I wish I had a bridge to sell these people

Monday, January 16, 2006

Once again the New York Times has screwed up. This time they put a fake picture on the front page.

OOPS

In addition: Tomorrow the New York Sun will be doing a story on the soon to be released Barrett report concerning officials in the Clinton Administration and their questionable dealings with the IRS via Drudge .

Wanna bet that won't make the front pages of the NYT?


Update: The NY Sun report on the Barrett investigation is here .

30 comments:

Peter UK said...

If the New York Times is incapable of identifying an artillery shell,possibly a Russian/former Soviet Block 152 MM ball shrapnel round, yellow identifying ring and driving band for obturation,what other "little" details,by which they form their world view, are they getting wrong?

Peter UK said...

Terrye,
As an exercise,I just googled a picture of a Hellfire Missile,it is as easy as that.This very sloppy journalism by the New York Times,what happened to those layers of checkers and editors.

terrye said...

peter:

There is no telling how old this picture is or where it came from.

They just saw an oppurtunity to be stupid and could not pass it up.

I bet that part of the world is covered with all kinds of military hardware.

Morgan said...

This is a picture of what happens when the US bombs impoverished villages willy-nilly, leaving children and proud, elderly men standing sorrowful yet stonefaced amidst unexploded ordnance and the rubble of what once were their homes.

It's not meant refer literally to the particular events described in the story, it's a metaphor for any act of wanton destruction by the US military.

Peter UK said...

Terrye,
It is probably a library picture,what are the chances of getting genuine pictures so soon after the event and fro such a remote location?

Some editor has said "We need a picture to go with the story",since the believe their readers don't know an artillery shell from an avocado,they thought they could get away with it.A very standard OP for the media,which has distorted the views of the public far too long.
The MSM is discharging its obligations in a very cavalier manner.

Peter UK said...

Terrye,
"I bet that part of the world is covered with all kinds of military hardware."

Interestingly it is this type of shell which is the basis of many IEDs,so there is a story,but not one that suites "Her Ladyship" the NYT

terrye said...

morgan:

yeah... yeah... yeah.

Peter, these people saw one thing: a chance to embarass the Bushies...at that point all reasonable thought process went out the window.

Peter UK said...

Terrye,
If it is a library picture,it is probably catalogued,date,location,perhaps photographer or at least agency.
No someone will have seen this,if it could be proved that the NYT knowingly published an inaccuracy.......

Skookumchuk said...

Are we militarists? Only an arms-crazed, pork-rind eating, Camaro-driving, Red State fundamentalist would know the arcane differences between an artillery shell and a Hellfire missile.

They are both arms put there by the industrial West. Isn't that enough?

/NYT editorial staff

Peter UK said...

Skookumchuk,
Plus the fact that this is probably a good socialist artillery shell.

truepeers said...

Are we all militarists? WEll a Canadian Army guy commenting at Small Dead Animals thinks it's actully an American 155mm shell; speculates that maybe it was being stored in a bomb factory next to the safe house.

Another commenter at SDA writes: "So the picture is wrong. What about the 5 kids killed? Anyone care?"

As if that were the issue. You see, even when they say false but true, they still haven't cottoned on to the idea that it is "false but true" that we find so offensive. They are fighting an ideological war of "values", and conceive values without reference to any facts or thoughts about the necessary basis of any social order, and so they can't quite understand people who believe in truth.

Peter UK said...

Truepeers,Has the US got any 155mm guns in the area? The Pakistanis army has towed 155mm artillery.The Russians used 152mm in Afghanistan and the Iraqi army also used this calibre.

What is important is that it is a shell not a missile,though the make and calibre would give some clue as to where the picture was taken.

terrye said...

I don't know if five kids were killed or not. I certainly hope not and yes I do care.

But I would like to know why terrorists make a point of both targetting civilians and hiding among them.

Does anyone care about that?

truepeers said...

Peter, if they did have a bomb making factory in the town, they might have acquired the unexploded shell from Afghanistan, or anywhere really.

Jamie Irons said...

I have a friend on the editorial staff of the NYT and she tells me that there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this fiasco, and the editor-in-chief says that "heads are going to roll." The paper is printing a front page retraction of the whole sorry episode above the fold in Tuesday's edition, which will be devoted to a series of pieces from all the major editorialists, including Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman, about how the staff realizes that its "get Bush at any price," full speed ahead and damn the truth attitude has ultimately proved self-defeating. The paper is going to adopt a new policy where errors will be immediately acknowledged, and all biases will be stated openly and up front.

***

OK, OK. Everything that I just wrote is completely made up. But I wish it were true, and so all my writing henceforth will be based on that wish.

Jamie Irons

Peter UK said...

Truepeers,
The bomb making factory seems to be pure conjecture,are there any reports of seconary explosions?
That is pretty rough country to be hauling big artillery rounds about,in Iraq there was tons left unmarked all over the place.
My point is that it is a shell,which can be identified,the picture could be as old as the Russo Afghan war,what is needed is to pin down the photograph to a date totally at variance to the missile strike.The objective here is the NYT

truepeers said...

On "fake but accurate": people who want us to feel "compassion" for "five kids who died" think that our response to seeing suffering should not take into account the manipulative means or media by which this real suffering has been put before our eyes. The suffering is real enough, so they just want us to take their/our "compassion" for granted, not question it (compare your neighborhood panhandler who is more theatrically in your face when he sees you with a date... are you more likely to give him money then?)

"Compassion" is a euphemism for guilt, a not entirely rational emotion (because guilt flows from recognizing social differences which are necessary, and often for everyone's good, howevermuch we resent them, a point that gets obscured, of course, when we start justifying wars). And we should pause to consider if our guilt warrants our "compassionate" manipulators manipulating us because they feel guilt for their own privileged NYT reading, latte sipping lives. I think it's important to criticize and separate the euphemism and its manipulation by the media, from one's legitimate guilty feelings for one's bad deeds. We may need to further build up the wall that separates our "feelings" from the ridiculous but often unspoken ideologies that, e.g., make all American success and power into the evil outcome of some zero sum game, which the present global economic and political system is not.

Standing up to the pimps of "compassion" may be a part of the culture war we need to fight more strongly.

truepeers said...

yes I see your point Peter. WHether the photo was taken yesterday or years ago, speaks to the degree of the NYT manipulation. ANd the greater the degree the greater our disgust should be, I suppose. But even if it was a totally legitimate photo - in the sense that they had the real missile fragment and the real rubble - they would still be manipulating our "compassion"/guilt in ways I would protest.

Peter UK said...

Truepeers,
How much of any of ir was real? It would seem time after time there are reports of casualties,at one time every up country wedding seemed to go with a bang.
All the reports of this incident have been second hand,it is time the NYT sent an ace journalist to the scene.

Peter UK said...

Interesting comparison with a 155mm Shell

Buddy Larsen said...

o/t--but, what's so funny?

Peter UK said...

Buddy,she has her own "Green Aura"

ex-democrat said...

btw, how do our ingenious military guys make those "missiles" land upright and in one piece? do they practice with eggs?

Peter UK said...

The original picture came from AFP/Getty Images Copyright 2006,so it looks like the NYT was sold a pup

Specter said...

Well....I suppose that a photographer could have been there that quick. I mean, the AP could have gotten an invite to the dinner party, or even as the shell was being dragged into place...

Even for the NYT this is sloppy.

Barry Dauphin said...

Jamie,

I'm gullible and want to believe the best in people, so you really had me going there for a minute. I have now returned to planet earth.

Syl said...

On 'fake but accurate' they should apply that to WMD in Iraq as well. There surely was an underlying truth there.

Peter UK said...

Ah Well! The NYT has printed a correction,the thoughtless swine.

Seneca the Younger said...

Don't feel bad, Jamie had me too.

terrye said...

Syl:
how true.