Michelle Malkin continues to follow up on the story and the NY Times refuses to apologize for their behavior. Their response is snide and treats the issue with a "you don't understand" attitude.
It is true that the article did not quote everything that Corporal Starr said in his e-mail, like his reference to Iraqi freedom, any more than it quoted everything said by all the others quoted in the article, who represented all sorts of shades of opinion. But the article was completely fair in its representation of the views of Corporal Starr and his father.Their attempt at a justification lies, oddly, in this part of the original article:
"Mrs. Jones, 26, said she struggled at first to contain her anger that her husband was sent to Iraq instead of Germany. But she has consoled herself with the conviction that he died for a cause he supported. And she firmly rejects the antiwar protests of Cindy Sheehan, saying they dishonor the fallen. ''I hope she doesn't have my husband's name on a cross,'' Mrs. Jones said. ''My husband, if he had a choice, that's how he would want to die. As a soldier.''The point is, apparently, that the views of a different family (the Jones family) are pro-war and were represented accurately. Thus, the article was fair because it showed both sides of the issue. Excuse me? What the reporter found were two soldiers, both dead, that both supported the cause for which they died. So he twisted the quote of one of them so that he could present both sides of the issue. This is good journalism?
I stand by what I said in my original post. Please cancel your New York Times subscription. They deserve none of your money or your support.
