I usually don't comment on things that have already shown up on other blogs, because they usually do a better job of it than I do, but I couldn't let this one pass. When I brought up Michelle Malkin's blog this morning, the first thing that caught my eye was this picture. My first thought, before even reading the caption was, "what are those people doing standing around an unexploded artillery shell?"
Then I read the caption and my jaw dropped. According to the most reliable newspaper in the country, that isn't an artillery shell, it's "the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border."
Huh? Even someone whose only knowledge of munitions is watching WWII-era Popeye cartoons can recognize this as an artillery shell. And from the looks of it, it is still armed.
I've said before that the two subjects on which journalists are most ignorant are the military and religion. But this goes beyond ignorance. This is stupidity. I define stupidity as wanting to be ignorant, as wanting falsehoods to be true. This picture had to go through several levels of vetting, but nobody commented on the obvious Pulitzer-pandering posing of the shot or of the misidentification of the weapon pictured.
I don't believe that the lefties at the NYT are stupid enough to put a picture on their web site that they know to be wrong. But I do believe that they're stupid enough to want to print anything they can find that will undermine this President and our war on terror.
Something needs to be done. I'm thinking The Dan Rather Retirement Home for Incompetent Journalists.
Monday, January 16, 2006
NYT Tries to Pull A Fast One...Again
I usually don't comment on things that have already shown up on other blogs, because they usually do a better job of it than I do, but I couldn't let this one pass. When I brought up Michelle Malkin's blog this morning, the first thing that caught my eye was this picture. My first thought, before even reading the caption was, "what are those people doing standing around an unexploded artillery shell?"
Then I read the caption and my jaw dropped. According to the most reliable newspaper in the country, that isn't an artillery shell, it's "the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border."
Huh? Even someone whose only knowledge of munitions is watching WWII-era Popeye cartoons can recognize this as an artillery shell. And from the looks of it, it is still armed.
I've said before that the two subjects on which journalists are most ignorant are the military and religion. But this goes beyond ignorance. This is stupidity. I define stupidity as wanting to be ignorant, as wanting falsehoods to be true. This picture had to go through several levels of vetting, but nobody commented on the obvious Pulitzer-pandering posing of the shot or of the misidentification of the weapon pictured.
I don't believe that the lefties at the NYT are stupid enough to put a picture on their web site that they know to be wrong. But I do believe that they're stupid enough to want to print anything they can find that will undermine this President and our war on terror.
Something needs to be done. I'm thinking The Dan Rather Retirement Home for Incompetent Journalists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Aside from the fact that it's decidedly not a missle, shouldn't it at least be more.... exploded? Less intact?
What does this say about education in America? Is this indicative of the average "critical mind" it produces?
Who knows where they get this stuff. That region of the world, bordering Afghanistan is littered with unexploded munitions. It could date back as far as the Soviet invasion. What bothers me is the fuse looks intact. It could still be lethal if handled. It's stuff like this that the terrorists used to make IEDs.
Liberals could not exist if our schools turned out people who were capable of thinking for themselves.
Do people still read the New York Times?
Post a Comment