New York Times and sins of omission

Missing no opportunity to weaken our moral resolve to win the war on terror, the New York Times published an article (free login required) about reaching the 2000-dead mark in the war in Iraq. They described Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr (Fifth Marine Regiment, First Battalion) with these words:

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.
But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.
Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. ''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.''

While this seems like not a big deal on the face of it, a letter from Cpl. Starr's uncle paints a different picture.

Yesterday's New York Times on-line edition carried the story of the 2000 Iraq US military death[s]. It grabbed my attention as the picture they used with the headline was that of my nephew, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, USMC.
Unfortunately they did not tell Jeffrey's story. Jeffrey believed in what he was doing. He [was] willing put his life on the line for this cause. Just before he left for his third tour of duty in Iraq I asked him what he thought about going back the third time. He said: "If we (Americans) don't do this (free the Iraqi people from tyranny) who will? No one else can."
Several months after Jeffrey was killed his laptop computer was returned to his parents who found a letter in it that was addressed to his girlfriend and was intended to be found only if he did not return alive. It is a most poignant letter and filled with personal feelings he had for his girlfriend. But of importance to the rest of us was his expression of how he felt about putting his life at risk for this cause. He said it with grace and maturity.
He wrote: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
What Jeffrey said is important. Americans need to understand that most of those who are or have been there understand what's going on. It would honor Jeffrey's memory if you would publish the rest of his story.

When people contacted the New York Times to question the bias, the ombudsman's office responded that the article as a whole was not biased, because it included other points of view from all over the spectrum. I really like this person's response:

Thank you and Mr. Borders for the thoughtful reply.
I still don't get it, though. Is the editorial policy at the NY Times such that you may misrepresent the last letters home of any individual KIA, and dishonor their memory by making them look like whiners and cynics, if only you raise a different argument somewhere else, under another dead soldier's name.
This is somehow acceptable?

Clearly it is not. Reporting is to be accurate regardless of how you feel about the facts. Clearly, the NYT did not need to print every word of every letter from every soldier, but to extract one sentence from Cpl. Starr's letter out of context in a way which portrayed his attitude different than reality? That is out of line. Even if they had swapped the tone of two soldiers (made a negative sound positive while making another positive sound negative), it would be wrong. They may believe the overall "balance" of the article was representive of the facts (probably not, but that's my opinion), but to portray any one person in a way which knowingly misrepresents the facts is dishonest.

Another reader said it better than I can:

All of this "we can't print the whole letter" business is a farce. What the NY Times aplogists are missing is this: Those 11 words written by the deceased Cpl Starr are his thesis for the letter. And to exclude it is creative journalism at best, but most likely journalistic malpractice. This would be akin for modern day liberal historians to exclude Lou Gehrig's famous "Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth" line from his famous speech, simply to make him appear as a weak and sympathetic figure. If space were an issue they could have simply reprinted those 11 words. Period.

The NYT author, James Dao, had the gall to scold one of his critics for lack of perspective:

"There is nothing 'anti war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr. Even the portion of his e-mail that I used, the one that you seem so offended by, does not express anti-war sentiment. It does express the fatalism that many soldiers and Marines seem to feel about multiple tours. Have you been to Iraq, Michael? Or to any other war, for that matter? If you have, you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven't, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?"

My favorite bit of this whole story is this reply to Dao from a soldier.

A quick response back to James Dao's whine about no one being able to criticize him unless they have been to war.
James, yes, I've been to war. Twice now, already in OIF, and I'm heading back to war within the month. Since you do not even have the courage to acknowledge that you used selected quotes from a dead soldier's last letter home to further your (and your paper's) agenda, you are not worthy of even writing about a Marine like Corporal Starr, never mind trying to psychoanalyze what he was feeling about being back in the war. You are a coward when only your reputation is on the line. Corporal Starr was courageous, when even his life was on the line.
Should I die in Iraq, on this, my third tour, my wife will have in her possesion, a letter from me to be released to the press, should some slimy dirtbag like you try to make it look like I served in anything other than an honorable manner. I'm proud of what I do, I do it knowingly and with full knowledge of what the background on this war is. And likely better knowledge of what the outcome can be. I'm not some poor schlep who needs a NYT reporter to "interpret" my thoughts. I've live in the Middle East longer than Juan Cole, I've met more common Iraqis than has George Galloway, and I know more about the military soldiers I serve with than you will ever know in a lifetime of mis-reporting on soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

I'm very thankful for those who are not only willing to put their lives in harm's way, but will stand up to newspapers like the New York Times and hold them accountable for their lies.

[via Michelle Malkin, also here]