red states rule
07-31-2008, 12:14 PM
Now the DNC Times is pissed theere are not pics of dead and wounded troops for them to run in their rag
Now that even the AP is fessing up the Us is winning in Iraq, the DNC Times is whining about this
NYT Complaint: Not Enough Photos Of Mutilated American Soldiers
The New York Times is miffed. They aren't happy that there has been a dearth of news photos showing dead American soldiers in the war in Iraq. The Times is lamenting that there have been "4,000 U.S. Combat Deaths, and Just a Handful of Images," so more carnage and death is their druthers. Well, more American dead, anyway. They aren't interested in the dead of the enemy, to be sure.
Using the story of photog Zoriah Miller who had his embed status removed when he publicized photos of dead U.S. Marines after a suicide bombing, the Times reveals their pique over the fact that not enough dead Americans have been peddled to the American public. The Times denounces the military for protecting the troops and their families saying, "after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers."
Complaining for opponents of the war that the lack of casualty photos has created a a situation where the "public portrayal of the war is being sanitized," the Times wonders if the homefront is being badly served because we here are not seeing the "human cost of a war that polls consistently show is unpopular with Americans."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/07/26/nyt-complaint-not-enough-photos-mutilated-american-soldiers-war
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Now that even the AP is fessing up the Us is winning in Iraq, the DNC Times is whining about this
NYT Complaint: Not Enough Photos Of Mutilated American Soldiers
The New York Times is miffed. They aren't happy that there has been a dearth of news photos showing dead American soldiers in the war in Iraq. The Times is lamenting that there have been "4,000 U.S. Combat Deaths, and Just a Handful of Images," so more carnage and death is their druthers. Well, more American dead, anyway. They aren't interested in the dead of the enemy, to be sure.
Using the story of photog Zoriah Miller who had his embed status removed when he publicized photos of dead U.S. Marines after a suicide bombing, the Times reveals their pique over the fact that not enough dead Americans have been peddled to the American public. The Times denounces the military for protecting the troops and their families saying, "after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers."
Complaining for opponents of the war that the lack of casualty photos has created a a situation where the "public portrayal of the war is being sanitized," the Times wonders if the homefront is being badly served because we here are not seeing the "human cost of a war that polls consistently show is unpopular with Americans."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/07/26/nyt-complaint-not-enough-photos-mutilated-american-soldiers-war
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin