Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

TIME shows its military expertise

It is frequently a puzzlement when another writer and editor for a major publication shows abysmal ignorance of basic facts regarding the issue he or she is writing about.

Fact checking goes by the wayside when, for example, Richard Quinn of the Virginian Pilot describes Newt Gingrich in unflattering terms including having him seated in a “faux-leather” chair. A little knowledge of office chairs or a quick check with the hotel staff would have saved our Dick the embarrassment of making a small but telling error.

But to have a major-league publication not able to tell the difference between an American and a Russian helicopter in a cover story is stupidity carried to new heights. But really, in re-consideration, it’s not. This is the sort of ignorance of things other than English composition that plagues all the MSM. What can you expect of people whose college major is journalism or creative writing?

From the American Thinker:

Accompanying TIME/CNN's current online article by Michael Duffy entitled, "How to leave Iraq," and reportedly on the cover of the TIME print edition, is an illustration graphically demonstrating how limited these so-called news organizations' knowledge of the American military happens to be. The "last helicopter out" a vision harking back to Vietnam and beloved of the Mainstream Media, in this case just happens to be Russian, an MI-24 Hind gunship, according to the folks over at Blackfive, a leading milblog where contributors tend to know what they are talking about when it comes to things military, unlike the mainstream Media weenies.


From the Belmont Club (The Devil and the Details}
The blooper is no big deal in itself. But I suspect it comes from the same circles where all tracked vehicles are known as "tanks", all automatic rifles are described as "machineguns", all aerial ordnance is described as "cluster bombs" and the general idea of warfare is one in which stupid, yelling men advance shooting from the hip at everything that moves. Amazingly enough none of these shortcomings in knowledge are regarded as disqualifying anyone from discoursing on grand strategic concepts -- which is what the Time article is about.

No comments: