L.A. Times Caught Red Handed

  •  May 1, 2005

Via Patterico’s…[bold type not in original]

Los Angeles Times editors have edited a Reuters story to remove critical facts supporting the U.S. position on an important international issue.
…
The Reuters version opens with this sentence:
The United States and Italy on Friday disagreed on the conclusions of a joint investigation into the killing of an Italian agent by U.S. troops in Iraq, further straining ties between the two allies.
…
The L.A. Times slightly alters that first sentence to read as follows:
The United States and Italy disagreed Friday in the conclusions of a joint investigation into the slaying of an Italian agent by U.S. troops in Iraq, further straining ties between the two allies.
In this edited version of the sentence, Times editors moved the word “Friday,” changed the word “killing” to “slaying,” and replaced the word “in” with “on,” making the sentence grammatically awkward. [UPDATE: In the comments, Dafydd ab Hugh notes that the use of the word "slaying" tells you something about where L.A. Times editors are coming from.]
…
An important contested issue in the controversy was the speed of the car as it approached a U.S. checkpoint. Sgrena has maintained that the car was traveling at a “regular speed” — no more than 25-30 mph. Americans have said that the car was traveling at least 50 mph.
…
the Reuters story reported that there is definitive proof that the car was speeding towards the checkpoint — critical information that tends to justify U.S. soldiers’ decision to fire on the car. But in the version appearing in the L.A. Times, editors cut out the passage reporting that proof.

Seems the L.A. Times is more interested in slamming the US than accurate reporting (Bias?!?! ::gasp!!::) Go, read the whole thing. This post really nails them to the ground…

Tags:


«
»
  • http://Array JG

    If the army shoots 300-400 bullet at a car, and can only manage to hit it 11 times, I’d say we pack them up from around the world and bring ‘em home…

    Happens all the time. Hate to break the news to you but US military comabt doctrine isn’t about sharpshooting–it’s about massed and concentrated firepower.

  • Aaron

    40… 400, eh she was close enough not to be a liar, eh JG?

  • http://blog.xtremeramblings.us/ Brandon

    Did you learn about this in the two foreign wars you fought in, Jade?

  • Carl B.

    It is not at all gramatically awkward to use “in” where the article suggests, as the disagreement occured during the concluding events of the investication…the “conclusions”. The article is itself spin, downplaying how effective wordplay can be. Which sounds worse to you: slay or kill? Would it matter if it were in the context of describing an unopinionated series of events?

  • JG

    When I said “I stand by that”–you think I’m backing away? What color is the sky on your planet?

  • Aaron

    Sgrena told colleagues … the Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle

    If the army shoots 300-400 bullet at a car, and can only manage to hit it 11 times, I’d say we pack them up from around the world and bring ‘em home…

    Let’s rememebr Sgrena is the real liar here

  • JG

    40 was an estimate by the Army. The official report you steadfastly refuse to read notes the Army isn’t sure how many rounds were fired and one of the report recommendations is to have subordinates better preserve such incident scenes in the future to provide better indications/estimates of rounds fired.

    And if you’re at the wrong end of an automatic weapon, I’d suggest 40 rounds probably seems like 400. IOW, you’re not counting the reports as you’re being fired at.

    But let’s remember the big lie, shall we” You asserted Sgrena said 300-400 rounds hit the car. The lie is yours, Aaron.

  • JG

    Aaron: Please don’t lie. Srgrena suggested it *sounded like 300-400 shots were fired*–not that 300-400 rounds hit the auto.’

    The US report you neglected to read states about 40 rounds were fired.

  • JG

    Rob: Perhaps my comment was inartfully and improperly worded. I was, of course, referring to the racist website, LGF.

    As for the one comment, I stand by that. Clearly, you strongly asserted Srgrena was lying when she claimed the car was struck by a hail of bullets and then you showed what was purported to be the car showing little or no apparent damage to it.

  • Aaron

    Let’s see… The Italian communist claimed her car was hit by 300-400 bullets, Rob said that was unlikely, the US report says it was a total of 11…

    How does this make Rob the bad guy? Why don’t you go decry your communist friend for lying about brave US troops protecting their own and Iraqi lives.

  • JG

    Patterico is an idiot for whom a course in reading comprehension would likely be wasted.

    The facts are straightforward;the Americans and Italians conducted a joint investigation into the murder. The American version of events clear American troops. The Italians dispute that version and have dissented from the report’s findings.

    On a side note, it is interesting that Rob and other racist rightwing websites asserted many times the vehicle in question had only been struck by one round. Yet, the official US report notes 11 7.62mm entrance holes.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    a) Why am I suddenly a racist?

    b) You want to point to a place where I stated that the car was only struck by one round?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Sgrena stated that the car was riddled with bullet holes. I pointed out, and the pictures of the car proved, that this was a gross exaggeration. 11 bullet holes do not constitute a car being “riddled.”

    But you’re also backing away from you claim. You had me saying that the car was only hit with one round. As I challenged before, please provide evidence that I said any such thing.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Still waiting for you to point to where I said that the car was only hit by one bullet.

    You’ll probably just keep ignoring that, of course. You lied, and now you won’t admit it.

    Typical.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus