This example of media bias is breathtaking, this time it's the New York Times turning a positive story on Army body armor into a negative one. Jack Kelly reports:

The "Interceptor" is the best body armor manufactured in the world today...

There are some special types of ammunition that can penetrate the boronic carbide plates [that make up the Interceptor]. Last year Army leaders became aware of improvements that could be made to the SAPI [small arms protective insert] plates that would protect against most (though not all) of these special types of ammunition...

There is little evidence insurgents in Iraq are using the special types of ammunition that can defeat the "Interceptor." But the Army wanted to be proactive, to defeat a potential threat before it emerged.

"We're taking what we think is a prudent step to guard against a step (the insurgents) could take, but that's a step that really hasn't developed yet," [director of materiel for the Army staff Colonel Thomas] Spoehr said...

Yet though the specifications weren't set until early in January, new plates were being manufactured — and delivery begun to U.S. troops — in March. Those familiar with the Pentagon's procurement process recognize this as lightning speed.

But here's how the New York Times spun the story to fit its belligerently anti-war agenda.

"For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents.

"The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use [Lie #1]. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system [Lie #2]."

Not only did the Times reporter turn a positive about the accelerated procurement process into a negative, but he also lied about insurgents using the special types of munitions that can defeat the Interceptor when that is specifically not true.

Spoehr told [New York Times "reporter" Michael] Moss all the things he told me, but there is not a single positive quote in his story.

"You would get the impression that our soldiers were in harm's way or at risk," Spoehr said. "That is not true."

Why would the Times blatantly lie like that?

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/1899

---

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

What is the Vice-President's last name?

(NOTE: You must get this correct, otherwise, your comment will be rejected.)

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)