January 17, 2008

STILL MORE on The New York Times and the "murderous vet" canard. The NYT wouldn't publish this sort of thing about other groups even if it were statistically supportable, for fear of promoting prejudice; in this case, however, they're willing to run with it even when it isn't statistically supported. Which tells us something about their priorities, I guess.

UPDATE: Reader Matt Bodenstedt emails:

Perhaps some enterprising young journalist will endeavor to tell the stories of young men and women whose lives were on the wrong track, joined the military, and can now rightly be considered among America’s finest. I’ll bet they’d find many, many more such stories out of the pool of Iraq/Afghanistan vets than the 121 “murderers.”

Interesting idea. Perhaps it might slip by an editor if they sell it as "charmingly retro."


MORE: Ouch: "The article embraced the hoariest of overwrought clichés - the US combat vet as psychotic killer. But on what evidence? None at all. Indeed, it's impossible to take issue with the statistics cited by reporters Deborah Sontag and Lisette Alvarez - because their article doesn't have any."

And another ouch, here.