Thursday, December 01, 2005
A Double Standard?
My e-mail to Michelle Malkin:
(If you haven't read yesterday's post, it would be helpful in understanding this letter.)
If you would like, you can also e-mail Ms. Malkin here.
Needless to say, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a response.
(If you haven't read yesterday's post, it would be helpful in understanding this letter.)
- Ms. Malkin,
I am writing to you to express my views on what I believe is your double standard.
On October 28, you complained on your website about an article in the NYTimes which had quoted Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr. Your complaint centered around the paper's quoting of a few lines from the letter. You criticized them for not including the entire quote and remarked that the Times is "always more informative for what it leaves out than for what it puts in." Then on November 2, you again complained about the Times' "butchery" saying the article had been "selectively edited by the Times to convey a bogus sense of 'fatalism.'"
So having read your views on selective quoting, I was sure that you would also take issue with George W. Bush's speech yesterday and his own "butchery" of Cpl. Starr's letter. However, instead of taking issue with it and accusing him of selectively editing Cpl. Starr's letter, you actually praised him saying "Good for the White House for fighting back against MSM bias." Yet it's obvious that George W. Bush did the exact same thing that you have railed against the NYTimes for. Allow me to refresh your memory:
George W. Bush's speech: One of those fallen heroes is a Marine Corporal named Jeff Starr, who was killed fighting the terrorists in Ramadi earlier this year. After he died, a letter was found on his laptop computer. Here's what he wrote, he said, "[I]f you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq. I don't regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so they can live the way we live. Not [to] have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators_. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
Cpl. Starr's letter: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
You've noticed, I'm sure, that George W. Bush omitted the very line that you accused the NYTimes of selectively quoting. So why the double standard, Ms. Malkin? If the Times' selective editing created a sense of bogus fatalism, doesn't Bush's selective editing create a sense of bogus optimism?
In conclusion, I've no doubt that Cpl. Starr served honorably and my heart goes out to his family and loved ones. But I believe that if you're going to admonish the NYTimes for using Starr's words out of context, then it would only be forthright of you to hold George W. Bush to the same standard. A simple explanation of your apparent double standard would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
kissfan
If you would like, you can also e-mail Ms. Malkin here.
Needless to say, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a response.
