Truth.