Instead, they're focusing on individual anecdotal references and the PTSD defense proffered in some instances and how some states are adjusting their laws to take veterans who enter the criminal justice system and put them into treatment programs. It didn't pass muster the last time the Times ran the story, and it again doesn't pass the sniff test.
Providing those soldiers with the mental health care that they need is an important goal, but the Times continues to run roughshod over the statistics and evidence that there is a crisis. They continue to push the meme that soldiers returning home are damaged and engage in criminality.
Again, I point out that illegal aliens commit far more crimes, and the Times refuses to run a story highlighting that undeniable fact.
UPDATE:
The New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt decides to dip into the fray, and immediately accuses bloggers and the New York Post of portraying all soldiers as unstable killers.
No, Mr. Hoyt. We questioned the methodologies used to push opinion journalism as hard news. We questioned your paper's statistical analysis, which was actually nonexistent.
And we continue questioning why you attempt to defend the indefensible. We also continue questioning why you bury your admissions that the paper screwed up deep in your articles instead of headlining with those facts. As he wrote:
But, the first article used colorfully inflated language — “trail of death” — for a trend it could not reliably quantify, despite an attempt at statistical analysis using squishy numbers.That's precisely the same problems that those who slammed the Times wrote about when the Times first started on its reporting.
Others laying in to Hoyt: Patterico, Tom Maguire, Jammie,
No comments:
Post a Comment