Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Bloggers Burnt Up Over NYT's Medal of Honor Snub
Share:
by Brian A Kennedy | October 15, 2007 at 04:38 am
309 views | 12 Recommendations | 3 comments
Conservative bloggers (and the New York Post) are enraged over the New York Times neglecting to run a story on Lt. Michael Murphy, a Long Island native and Navy SEAL who won the Medal of Honor posthumously in Afghanistan (it was only the third awarded since the War on Terror began, I think). Sure, it's manufactured outrage, but it does seem like a really, really bad call on the NYT's part -- it was a no-brainer newsworthy story that even had an NYC peg.
Unfortunately, it reinforces two at-least-partially-true stereotypes about the NYT;
1) It's surrendered any pretense to being good at local news to the tabloids, instead going highbrow and trying to be A World Paper and all that (although the Washington Post somehow manages to do a great job at both local and global). NYT local stories tend to be dull chin-strokers -- more "Diabetes Rates Rise Slightly in Chelsea" than "Two Shot in Jewelry Store Holdup."
2) It's got a strong liberal bias. And I'm saying this as a liberal!
The very first Medal of Honor awarded in Operation Enduring Freedom is being given to a Long Island, New Yorker, a Navy Seal named Lt. Michael Murphy. Every single major newspaper in the New York metro area has given glowing coverage to Lt. Murphy and and his heroics - even the liberal Newsday.
Every newspaper save 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.
This is the kind of decision made at the highest levels of the Times editorial braintrust. A local boy honored with the highest decoration the American military can bestow and the "Paper of Record" who promises to publish "All the News That's Fit to Print" refuses to cover the story?
In this scenario, the story could have been assigned to a reporter who may have actually submitted a piece for publication only to have the story killed by higher ups. I simply cannot believe that a story so newsworthy could have slipped through the cracks and not been covered.
An alternate explanation could be that word came down from above that the Times would not cover the story. Either way, the decision to ignore a story that every other newspaper in the New York metro area deemed worthy of extensive coverage could only have orginated at the top - perhaps with Sulzberger himself.
If the Times keeps insisiting that they do not have an anti-military bias, they are going to have to come clean about why they didn't cover this story.
Sounds like a job for the Public Editor Clark Hoyt. Here's his contact info:
E-mail: public@nytimes.com
* Phone: (212) 556-7652
* Address: Public Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (3)
at 05:00 on October 15th, 2007
It is bizarre that this story wasn't covered, Brian A Kennedy.
at 08:57 on October 15th, 2007
Brian A Kennedy, thanks for bringing this to light. As a conservative, I dont read the NYT and was unaware of this. It does however, also point out that bad management at the NYT leads to lower subscriptions and revenues. It is no secret the paper is facing great hardships. It is a wonder they keep sticking to the same strategy.
at 13:34 on October 15th, 2007
Yep, it seems stupid not to give this story space. It would have been a good opportunity for the NYT to show how even-handed and balanced they are. It could of course just be a case of missing to run with it - stories do slip through the net. Anyway, a field day for the conservative bloggers.