Dan Rather, Ahead of The Times. The New York Times

Like I've mentioned before, most of the "soldiers" I see in pictures of the IVAW are clearly not soldiers.  Or Marines.  Or airmen.  Or sailors. 
They are poseurs.  Like Jessie "MacDeath" MacBeth.  Or Micah Wright. 
You can't expect a group like IVAW to check into the background of the hundreds of poseurs that want to join their group, nor do they have any reason to do so.  Anyone who's willing to drop a couple of bucks in an Army/Navy Surplus store in order to join their group will be welcome, I'm sure.  And then they get to march in some parade.  Of course the huge irony in the whole poseur thing is that these "men" are the trying to show disrespect for the military, but are in fact showing that they believe the mere wearing of a uniform associated with real military personnel imbues them with some level of respect.
Like I said, IVAW has no resources or reason to weed out the phonies.  In fact, if they follow the example of the previous generation's dirtbags in the VVAW, they will welcome fake soldiers long after they've been outed.  But the NYTs has no such excuse.  Their reporters have access to DoD spokespersons, and with just a little tiny bit of research, can find out what exactly a servicemember should be able to produce in order to back up a claim of being in Iraq.  But clearly they won't do that if it means they lose out on a great story.
They will end up posting a correction, but who reads corrections?  The theme of the story, no matter how made up, is now in the general discussion of the public.  Only a small portion of those who read and believed the story will read the correction.  I have to believe that this quote, from the NYTs correction on their fake story, tells the real story.

Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did.

Well, it's doubtful that she is "convinced" she served in Iraq, but it's clear that she convinced the NYTs reporter!  And since she had such a good story to tell of rape and intimidation in Iraq, the fact that she was never in Iraq becomes secondary!  Does the correction make mention of the idea that since she convinced herself that she served in a war that she never served in (no small feat, believe me) is it possible that she convinced herself she was raped twice, when in fact she was never raped?  It's possible, but not mentioned in either the story or the correction. 
Fake but accurate.  Once again proved to be the new standard for all reporting in major newspapers. 

 

 

Comments

[MKL]

She must be an empath or perhaps she stepped forward for a "friend" of her's that actually was there and saw what happened but doesn't want to come forward due to the fear of living in Bushitler's Amerikkka......

[Linda Morgan]

I saw the article being discussed last week at a couple of other blogs, but this is the first I've seen of the correction. Can't say I'm surprised. Who knows how much of the rest of it was totally bogus?

My skepticism of what I read in the "papers" is automatic nowadays, and even retroactive. I can't even recall a news story of yesteryear without saying something along the lines of "if there was really any truth to that." If it was before the advent of the blogosphere, the skepticism goes double. Even if corrections were issued - in those days before the web made it harder to just pretend that mistakes had not been made - I'd likely have never seen them.

The mainstream media - and particularly the stalwart bastions thereof - don't yet understand just how thoroughly their credibility has been smashed to bits among people who most care about news.

And printing such idiocy as, oh, she probably thought she'd been to Iraq isn't going to revive their reputation. Maybe they are trying to serve the moron community. By hiring as many as they can.

[madconductor]

Imagine. How does one lose so much of reality?

I'm talking about the al-New York Times. Not the dain bramaged Randall.

[Anti-Whiner]

Liar Diggs is projecting again. He's the faker. He poses as someone who loves his country when the opposite is true. He poses as someone who embodies Army values when the opposite is true. He poses as a winner but he is a pathetic loser.

[Gunny G]

Anti-whiner sucks off cane toads

[Gunny G]

and he swallows