Only the news they see fit to print
The media blog of National Review Online has this post that could easily slip by unnoticed by the larger reading public, especially those who still read the New York Times. It merits attention.
Military scandals are always front-page news—until they turn out to be less scandalous than thought. The New York Times gave huge play to the allegations of a massacre—”in cold blood,” as Democrat John Murtha put it—by U.S. forces at Haditha. It was front-page stuff, with “World Ends”-sized headlines. But now, almost all of the men charged have had their charges dropped, and many of those who have followed the case wonder why charges were brought in the first place, given that the evidence was so weak that it didn’t even make it to trial.
So where does the New York Times play the dropping of charges against U.S. marine Stephen Tatum? Halfway down the page in the last column of A8.
Check it out and see what the Times editors gave more attention to on the front page that day. Here’s a key snip of what you cannot find reported there, by the way, regarding this trial.
The prosecution tried to block the introduction of evidence and testimony from an intelligence officer who monitored the events as they were happening. His evidence, including video shot from drones and detailed radio logs, confirmed that the marines actually were under fire. The evidence further confirms that the unarmed parties were being used as human shields by the insurgents.
Who were armed and hiding among those innocent civilians.
Thankfully, among those who still read the Times we still have those who can interpret and correct it.
