When a soldier receives the Medal of Honor, it is a really big deal. I mean, a really big deal. Only two have been given during the war in Iraq, both posthumously, and there are only 109 living recipients.
You'd think such an award would be worthy of coverage by the "nation's newspaper", the New York Times, wouldn't you?
You'd be wrong.
The New York Times carried not a whisper of news yesterday about the bestowal of the Medal of Honor to Navy Lt. Michael Murphy of Patchogue - the first time the honor has been given for action in Afghanistan...
A Times spokeswoman said yesterday afternoon that the paper does plan to run something about the award - though she didn't say exactly what.
President Bush will present the medal to Murphy's parents at a White House ceremony Oct. 22.
This is the same newspaper which ran the General "Betray Us" ad and has no problem finding space for Frank Rich's ridiculous columns. But coverage of honors bestowed on our soldiers? I guess there's just no room for that.
It wasn't the first time the Times gave short shrift to such a story. The paper ran just one paragraph about the posthumous awarding of the Medal of Honor to Cpl. Jason Dunham, a U.S. Marine from upstate killed in Iraq in 2004. That paragraph ran in January in the middle of a story about congressional opposition to Bush's Iraq war plans.
But remember: don't question their patriotism. Well, I won't. I do question their priorities, though.
|