• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

More spin by the NY Times

Certain people seem to get upset when I speak of the liberal slant by the NY Times. They tell me how highly respected the Times is around the world (I'm sure it is by those on the left.). Well I can't respect them when they do things like this. Here's yet another fine example of how they manage to spin a story to their liking:

Text

Unspinning the NY Times' military mendacity

By Jack Kelly

Colonel Thomas Spoehr is annoyed with New York Times reporter Michael Moss, for what I think is a good reason.

Spoehr is the director of materiel for the Army staff. He had a good news story to tell Moss, which Moss converted into a bad news story.

Here is the story as Spoehr tells it:

Last year, senior leaders of the Army became aware of technological developments which make it possible to improve the "Interceptor" body armor worn by our troops.`

The "Interceptor" consists of a vest, two SAPI (small arms protective insert) plates worn in the front and the back, and "backing" material around the plates. The plates are made of boronic carbide, the second hardest substance known to man (only diamonds are harder) but fairly light weight.

The plates will shatter a standard rifle bullet, and the backing catches the bullet fragments to prevent injuries from shrapnel.

The "Interceptor" is the best body armor manufactured in the world today, and represents a remarkable improvement over the protective vests worn by our troops in the first Gulf War, and Somalia in 1993. Those vests could protect against shrapnel, but a rifle bullet would cut right through them.

Those vests weighed 24 lbs each. The interceptor ensemble ? which can stop an AK-47 bullet fired from just 10 feet away ? weighs just 16 lbs. But the best isn't perfect. There are some special types of ammunition that can penetrate the boronic carbide plates. Last year Army leaders became aware of improvements that could be made to the SAPI 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," Spoehr said.

Altering the formula by which the SAPI plates are manufactured is not a simple process, since these plates must be manufactured to extremely precise (1,000ths of an inch) dimensions.

"Making one of these plates is like making one of those tiles that protects the (space) shuttle from heat," 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.

The process was speeded up in part because in this instance the Army departed from the normal Pentagon practice of telling contractors not only what the Army needed, but how the contractors were to build what the Army wanted.

This time, Spoehr said, the Army told contractors what the Army needed, and let the contractors figure out how best to meet the need.

"It's our belief that we put the specifications out there, and then we let good old American ingenuity go to work," he said. "We have realized improvements in our own system from innovations contractors have come up with."

The new plates are a little thicker, but they weigh just two lbs. more than the ones currently in use. The new SAPI plates cost $1,300 a set, up from $1,000 for the older set.

Here's how the story was presented by Moss in the New York Times Aug. 14th: "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. 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."

Spoehr told 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."

Americans are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq, because all news about Iraq is presented as bad news, even when it isn't.
 
Old news, man!

"There is NO such thing, at this date of the world?s history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to DESTROY the truth; to LIE outright; to PERVERT; to VILLIFY; to FAWN at the feet of mammon, and to SELL his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the TOOLS and VASSALS of rich men BEHIND THE SCENES. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." ? John Swinton (former Chief of Staff for the New York Times; statement made before the New York Press Club in 1953)

I don't think any of the networks out there provide any 'fair and balanced news." All of them have their agenda. It won't be long until they start saying that the internet needs to be controlled because that's how terrorists communicate. Only approved websites by the government will be allowed to carry on the news. Any other site not approved by the govt, will be labeled a terrorist. Crazy, but coming soon to a city near u! 🙂
 
Originally posted by: laFiera
Old news, man!

"There is NO such thing, at this date of the world?s history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to DESTROY the truth; to LIE outright; to PERVERT; to VILLIFY; to FAWN at the feet of mammon, and to SELL his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the TOOLS and VASSALS of rich men BEHIND THE SCENES. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." ? John Swinton (former Chief of Staff for the New York Times; statement made before the New York Press Club in 1953)

I don't think any of the networks out there provide any 'fair and balanced news." All of them have their agenda. It won't be long until they start saying that the internet needs to be controlled because that's how terrorists communicate. Only approved websites will be allowed to carry on the news----crazy, but coming soon to a city near u! 🙂
Nice quote from Swinton.

I can believe they'd like to control the internet as well. They've already been making enough noise about the bloggers that have been exposing their biased garbage and who are ruining the MSM's former stranglehold on disseminating "truth" to the public.

 
It would be nice if all media outlets were to provide unbaased news (right and left). Unfortunately, the modern american tends to listen to the news that reaffirms their belief system. If you want to get 45% of the american public then lean conservative in your news. If you want the other 45% lean liberal. If you want to only get that 10% of the population that wants real unboased news then be unbiased. Its part of capitalism. News sources target thier market to maximize profits.
 
the new york times does have a really nice travel section! makes for great reading. And yes, the bloggers are actually reporting what they see, and well, those that dont like it, call them conspiracy nuts!!! 🙂 And if the news is not from a 'reputable source' then is not real news. heh. people have been so brainwashed, is sad.
 
The NY Times story is about delays in Pentagon testing and procurement for body armor and vehicle armor, not about the technology that goes into the armor.

TastesLikelackofreadingcomprehension


Abstract (Document Summary)

The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. 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.

Among the problems contributing to the delays in getting the stronger body armor, the Pentagon is relying on a cottage industry of small armor makers with limited production capacity. In addition, each company must independently come up with its own design for the plates, which then undergo military testing. Just four vendors have begun making the enhanced armor, according to military and industry officials. Two more companies are expected to receive contracts by next month, while 20 or more others have plates that are still being tested.

Pentagon officials said the pending addition of two more vendors to the four that are now producing enhanced SAPI would increase production to 25,000 sets of the plates a month from 20,000. Each vest requires two plates. Worldwide, the Army would need nearly 2 million plates to supply all 996,000 troops using body armor with the enhanced plates.


Full Text (1806 words)
Copyright New York Times Company Aug 14, 2005

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 by insurgents.

The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. 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.

The effort to replace the armor began in May 2004, just months after the Pentagon finished supplying troops with the original plates -- a process also plagued by delays. The officials disclosed the new armor effort Wednesday after questioning by The New York Times, and acknowledged that it would take several more months or longer to complete.

Citing security concerns, the officials declined to say exactly how many more of the stronger plates were needed, or how much armor had already been shipped to Iraq.

''We are working as fast as we can to complete it as soon as we can,'' Maj. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sorenson, the Army's deputy for acquisition and systems management, said Wednesday in an interview at the Pentagon.

While much of the focus on casualties in Iraq has been on soldiers killed by explosive devices aimed at vehicles, body armor remains critical to the military's goals in Iraq. Gunfire has killed at least 325 troops, about half the number killed by bombs, according to the Pentagon.

Among the problems contributing to the delays in getting the stronger body armor, the Pentagon is relying on a cottage industry of small armor makers with limited production capacity. In addition, each company must independently come up with its own design for the plates, which then undergo military testing. Just four vendors have begun making the enhanced armor, according to military and industry officials. Two more companies are expected to receive contracts by next month, while 20 or more others have plates that are still being tested.

An important material that strengthens the ceramic plates also remains in short supply despite a federal initiative aimed at prodding private industry into meeting the growing demand, military officials said.

''Nobody is happy we haven't been able to do it faster,'' Maj. Gen. William D. Catto, head of the Marine Corps Systems Command, said Wednesday in the interview.

''If I had the capability, I'd like to see everybody that needs enhanced SAPI to have it and at the rate we have now, we're going to have months before we get the kind of aggregate numbers we want to have,'' General Catto said, referring to the thicker plates, known as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert. ''That's just a fact of life because of the raw materials paucity and the industrial base.''

Throughout the war, the military's procurement system has struggled to stay ahead of the insurgency. Most notably, efforts by the Defense Department to add armor to the Humvee -- a vehicle never intended for combat -- often have been undermined by the insurgents' relentless ability to build more powerful bombs.

Military officials say they have kept the effort to supply troops with the stronger body armor quiet to avoid alerting the insurgency, which they say is adept at mining news media reports for any evidence of weaknesses in the American force. At the request of the Pentagon, The Times has omitted from this article details that would expose vulnerabilities in the original armor and the types of munitions that the original plates cannot repel.

Upgrading the plates for American troops in Iraq will cost at least $160 million, according to industry estimates.

Body armor arose as an issue in Iraq shortly after the invasion in March 2003, when insurgents began attacking American troops who had been given only vests and not bullet-resistant plates. The Army had planned to give the plates only to frontline soldiers. Officials now concede that they underestimated the insurgency's strength and commitment to fighting a war in which there are no back lines.

The ensuing scramble to produce more plates was marred by a series of missteps in which the Pentagon gave one contract to a former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything. He was allowed to struggle with production for a year before he gave up. An outdated delivery plan slowed the arrival of plates that were made. In all, the war was 10 months old before every soldier in Iraq had plates in late January 2004.

Four months later, the Pentagon quietly issued a solicitation for the enhanced plates that would resist stronger attacks. At the same time, it worked to make improvements to the vests, including adding shoulder and side protection.

Pentagon officials said they had been hampered in their efforts by the need to make the armor as light as possible.

''You can trace this back to the early centuries ago when they started wearing body armor to the point they couldn't get on the horse,'' General Sorenson said. ''We are doing the same sort of thing. You can only put so much armor on a soldier to the point where they can't move.''

The new enhanced SAPI plates weigh about one pound more than the original plates, bringing the total body armor system with vest to about 18 pounds, military officials said.

Among the first soldiers to use the stronger armor were the military's special forces, who are known to cut the handles off their toothbrushes to reduce the weight of their packs.

Shortly after the Iraq war began, insurgents began attacking American soldiers engaged in stationary tasks like directing traffic or less arduous combat operations.

Cpl. Nicholas Roberts, 23, a marine from Colorado, was wounded last December in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, when his armor plates failed to deflect an insurgent's attack. He just started walking again this summer after nine operations. In wearing the armor, he said, ''you know your risks, that it's not going to stop everything.''

''Unfortunately,'' he added, when told about the enhanced plates, ''they didn't have that when I was in.''

Among the first companies to begin making enhanced SAPI for the military was Simula, a safety technology company based in Phoenix, military contracting records show. It was awarded a contract in August 2004, and received a new $12 million order this month.

Armor Holdings, a company based in Jacksonville, Fla., that owns Simula, has an exclusive contract to armor the military's Humvees. The company stirred some concern in the Pentagon in January when it balked at selling its legal rights to the Humvee armor, which the military wanted so it could involve additional manufacturers.

Col. Bruce D. Jette, who directed a special unit at the Pentagon known as the Rapid Equipping Force until he retired last fall, said the military's reliance on small companies to make body armor succeeded in spurring innovation. But in failing to acquire the rights to those designs, the military may be passing up an opportunity to increase production, he added.

Pentagon officials said the pending addition of two more vendors to the four that are now producing enhanced SAPI would increase production to 25,000 sets of the plates a month from 20,000. Each vest requires two plates. Worldwide, the Army would need nearly 2 million plates to supply all 996,000 troops using body armor with the enhanced plates.

Industry officials say they are charging the military roughly $600 each for enhanced SAPI plates, compared with $400 for the original plate.

Cercom, an advanced materials company based in Vista, Calif., began making enhanced plates for the Pentagon this summer and said it was working round the clock to fill its part of the military order. To go even faster, Richard J. Palicka, Cercom's president, said it would ''need additional furnace capacity and that's expensive.''

But industry and military officials say production is also constrained by a lingering shortage of an advanced fiber used to make the plates.

The material is made by only two companies, Honeywell and DSM, a Dutch concern. DSM, which built a new plant in Greenville, N.C., last year at the military's urging, and Honeywell say they are continuing to step up production. DSM said it planned to add another production line next year.

Mike Ryan, a Honeywell executive, said his company was meeting the demand for its version of this material, known as Spectra Shield, until just last month when orders from plate makers surged. ''There is a learning curve here that we are trying to come up,'' Mr. Ryan said.

The military is still trying to assess just how well body armor is working. Pentagon officials said Wednesday during the interview that numerous lives had been saved. To emphasize the point, they played a video taken recently by an Iraqi insurgent in which an American soldier -- knocked down by a bullet striking his vest -- got back on his feet unharmed and took cover.

The Armed Forces Medical Examiner's Office which has undertaken a number of initiatives in the Iraq war to reduce casualties, has urged the Pentagon to have field commanders return the body armor of slain soldiers so it can be examined along with their wounds. Earlier in the war, the military medical corps helped spur improvements in eye protection and set off an examination of the Army's new helmet by studying wound patterns.

But in interviews this spring, the Medical Examiner's Office said it was receiving only about 10 percent of the vests worn by slain soldiers, too few to get a complete picture of the armor's performance.

Meanwhile, a burst of research is under way to develop even stronger body armor, though some earlier efforts appear to have slipped through the cracks. At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Stephen D. Nunn said his group formulated a polymer that can be added to the ceramic plates to increase their strength. ''Our material and assembly seems to perform better than anything else I've read about,'' he said.

But the group's contract was limited to fortifying helicopters. When that project ended in 2001, there was no money to extend the work to body armor, Mr. Nunn said.

At the behest of the military, researchers are also studying how to make body armor more resistant to explosive devices. In a recent technical paper, one scientist, Thomas Friend, said that more work needed to be done on analyzing the shock waves produced by these blasts and how they interact with the body and the armor.

Some armor, he warned, could aggravate the damage from blasts by twisting the waves as they pass through the body.
 
Originally posted by: Jakebrake
The NY Times story is about delays in Pentagon procurement for body armor and vehicle armor, not about the technology that goes into the armor.

TastesLikelackofreadingcomprehension
The article addreses that. There is no "delay."
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.
Perhaps you'd like to acquire some reading comprehension of your own before accusing others and then subsequently looking ignorant?
 
Even the Times editor (before they fired him to spilling the proverbial beans) said they bias their stories to further their agenda (see sig.), yet the liberals continue to hold "the paper of record" as if it were gospel...

😕
 
Originally posted by: BushBasha
Even the Times editor (before they fired him to spilling the proverbial beans) said they bias their stories to further their agenda (see sig.), yet the liberals continue to hold "the paper of record" as if it were gospel...

😕

Link? and you do mean 'for' spilling the beans, right?
 
The good news is that the armor is coming at military lightning speed. The bad news is that the armor is coming at military lightning speed.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Link? and you do mean 'for' spilling the beans, right?

Why are Liberals so lazy?




"I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed. "

 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The good news is that the armor is coming a military lightning speed. The bad news is that the armor is coming at military lightning speed.

Link? and you do mean 'at' military lightning speed?
 
Originally posted by: BushBasha
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The good news is that the armor is coming a military lightning speed. The bad news is that the armor is coming at military lightning speed.

Link? and you do mean 'at' military lightning speed?

it is in the OP.

 
Great another blogger post. Yay. Okay, let's try and disect this "story" (and I use that term loosely) ...

Colonel Thomas Spoehr has made some improvements to the Army supply chain that the private sector implemented ages ago and he wants a medal for his efforts? So the Army became aware of a potential improvement in body armor and then put a plan together -- which involves outsourcing the project to contractors -- does this really necessitate some applause for Spoehr?

This time, Spoehr said, the Army told contractors what the Army needed, and let the contractors figure out how best to meet the need.

Wow, freaking genius. He let the contractors figure it out.

Sorry, but I don't see the need for backslaps and highfives all around for some Army guy merely doing his job. Millions of people do it every day. In every way. Hoo ah.
 
And so let's dissect what the NYT had to say -- and keep in mind they probably only interviewed Spoehr for part of the story:

Here's how the story was presented by Moss in the New York Times Aug. 14th: "For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor (true) that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents. (true)

"The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. (true) 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."(true)

So now the NYT is getting based for telling the truth?!? WTF? I ask. This retarded need to turn Iraq into a feel-good everything-is-just-peachy kinda warm fuzzy feeling is just weak.

 
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.

Notice the article doesn't address how long it took to get the specifications set. Hmmmm, I wonder why? I'm quite sure it's hard work. Very, hard. Hard work.
 
Originally posted by: BushBasha
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Link? and you do mean 'for' spilling the beans, right?

Why are Liberals so lazy?




"I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed. "

I was looking for a link where OKRENT was fired for spilling the beans. I know that his liberal outing of the times was on social issues, not particularly pentagon coverage. I believe, also, the Times hired him to do the job he did, that spilling the beans bit. And yes I meant 'at' and edited my post. Thanks. Did you take my question as an critique rather than a wish to be clear. I wasn't sure if you meant he was fired so he would spill or because he did, probably because I don't see any spilled beans. His editorial was blown way out of proportion by the right in their lust for any hint of some sort of blood substitute in the water.

 
Interesting...the story certainly would suggest that Times reporter isn't covering the story fairly, one might even use the worst four letter word when talking about the press..."bias". However, I'm confused as to how this is proof of "liberal" bias. Certainly there is the impression among some conservatives that liberals want to paint things in Iraq as more negative than they really are, but even more well known (and testable) is the idea that media in general is negative about EVERY topic.

Whether it's Iraq, shark attacks or teenagers on spring break, the media almost always paints things as worse than they are. Sometimes this is as obvious as overcovering a very rare negative story, making it appear more common (think kidnapping of pretty teenage girls). Sometimes it is less obvious, like twisting facts about some situation to make it seem worse than it really is (think "new types of potential terrorist attacks"). This is nothing new, and nothing particularly liberal or conservative. 10 minutes of watching TV news (yes, even Fox News) makes this painfully obvious. Same with papers, whether it's the NY Times or the Washington Times.

Might the media still be liberally biased? Could be, but there is an existing explanation that makes more logical sense for these kinds of stories. I'm not trying to prove the media isn't liberally biased, I'm just pointing out that theory isn't necessary to explain this kind of story. It's like going to Taco Bell and eating 10 bean burritos . If I get sick, it COULD be because I have an unlcer, but I think the Taco Bell explanation makes more sense. To quote Scrubs...if you hear hoofbeats, you go ahead and think "horsies", not "zebras", ok?
 
Good point, Rainsford. The media in general is notoriously negative on virtually every topic. Watching the evening news is an exercise in personal tragedy. Someone got killed, shots were fired, stores were robbed, idiots tried to flee from police in their stolen car, politicians are corrupt, the weather could turn bad and kill you at any moment, etc., etc.

So perhaps the media isn't full of "liberal bias" as much as it's full of "negative bias."

That seems far more plausible to me too.

Although the evening news does manage to squeeze in a feel-good segment at some point during the course of their newscast. Usually it's a child who needs adopting or some cute animal that was rescued. A token gesture to be sure.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

I was looking for a link where OKRENT was fired for spilling the beans.

Oh, I see. I'll check for one; I am sure they ran it front page:

"Editor fired for outing us: news at 11:00"



 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

I wasn't sure if you meant he was fired so he would spill or because he did, probably because I don't see any spilled beans.

Of course you don't see beans in your mirror, Moonie; thus, I used the "proverbial" caveat before the beans. You only see what you want to see--beans or no beans.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
And so let's dissect what the NYT had to say -- and keep in mind they probably only interviewed Spoehr for part of the story:

Here's how the story was presented by Moss in the New York Times Aug. 14th: "For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor (true) that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents. (true)

"The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. (true) 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."(true)

So now the NYT is getting based for telling the truth?!? WTF? I ask. This retarded need to turn Iraq into a feel-good everything-is-just-peachy kinda warm fuzzy feeling is just weak.

"True" is very dependant on a persons point of view and not a very good word to use for something like this. However, even if every statement made is factual, that has nothing to do with bias. Biased does not mean lying, but that the majority of facts or views come from a certain perspective. It is easy to write an incredibly biased article using well established facts.
 
Back
Top