AP Waxes Indignant Over "Altered" Army Photo
AP Awarded Our First "Log In Yer Own Eye File!" Citation

11/15/2008 -- On the occasion Friday of the first woman in the United States Army, General Ann E. Dunwoody, to be awarded a fourth star, and thereby elevated to the rank of General,* here is the AP video of the actual ceremony.



Unfortunately, someone at the Associated Press also chose to mark the occasion by publicly suspending, until further notice, their use of any images provided to them by the entire Defense Department. They say the action is based on two incidents, ones that are obvioulsy unrelated. One had to do with the digital alteration of the face and shoulders of a soldier who has been killed in action in Iraq two months ago. The altered picture had been used in his unit for a memorial service, and was inadvertently released pubicly, according to the Army.

Regarding the so-called incident related to General Dunwoody, on Thursday the Army had given the AP a cropped image of the general, dressed in fatigues and with a flag backdrop, one that was taken before her current elevation. Here was the Army's release, issued on November 12th. The full shot would have shown her prior rank of Lieutenant General, or three stars, but the cropping eliminated that.

To the right, the smaller image (on top) is the cropped image the Army initially supplied to the press. And then, below that image, the larger image is the full picture that it was
taken from. Because the official elevation in rank took place at a ceremony on Friday, the Army obviously did not have a current shot showing her with her four star rank.

So, they supplied the press with a cropped image that did not show her prior rank, no doubt because by the time the story appeared, they knew she would be a "four-star." Well, big deal!

Sniffed Santiago Lyon of the AP, soon after the "evidence" of the prior image was "discovered" by the deputy director of photography with the San Antonio Express-News, Bob Owen, and reported to AP:

"For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image," said Santiago Lyon, the AP's director of photography.

Zero-tolerance? Really? Okay. So what's next? A change in policy over the actual content of AP stories?

Who knows!

Gee, maybe the AP will begin by giving similar exacting consideration to the "altered reality" aspects replete in the content of many of their stories -- like publishing such complete rubbish during the Presidential election, as a piece alleging that Sarah Palin's criticisms of Barack Obama over his years long relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, was really racist on her part!

Or, perhaps in light of their anger over what was left out of the photo, they will begin including key information they omit from stories about Barack Obama appointees -- such as background about Valerie Jarrett -- including any details about her past connections to Tony Rezko and real estate scandals in Chicago. Here was more on the connections from the Boston Globe that the AP might have referenced, but chose not to include.

Somehow, that seems a teeny-weeny little bit more serious than an over-reaching indignation, including an actual banning of all DOD photos, over a cropped rank insignia from an officer's fatigues, no?

So will AP change their content policy on their stories?

"Hope springs eternal in the human breast . . ." intoned Alexander Pope, the noted 18th century poet and satirist.

Anyway, congratulations to General Ann E. Dunwoody on her notable achievement. As commander of the U.S. Army Material Command, she will in essence be the army's "premier provider of materiel readiness." Or, as they also say, "If a Soldier shoots it, drives it, flies it, wears it, or eats it, AMC provides it."

The AP coverage of the story itself was fine. But as for the obnoxious AP sidebar trashing the Army and the DOD over a lousy cropped photo, well, they've accordingly been awarded our first Log In Yer Own Eye File! citation.

* (corrected) The General officer ranks in the United States Army include "Brigadier General" (one star) BG; "Major General" (two stars) MG; "Lieutenant General" (three stars) LTG; and "General" (four stars) GEN.

Throughout American history, there have only been two men - George Washington and John T. "Black Jack" Pershing, who achieved the preeminent rank of "General of the Armies" and only Pershing did so during his lifetime. A few others, some during the Civil War, and several others during World War II, achieved the rank of "General of the Army" (five star), although the Civil War rank of General of the Army was intended to correspond more closely with that rank (General of the Armies) that had been intended to be awarded to Washington in 1799, in anticipation of a war with France. He died before that final title was conferred, and thus only held the rank of Lieutenant-General in his later lifetime. Washington had been "General and Commander in Chief of the United Colonies" during the revolutionary period, a commission he resigned in 1783. That interesting history is traced here, and can also be found in the "note" here, noting that the intent, for the period while the ranks existed following WW II, was to have three top grades in decending order, General of the Armies, General of the Army, and General. The first linked history interestingly concludes:

Joint Resolution of Congress, Public Law 94-479, dated 11 October 1976 provided for the posthumous appointment of George Washington to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States, such appointment to take effect on July 4, 1976. This resolution stated that "it is considered fitting and proper that no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington."

More On The Huck Feign

(Updated: 01/01 pm)

Yesterday, AP writer Ron Fournier supplied additional details in an analysis piece, "Analysis: Huckabee May Have Gone Too Far." He described Huckabee's arrival at the presser and his sudden "change of heart" in the room filled still with anti-Romney signs and boards, and a large backdrop declaring "Enough is enough!"

When Huckabee arrived, he announced he had just changed his mind. The ad wouldn't run. It was too negative.

"I believe the people of Iowa deserve better, and we are going to try and give them better ...," he said.

But he didn't. Instead, Huckabee showed off the spot to the journalists, knowing full well his negative message would seep out of the room. He told the media to pay close attention.

"You're not going to get a copy of it," he warned, "so this is your chance to see it, then after that you'll never see it again."

The media laughed.

First Read, an MSNBC political blog had the story up as well, which they tagged as "Huck's Strange Day." They link to today's Des Moines Register piece by Lisa Rossi, which lead with:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Monday that he had pulled a television advertisement targeting competitor Mitt Romney that was scheduled to be
broadcast in Iowa before Thursday's Republican presidential caucuses.

He showed the ad instead in a room packed with reporters at the Marriott hotel in downtown Des Moines.

Further down in the article, Lisa noted:

Reporters asked whether it was hypocritical to pull the ad, then show it to journalists.

"People want to be cynical about it, they can be cynical about it," Huckabee said. "If I said we were not going to run an ad ... you'd say, 'Where's the ad?' "

First Read also linked to AP Ron Fournier's analysis piece, as had Powerline's John Hinderaker in his piece of late yesterday, borrowing from Founier's header -- "Did Huckabee Go Too Far?"

John certainly seems to think so, noting Fournier's point that some of the anti-Romney lines in the ad Huckabee now claims to eschew, are lines that he has regularly been using, and continues to use in his stump appearances.

Hinderaker thus concludes:

The media helped to build Huckabee up, but if Fournier's reaction is typical, the honeymoon may be over.

(Update) Here a link at YouTube to portions of the presser.

As you can see from the video, under questioning from Carl Cameron at Fox, the following exchange took place:

Cameron: "So, if you've got all these placards, an ad that your not going to run, and a week's worth of commentary calling him (Romney) dishonest, are you saying that as of now these staffers should take these placards down, and that you won't say it anymore?"

Huckabee: "That's correct."

Yet he somehow insisted it was all true.

Today, Bob Krumm tagged it all "The Baptist Preacher's Gamble." His theory is that Huckabee's internal polls were finally was catching up to what others' were showing, and

"that the Passive Aggressive Pastor pulled yesterday’s stunt because he has seen his poll numbers and knows that they are "end-of-campaign bad.'"

More at Bob's post yesterday with additional links to media reaction noting the bizarre nature of the incident.

Krumm make a good point. Huckabee is an a "must win" situation in Iowa, and without an organization or money if he loses. So if he is tubing, this may simply have been a "kinder and gentler" version of the Dean "Scream."

When Denial Trumps The Obvious
The Elephant On the Cutting Room Floor

"We can imagine no better way to give hope to opponents of Iran’s repressive state than by showcasing America’s democracy and commitment to free speech."

NY Times editorial defending Columbia's decision to allow Ahmadinejad to speak.

11/01 - Today, the New York papers are all reporting that a 66-year old Jewish Professor at Columbia University, Dr. Elizabeth Midlarsky, some of whose work has concentrated on the acts of kindness of Gentiles toward the Jews back during the Nazi period, has just had a swastika spray painted on her office door up at the university. It was the latest of several anti-Semitic incidents, including hate mail, that were specifically aimed at this teacher in the past few weeks. Two of the city's newspapers, the New York Post and the Daily News displayed photos of the brown painted symbol scrawled on the door of Professor Dr. Midlarsky's office. She and her family live in New Jersey.

There was also a report of another bias-related incident back on October 10th of a noose being hung on the office door of Professor Madonna G. Constantine, a black professor at the college.

Regarding this latest incident, the New York Post reported that Dr. Midlarsky, a clinical psychologist and teacher at the college, had received three pieces of hate mail in her mailbox in the past few weeks, all occurring since the University's event hosting a visit by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, to visit Columbia and speak there at the end of September.

The professor had quite vehemently and openly opposed the invitation extended to Ahmadinejad by the school.

Midlarsky, who had family members killed in the Holocaust, strongly opposed the Sept. 24 visit to Columbia by Ahmadinejad, who denies the Holocaust, and wore a pin showing the Iranian president's legs twisted into a swastika.

"I was appalled he was asked to speak at Columbia. I was very outspoken about it at the time. Perhaps this game [sic – "gave"] this person the idea for this swastika." Midlarsky told The Post.

The psychology prof said she might also have been targeted because "I am openly Jewish and openly and proudly study Holocaust issues."

"I feel safe enough to come out about my concerns. I am known for it. But this could make me a target of someone who expresses hatred. Anti-semitism is there. It's real. It still exists today," she said.

Midlarsky said anti-Semitic hate mail had been left in her Teacher's College mail box three times starting on Oct. 17.

As reported in the Daily News, her husband also squarely attributed it to fallout from the Ahmadinejad episode.

Last month, Columbia University invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. Midlarsky's husband blamed the spurt of hate crimes squarely on the infamous hatemonger and Holocaust-denier.

"It's all fallout from Ahmadinejad," said Manus Midlarsky from the family's home in New Jersey. "The next step is physical violence, and that's what I'm worried about."

In two separate stories, the New York Times reported the incident as well, but failed in both to even include any mention of the hosting of Ahmadinejad at the school. One story, in the Education Section of the paper, entitled Swastika Painted on Columbia Professor’s Door, completely ignored whatsoever any possible relation of the incident to the late September visit to Columbia by the Iranian President.

The only quote that story included from her was as follows:

"I see this as an attack of extreme hate and extreme cowardice by someone trying to make a point," Dr. Midlarsky said yesterday.

One would think that would at least prompt a follow-up . . . say, "And what point would that be, Professor?" And, judging from her comments in the other two dailies, there is little chance she would have been shy about heading the reporter in the right direction on that one! Perhaps they did ask her and didn't like the answer, because it didn't fit their narrative.

The Times instead focused their short report exclusively in the context of other bias incidents, including the noose-hanging bias incident reportedly aimed at Professor Madonna G. Constantine at Columbia back on October 10th, and then went on to mention another reported noose-hanging allegedly targeting a Brooklyn high school principal in recent weeks, the latter quite obviously a completely unrelated incident. From the story:

On Oct. 10, a noose was found on the office door of Madonna G. Constantine, a black professor at the college. A string of similar acts in the region have occurred in recent weeks, including one in which a Brooklyn principal received a noose along with a racially charged letter in the mail.

The Times also printed the AP story about the incident that went into much greater detail about several reported noose-hanging incidents from around the country in recent years. But that story too, as well as the original New York Times story, did not mention a single word about the obvious relation of this incident to the September visit of Ahmadinejad to the University.

In their account, the AP claimed they were unable to reach Professor Midlarsky. Every other paper could. And the time stamp on the AP story indicates that it was filed after all of the other stories. But the AP managed to reach school officials at Columbia Teacher's College, meanwhile, who sought to blame it all on their focus on multicultural teachings, and blithly ignored the openly expressed views of victim of the incident, Professor Midlarsky.

School leaders said they felt the college was being targeted because of its "deep, multicultural work."

"We are committed to maintaining that tradition by operating as an open, tolerant community," Teachers College President Susan Fuhrman and Provost Tom James said in a statement. "We will not be intimidated by these incidents."

Right.

Except that everyone knows that Columbia University got so "open and tolerant" that they invited the world’s leading anti-Semitic hate-monger and Holocaust denier to drop by for a chat, graciously providing him with an open forum from which to spew his views.

True to form, of course, he played them for all the propaganda value he could squeeze from the incident, as this wrapup from FrontPage noted it would at the time.

But now the school officials want to pretend that this latest series of anti-Semitic incidents aimed at one of their own, and a vocal opponent of that visit, had nothing at all to do with their bad judgment!

They and their compatriots in denial at the New York Times, who, at the time, were busy pretending that the Ahmadinejad "visit" was really a glorious free speech rally, have played right along with this latest refusal to recognize the obvious. Shame on them all.

Denial has apparently now found a most powerful voice in a marriage of convenience between the New York Times, and the "leaders" at Columbia University. And they'll even carry that denial to the extreme of refusing to acknowledge the expressed views of one of their own, an elderly professor against whom these latest hate incidents were directly aimed.

Meanwhile, the New York Times would prefer to lecture the President of the United States, telling him he should cease what they call his "trash-talking" over Iran -- but without offering anything even remotely resembling a way to proceed on preventing Ahmadinejad's Iranian regime from getting their hands on atomic weapons!

So, the Times says, let the little dictator come here and rant, thus enhancing and enabling his position at home and abroad. But President Bush, they say, should just zip it!