Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Hi, We're the NY Times and we'd like to exploit your son's death...

  1. #1

    Hi, We're the NY Times and we'd like to exploit your son's death...

    ...An article about Leija and others on patrol, and a photograph of him on a stretcher hours before he died, was printed in the New York Times on Monday. Video of Leija before and after he was shot was posted on paper's Web site later in the day. It was still available for viewing on the Times' Web site Wednesday night. ...

    .... "The New York Times is extremely sensitive to the loss suffered by families when loved ones are killed in Iraq," said a statement. "We try to write with respect and compassion for the inevitable losses. We believe the article was a portrait of Sgt. Leija's courage under fire and showed how much his men respected and cared for him." ...

    Much less to exploit without a death.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    -Hi, I'm Commander-In-Chief George Bush and I'm going to send your 18 year old new recruit son/daughter into the middle of a snake-pit called Iraq. Moreover, I'm NOT going to send the Junior NCO's and Officers of the US military, or the CIA, out to kill the Islamic animal enemy insurgents before your beloved progeny get there because, well, that's not Christian-like. I hope your kids like being sitting ducks on foot patrol or in HumVees!-

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbanyJet
    Well that's some disjointed stump speech you got there, you should be proud, but what does that have to do with the NY Times coverage Iraq? Nothing.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Van down by the river
    Not that arguing with you, Sackdance...the Times pictures are in awful taste. But exactly how is that exploiting his death? To what means are they exploiting it to? I'm not trying to goad you or anything. I have heard this said before and didn't quite understand how it was exploitation.

    If you could find the original text for the NYT article maybe it would be clearer as to how they "manipulated" his death "to their advantage"...

  5. #5
    First of all, the post is about the apology that the Times felt that they had to make, not about the initial coverage (coverage I never noticed). So, right there we see some culpability on their part. But what did they do? They disregarded protocol and chose to use a guy, a US soldier, and highlight his life and death as propaganda, as if it's an episode of MTV's Real World: Baghdad.

    Army commanders in Baghdad maintained that the Times violated a signed agreement, as a condition for being embedded with Leija's unit, not to publish images of any wounded soldier without the service member's consent. As a result, Times reporter Damien Cave and a contract photographer for the newspaper, Robert Nickelberg, were banned at least temporarily from embedding with U.S. units.

    Leija's immediate family in the South Texas town of Raymondville has declined to talk about the soldier's death. A cousin of Leija, who did not see the photo, said she was shocked that the images were made public and that they would add to the family's burden. Army officials said they were angered by the images.

    The newspaper maintained Wednesday that it had done all it could to spare the family pain while living up to its obligation to portray the realities of war.

    And like noted previously, they supplemented this coverage with video footage of him alive, then dead on the Times website. If we had this stuff in WWII we would have started "re-deployment" by June 16, 1944.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Follow Us