UPDATE: The NYT has reinstated the "near certainty" quote. No explanation given for printing it, removing it w/o notice, then printing it w/o notice again.
- - -
Ace noticed that TNR said that they knew with "absolute certainty" that the TNR source was a soldier. The NYT, however, reported that TNR knew with "NEAR certainty," quoting the TNR author.

Then the NYT deleted the offending phrase without notice and without correction. The TNR author doesn't claim he was misquoted. What the hell is going on here?

Somebody doesn't have the story straight, and neither is coming forward to admit the error. With the infinite credibility of both TNR and NYT, we should all probably just bury our heads n the sand and stop questioning our journalistic superiors.

Bryan Preston noticed some other literary liberties "Scott Thomas" was taking with his stories as well.

Stay tuned.

A THOUGHT...If "Scott Thomas" is indeed a real soldier (which TNR strongly stands by), then this soldier is violating laws of UCMJ by failing to report such atrocious behavior up the chain of command...if it did in fact happen at all. The longer that TNR keeps him anonymous, the more abuses are likely to occur, and the more "victims" of the alleged "shock troops" have to suffer. That's why we have the UCMJ - to rectify and stop this kind of behavior if it is in fact happening (which many military bloggers and vets are surmising that it in fact did not).

So - if TNR is covering up this serial abuser and "witness" to these crimes, they're complicit in allowing them to continue. If they are lying or their source is a fake, then they're totally screwed - Truthouted, if you will. Either way, TNR is in some serious doo-doo here.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 01:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.