Op-ed fiction from the New York Times.

(Welcome visitors from Betsy's Page, David Boyd, Interested-Participant, Polipundit, Room 12A and others I may have missed.)

Readers' Note:

My reply to New York Times Op-Ed page editor David Shipley's recent email follows this note.

The rest of this note is for readers not familiar with matters that led to Shipley's email, a full text copy of which is contained in this post.

On June 28 the New York Times published an op-ed that charged the United States Army systematically lies to young West Point cadets and graduates.(''The Not-So-Long Gray Line,'' full text of op-ed available only to Times Select subscribers)

With one exception, what the Times offered to support the "Army lies" charge was anecdotal and so poorly sourced as to be unverifiable by independent means. The single exception to that concerned five distinguished generals, about whose careers the Times made statements in such a way as to bolster the "Army lies" charge. But the Times' statements were false.

Beginning on June 29, I requested through the office of public editor Byron Calame corrections and an explanation for the false statements. After further attempts (here and here and here), I received on Nov. 28 an email from the Times' Op-Ed page editor. David Shipley. The full text of the email is in this post.

My reply to editor Shipley follows. I'm sending a copy to editor Calame along with a link to this post.
____________________________________________________________________

Dear Editor Shipley:

When I read your email I thought of the growing number of Americans who say that when pursuing an agenda, the Times often makes little or no distinction between fact and fiction.

I requested corrections of false statements in the following paragraph, a part of your June 28 op-ed charging the Army systematically lies to West Point cadets and young officers:

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it.

Your response? The Times never meant the statements to be factual. It published them as fiction. What's more, you believe that was as clear in June as it is now.

(It) seemed clear at the time -- and seems clear to me now -- that (op-ed author Lucian Truscott IV) was speaking figuratively. Mr. Truscott did not, for example, say that these men had been "in" the trenches.

So you're saying when the Times lists the names of five distinguished American generals, points out that its op-ed writer is the grandson of one of them, and follows the generals' names with a sentence beginning: "Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army…," none of that means the Times is telling readers the five men actually served "in" the trenches.

And that was all as clear in June as it is now.

Editor Shipley, what you're saying is unbelievable.

But that doesn't give you or the Times pause, does it? The Times is going "to continue to give (Truscott) the license to use this language figuratively."

So we should expect, for example, that the Times will again use "language figuratively" to tell readers that as a young officer General of the Army Omar Bradley endured the horrors of WWI's trenches, even though the Times knows that in his autobiography, A General's Life, Bradley describes his many failed attempts to get assigned to the trenches in France; and calls his failure "the most frustrating ( part of my) early Army career? (p. 44-45)

I object to the Times using "language figuratively" to first, invoke the names of Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and Lucian K. Truscott Jr., and then to distort their military service; all to bolster your op-ed charging the Army lies.

While it may seem a hopeless effort, I will continue to pursue a correction and explanation through public editor Byron Calame. Apologies to the memories of five great Americans are also due.

If people don't speak up, the Times will only get worse.

It's sad to recall, Editor Shipley, that your newspaper was once The Journal of Record.

A few final words.

I shared your email with two journalist friends.

One called it "sophistry." The other said, "What you got here is Shipley practicing Sulzberger journalism."

My word for your op-ed and email is shameless.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com
__________________________________________________________________________

Many bloggers and readers are helping to call attention to this matter and joining in the request for correction and explanation.

I plan to publish a list Monday of bloggers who are posting, linking and helping in other ways. Bloggers involved, please let me know of your help. I don't want to miss anyone.

Thanks to readers for great support. If you haven't let public editor Calame know what you think of the falsehoods and Shipley's fiction explanation, Calame's email address is: public@nytimes.com

If enough people call attention to what the Times did and how it's excusing it, we may get a correction and explanation.