New York Times Gets It Wrong…Again

New York Times Gets It Wrong…Again
SUNDAY, MARCH 25, 2007
But of course, they’re not pushing an agenda, right? Riiiiiight.

On March 18, the New York Times published this story about female soldiers who served in Iraq and are now having problems as a result.

One of the women mentioned in the story claims to have been sexually assaulted twice in the last few years and that she suffers severe mental problems as a result of being deployed to, and injured in, Iraq. Her story is gripping because of the vivid details given.

One problem though: she never was sent to Iraq. She was in Guam the whole time.

The NYTimes did insert a correction in the online edition today, a full week after they published this story (anyone know about the print edition at all?), but knew full well when they went to print with this article that portions of it may have been inaccurate. Where have I seen that before?

The Times contacted the Navy just three days before this story went to print, not exactly giving them time to look into it. Nevertheless, the Navy DID provide enough info to the Times to where they should have questioned this woman’s story, at least to the point of leaving her out entirely.

Of course there’s NO agenda at work here, folks. None at all.

As I said in the opening: riiiiiight.

For the record, nobody (so far) is questioning the veracity of the other women’s claims in this article. But it shows that in pursuit of a story that fits the agenda, the press is willing to believe anything a person says, as long as it advances the agenda.

Update: Here’s the link to the correction page. Thanks to Tom in the comments. =)

Bookmark to:
Add ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to Del.icio.usAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to diggAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to FURLAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to blinklistAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to redditAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to Feed Me LinksAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to TechnoratiAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to Yahoo My WebAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to NewsvineAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to SocializerAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to Ma.gnoliaAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to Stumble UponAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to Google Bookmarks
Add ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to RawSugarAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to SquidooAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to SpurlAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to BlinkBitsAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to NetvouzAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to RojoAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to BlogmarksAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to ShadowsAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to SimpyAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to Co.mmentsAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to ScuttleAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to BloglinesAdd ‘New York Times Gets It Wrong?Again’ to Tailrank
Sphere: Related Content

Sister Toldjah trackbacked with Another NYT “oopsie”…
Ed Driscoll.com trackbacked with Maybe Okinawa’s Close Enough, After All…
Posted by: Brian in: Main Stream Media, Liberals, Iraq, Military at 4:02 am

Permalink | trackback (right click and save) |
16 Responses to “New York Times Gets It Wrong…Again”
1Sister Toldjah Says:
Another NYT “oopsie”…

Brian at Iowa Voice has the details of some faulty reporting done by the New York Times a week ago in a story about sexual abuse on women who hav served in Iraq and PTSD they go through.
There were several women the writer – Sara Corbett – interviewed …

March 25th, 2007 at 9:41 am
2Ed Driscoll.com Says:
Maybe Okinawa’s Close Enough, After All…

Found via Tim Blair, Iowa Voice notes:On March 18, the New York Times published this story about female soldiers who served in Iraq and are now having problems as a result. One of the women mentioned in the story claims……

March 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
3BillyJoel Says:
On Sunday, The Times published a correction to the March 18 cover story. In it, the Times states that �it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did.�

She’s just a “nut.”

That’s not a symptom of the stress of military life. I had 29 years of it and never saw this one.

March 25th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
4Chuck Says:
Of all the things that bother me about this story is the fact that the Navy is “unsure” whether one of its own sailors has been ordered to, and served in, a combat zone. And then whether she had been injured there. There should be adequate paper trails to establish either. The fact that there doesn’t seem to be any would probably disprove her case.

Now how does someone who has never been in a combat zone (let alone injured there) become debilitated by stress and have ‘flashbacks’ of an IED attack? Probably from watching too much of the non-stop, negative news in the MSM. Can you sue for media malpractice?

March 25th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
5AndyJ Says:
Just more of that Emotional Truth. Facts that are not supported by emotion are lifeless and not trustworthy. Objective truth that can be verified by documents, eyewitnesses, photographs or best of all video is valid only so long as it supports the Emotional Truth.

Yep, it’s a Looking Glass world… Do ya suppose that it was going on for a long time and we just recently got the tools to research and question? What would the Queen say? Are they all just a deck of cards?…

March 25th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
6Jeff Says:
The thing that is troubling about the comments I have read from the Times is that they seem to indicate that it’s more important that we empathize with the trauma that Randall experienced or in this case believes she experienced, rather than whether or not the piece is factually accurate.

More to the point of the two alleged rapes which the Navy has no record of, at this point if Randall’s fiance acknowledges that he doesn’t know if Randall served in Iraq, or even if she knows, well what basis can we find for believing her rape allegation? That’s the core problem, if Randall is not a credible complainant then any claim for PTSD is built on a fiction and not deserving of the ink the NYTimes spilled for it.

What we can conclude is that Randall likely has some serious mental health issues and for that I hope she finds her way to the VA to get some help, at no charge to her.

March 25th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
7Lumber Says:
More on the indisputable left-wing (and now anti-US) bias in the media here.

Obsession with Fox News is a sign of leftism, as why else would they be so bothered that only 1 out 0f 7 news networks does not conform to the anti-US agenda?

March 25th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
8aalsiom Says:
I have a relative that received 100% disability from the VA for PTSD. She worked at Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland in the late 1960s and never left the U.S. Here claim is that she suffers PTSD from having to care for the wounded Marines.

I spent 21 years in the Army from 1967 to 1989. All but 5 of those years were overseas including tours of Vietnam. I have to pay taxes on my retirement while her’s is tax free.

Don;t tell me that there’s not an agenda.

March 26th, 2007 at 3:38 am
9sydney smith Says:
You asked if there was anything in the pring addition. There was, but it was a small editor’s note in the news section of the paper where they put the corrrections. Seems that mistake is big enough to print a retraction at least as big as the front page feature that was the original article.

March 26th, 2007 at 4:18 am
10Hacklehead Says:
Iraq vs Guam? Hey what is a few thousand miles between friends?

One thing for sure the NY Times will never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

March 26th, 2007 at 8:15 am
11ExRat Says:
There have recently been way too many episodes like this coming out of the NYT and its sister publications. While the Times may still be trustworthy with regard to stories that have no political content or reference, as far as I’m concerned the paper is as dependable as the Weekly World News in stories that do contain such content or reference.

March 26th, 2007 at 9:25 am
12PCD Says:
Notice that the lefties that usually post protests of Brian’s articles are silent? More proof the NYT has it’s editorial pants down around its ankles again.

March 26th, 2007 at 10:14 am
13Jaime Roberto Says:
Since the Democrats would have us believe that a retreat from Iraq would really only be a redeployment to Okinawa, maybe the editors got confused and thought that Guam was next to Iraq.

March 26th, 2007 at 10:46 am
14Tom Maguire Says:
Here is a link to the Times correction.

March 26th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
15Casey Tompkins Says:
re: comment #4; apparently the outfit in question did send a subsection of their personel to Iraq, while most went to Guam; hence the confusion.

March 26th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
16Brian Says:
Thanks for the link, Tom. The original link I had went behind the membership wall, so I had to find another. I’ll do an update and add your link, too, just so people can see it.

March 26th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.