The New York Crimes

posted at 7:14 pm on October 13, 2007 by Michelle

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.

More background here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hi Michelle. Sorry for the off topic, But have you seen this?
Challenging Ezra Klein

R D on October 13, 2007 at 7:19 PM

There is a reason that more and more people are referring to the Old Gray Lady as the NY Slimes.

doriangrey on October 13, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Oops.

Link

R D on October 13, 2007 at 7:20 PM

All the news that’s fit to print fits their agenda

trubble on October 13, 2007 at 7:21 PM

A Times spokeswoman said yesterday afternoon that the paper does plan to run something about the award – though she didn’t say exactly what.

No doubt something impartial, pro-military and pro-U.S…….. NOT

Britcop on October 13, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Hopefully this will get more play. A must read for incite to liberal media is Justice Thomas’s book ‘My Grandfather’s Son’. He really gets into the media.

Ignoring anyone who gets the Medal of Honor is a dishonor to the medal, the man and the country.

Wade on October 13, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Why would it? Why should it? I didn’t think it’s ideology and agenda were hidden anymore. Isn’t that why so many people stopped reading it? Some libs may not be getting some news, but everyone else is. The story here maybe is that the Times is gone.

JiangxiDad on October 13, 2007 at 7:25 PM

I know that I am always cautioning conservatives against overplaying the “left-wing media bias” mantra. But this type of oversight/omission stems directly from an anti-war bias.

It’s a first-time bestowal for actions in Afghanistan. It involves a New Yorker. If Lt. Michael Murphy were involved in actions fitting the anti-war narrative preferred by NYT, then he would have had front page coverage.

I would use the NYT to wipe my *ss, but it’s already full of crap.

The Race Card on October 13, 2007 at 7:26 PM

this reeks of sharia

crr6 on October 13, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Scott Ott was the first to refer to the NYT front page as “the classified section.”

wordwarp on October 13, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Thanks Michelle for posting this. I am interested if you have read ‘My Grandfather’s Son’. Like when would you possibly find the time? It really opened my eyes to racism and bias I could never know except through the eyes and words of Justice Thomas. After the read there is nothing the NY Crimes could, or could not, do to surprise me.

Wade on October 13, 2007 at 7:33 PM

Yep, it’s a miscarriage of justice for the NYCrimes not to carry this story but…I’m glad they didn’t. I can’t imagine the treatment they would do the story and frankly, Lt. Murphy is too good to be printed in the pages of that rag.

We should expect this behavior from an enemy of our country.

Pilgrim on October 13, 2007 at 7:39 PM

I happened to see the front page of the Slimes in a paperbox yesterday. In full color was a photo and story about a car bomb that went off in Kirkuk (I think it was). My thought was SSDD for the Slimes. Now, from Michelle’s post we hear that they chose to run that story and ignore the local medal of honor recipient. Just another brick for their wall.

At what point does this get beyond outraqe? They Slimes agenda has been apparent for some time now. However, it is necessary to keep reporting their BS. For someone else it may be their tipping point to realizing what traitorous scum the Old Gray and Decrepit Lady has become.

Mallard T. Drake on October 13, 2007 at 7:46 PM

Salute

Kaptain Amerika on October 13, 2007 at 7:48 PM

It’s amazing that a Long Islander and a New Yorker

As if they were mutually exclusive. Just like the NYT and reality.

Kini on October 13, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Hero – helps bush – shows bravery of troops – can’t have it

Defector01 on October 13, 2007 at 7:55 PM

Financial Woes for the NY Times

JiangxiDad on October 13, 2007 at 7:59 PM

The NY Times Holds a Yardsale

JiangxiDad on October 13, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Even my leftist local rag, the Staten Island Advance (or Retreat as most of our friends call it) had an article on the MOH recipient.

Then again, Staten Island is probably the most conservative borough in NYC, and there are a lot of sons and daughters “over there” right now.

Mommynator on October 13, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Medal of Honor to Be Awarded to Soldier Killed in Iraq, a First

I guess the NY Times has changed since 2005?

Or they like the Army better than the Navy?

Or they think Iraq is the good war and Afghanistan is the bad war? Nope, that would be backwards, better strike that.

MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Robbie Cooper will take MM’s place in Ezra Klein fight. Although I know Michelle could whip him either way.

R D on October 13, 2007 at 8:12 PM

How cold and unpatriotic of the NY Times. Word comes to these shores of the actions of a real life Hero fighting our cowardly attackers on the far side of the world and the hateful NY Times averts it’s eyes (and print). Sickening.

Michelle, I’m glad you had proper and prompt cover of Lt. Michael Murphy’s sacrifice. May God Rest his Soul.

Zorro on October 13, 2007 at 8:13 PM

I’m not from New York, so I don’t know, but did they run any stories about 911? I’d bet it was buried in the “local news” section with the title “Local Man Hears Loud Noise.”
I’m just guessing here.

Tennessee Dave on October 13, 2007 at 8:41 PM

Lt. Murphy was a hero of the Afghanistan conflict. I thought that one was the “Good” War.

I’ve been saying for a bit that the Left is working up to condemning both wars. There are two reasons for this: any war which serves the interests of the West is wrong in their eyes and any endeavor initiated by Bush is, by definition, tainted (again, in their eyes). The purposeful omission of the official acknowledgment of lieutenant’s heroism is merely one of the ways in which the condemnation of all things military is perpetrated. The NYT–cog of the Left that it is–cannot spin the MOH announcement. So they simply refused to report it.

RIP, Lt. Murphy and know that a great many of us will not allow your heroism to go unheralded.

baldilocks on October 13, 2007 at 9:08 PM

Note to the Times: you’ve lost exclusive control of the narrative. By unduly restricting what news is “Fit to Print,” you’ve opened the door to the competition. You blew it.

Splunge on October 13, 2007 at 9:25 PM

How is the NYT still in business? Are they getting “grants” or funding by Soros too? Or maybe stealing money from the Boys and Girls Club as Air America did? I would love to see Rupert Murdock, or better yet, Clear Channel Communications buy them out.

Here’s another story of victory they ignore. Well, the whole MSM missed it for some reason.

Iraqi Special Operations Forces detained a key al Qaeda in Iraq cell leader, a second cousin to the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, during an intelligence driven raid in northern Mosul.

http://news.soc.mil/releases/News%20Archive/2007/October/071007-01.html

El Guapo on October 13, 2007 at 9:31 PM

By unduly restricting what news is “Fit to Print,” you’ve opened the door to the competition. You blew it.

Splunge

Isn’t that how liberals always blow it? By overlooking things and not thinking ahead to ALL possible future outcomes?

El Guapo on October 13, 2007 at 9:33 PM

Isn’t that how liberals always blow it? By overlooking things and not thinking ahead to ALL possible future outcomes?

El Guapo on October 13, 2007 at 9:33 PM

Maybe. Certainly liberal proposals often founder on the shoals of unintended consequences, in cases where the healthy respect of conservatives for the invariant properties of human nature would have informed a more sensible structure of incentives. But for many years, the NYT leaned left, yet valued its reputation as the “Newspaper of Record” more than any leftist agenda, at least usually. Lately they seem to be completely willing to squander that legacy, and I find it inexplicable. It’s not just BDS, although that’s clearly a factor. Look at their campaign about women and the Masters golf tournament. Utterly pointless, controversial even among their staff. One gets the feeling that they are not just willing to squander the legacy of the Times, but eager to do so.

Splunge on October 13, 2007 at 9:47 PM

Certainly liberal proposals often founder on the shoals of unintended consequences….

They want you to vote for their “good intentions” and not what the real outcome could be.

El Guapo on October 13, 2007 at 10:04 PM

Hi Michelle. Sorry for the off topic, But have you seen this?
Challenging Ezra Klein

R D on October 13, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Would not be fair, somone might benefit without da gov.

allrsn on October 13, 2007 at 10:10 PM

They want you to vote for their “good intentions” and not what the real outcome could be.

….Just like this recent vote to declare Turkey’s genocide agaisnt Armenia, for the third time now since the 1970′s (is that right?)

El Guapo on October 13, 2007 at 10:13 PM

allrsn We should have a celebrity boxing match again. But this time, make it Democrats vs Republicans, better yet, Dems vs. service members!

El Guapo on October 13, 2007 at 10:14 PM

yes EI that would solve many social problems, LOL

allrsn on October 13, 2007 at 10:20 PM

The associated press reported that only 4 or dead nationwide Saturday. Surprising enough, the AP reported it. However, not ONE WORD in the Chicago Tribune. Not ONE WORD in the Chicago Sun-Times. In the LA Times, 12 died in a stampede of pilgrims outside a temple in India, but noe ONE WORD about only 4 civilians murdered in Iraq in a 24 hour period.

However, The NY Times did carry the story, 5 paragraphs, in their international section, but not as the lead headline.

A country of 25 million people, in the midst of a so-called sectarian civil war, and only 4 people are murdered! Hell, more people were murdered in Chicago or New York in any given day!

The New York Times, like the rest of the 5th Column media, in invested in America’s defeat. They won’t report stories about an American’s heroic action in combat; one worthy of the nation’s highest award for bravery and valor. They’ll mention in pasing a HUGE turnaround like the Anbar Uprising, the defeat of AL Qaeda in Diaylah, and the PEACEFUL transition of Basra to the Iraqi army.

Oh, we know what side the NY Times and the media are on, alright — the enemy’s.

georgej on October 14, 2007 at 7:28 AM

Oh, we know what side the NY Times and the media are on, alright — the enemy’s.

georgej on October 14, 2007 at 7:28 AM

Do you see an endgame? Personally, I see the fall of the institution of the Times (like the networks, etc.) if kept in liberal hands. I don’t see worse, yet.

JiangxiDad on October 14, 2007 at 8:00 AM