The New York Slimes - All the "Newz" that's fit to Aid & Abet the Enemy
There Are No Heroes Because There Are No Heroes
By Cori Dauber
Rantingprofs
The Times lets itself off the hook for almost never publishing articles about the heroism of American troops by debunking heroism itself: historians and other scholars are working to uncover the truth behind the Audie Murphy myth, arguing that the story as it has been passed down is probably exaggerated, and doesn't that suggest that heroism itself isn't worth believing in?
Where to even begin.
How about here, with their explanation that today's heroes keep deflating before our very eyes:
<<< The military's attempt to turn Pfc. Jessica Lynch into a hero after the invasion of Iraq unraveled when it emerged that she had not emptied her rifle at advancing Iraqi soldiers, as first reported. The initial accounts of Cpl. Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan in April 2004 came undone when it was disclosed that the corporal, a former N.F.L. star, had been killed by members of his own unit. >>>
Two problems with their two examples. First, without even wading into the debate over who it was that built up Private Lynch, it's been well established that the mistake was a translation confusion between she and another soldier who died on the scene. Whatever you believe about whoever you think did what about building her up, once that mistake was discovered, that young man was a bona fide hero, and beyond a few mentions in stories about her, he's gotten almost no attention, despite being awarded the Silver Star for his actions that day.
Second, I never understand the argument over Tillman: yes, it's a tragedy that he was killed by friendly fire. Why does that make him any less a hero? It makes him a tragic hero, I suppose, but is he any less an example and reflection of the best of our values?
But here's what the Times apparently believes of heroism and heroic stories, if you're wondering why such stories don't appear in the paper's pages:
<<< It was easier to create heroic stories in 1918 when the press was more pliable and the public more gullible, and the popular media had a fondness for uplifting tales of uncomplicated bravery. Though newspaper articles at the time refer to members of Sergeant York's platoon who challenged the accounts of that day, the doubters were given only enough attention to dismiss them. >>>
There's your bottom line, friends and neighbors. We aren't seeing those stories because the Times just doesn't believe in them. Behind every story of "uncomplicated" heroism is a scandal and a lie waiting to be revealed, so why publish, when you know sooner or later the truth will out and you'll just have to publish a retraction anyway?
Now, note to the staff of the New York Times: here's why you have so little credibility with everyone who has the least bit of familiarity with military issues. I'm not talking about military personnel and vets, and military affairs professors. I'm talking about everyone who has the most glancing, the most casual, the most informal, knowledge about the military. Anyone who has so much as read a book, hell skimmed a book, or engaged in small talk over a beer with someone who's even considered going into the military, that little familiarity with the military would be enough to read this paragraph and immediately understand that almost five years after 9/11, and three years after war began in Iraq, at a time when polls show most Americans believe no issue matters morethan the war in Iraq, your reporters can't be bothered to have the most passing understanding of how the military works, and what's worse, the editors who are supposed to be responsible for keeping them honest seem to be alright with that -- because those editors don't know enough to realize how little the reporters know, or don't care.
<<< Six of the Americans were killed and three others were wounded, leaving then Corporal York the officer in charge. He is credited with overcoming the superior force by using his sharpshooting skills, honed during turkey shoots and squirrel hunts in the Tennessee woods. >>>
So is there any confusion about how you people know so little about the military that you believe stories about heroism in war are inevitably exaggerated myths? (And, by the way, ask your reporters out in the field in Baghdad. Betcha they'll tell you different.)
As for Audie Murphy, where did the real exaggeration come from?
Hollywood. Not the Pentagon. (I'm shocked.) So what do we find deep in the article?
<<< Still, the many inconsistencies do not detract from the fact that he and his comrades exhibited extraordinary courage that day. >>>
I'm sure it's just mythic hyperbole, but with perfect timing, a reader passed this along yesterday because I had brought up the question of the media's neglecting stories of heroism last week. As I told him, there's something ironic about a media outlet for the military telling the military about the military: they're the ones least in need of the information, aren't they?
rantingprofs.com
nytimes.com
topics.nytimes.com
google.com
stripes.com
|
