When you read anything sourced to the NYT that has anything to do with the military or by extension military matters, like the War on Terror and Iraq, I would suggest you remember this little nugget that Powerline caught today ...
Purple Haze at the Times
From the corrections section of yesterday's New York Times:
An article and a picture caption yesterday about the funeral of Sgt. Jose Gomez of Queens, who was killed on April 20 in Iraq, referred incorrectly to the Army representative who comforted his mother. She was a sergeant first class - an enlisted woman, not an officer. The article also misstated the name of a service medal that a general presented to Sergeant Gomez's mother. It is a Purple Heart, not a Purple Star.
This is freaking unbelievable. "Purple Star"? We have never pretended to any expertise in military matters, but I wouldn't have thought there was a single adult American who didn't know that the medal that is awarded to wounded servicemen is the Purple Heart. Now we know there are at least two: the reporter who wrote that story, and the editor who--presumably--read it before it was published. Keep that in mind next time you're wondering whether to trust the Times' coverage of military affairs.
Well, I tried to use a trackback to a post I wrote back in April about how one of my favorite shows usually falls flat on its ass when trying to portray the military. As good as the folks on "The X-Files" were, they just never "got it."
HOWEVER, a major American newspaper like the NYT should certainly have the editorial resources/assets to be able to keep such nonsense out of the print version.
Purple Star, puh-lease! Who designed it? Harold with his purple crayon!
MajorDad1984
Posted by: MajorDad1984 | 14 May 2006 at 01:20 AM