NEW YORK TIMES

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher and
Mr. Scott H. Heekin-Canedy, President, General Manager:
 
Info: Mr. William L. Pollak, Senior Vice President, Circulation
Ms. Lauretta Prestera, Vice President for Circulation
Mr. Harold F. Woldt Jr., Vice President for Sales and Marketing.
Mr. Charles E. Shelton, Vice President for Distribution
Mr. Andrew Rosenthal, Editorial Page Editor
Mr. David Shipley, [Former Special Assistant, and Senior Presidential
  Speechwriter to President Bill Clinton] Deputy Editorial Page Editor and
  Op-Ed Editor
Mr. Frances X. Clines, National Politics, Congress & Campaign Finance
Mr. Dean Baquet, Washington Bureau Chief
Ms. Dorothy Samuels, Law, Civil Rights & National Affairs
Mr. Clark Hoyt, Public Editor 
Pentagon Correspondents: Various

Dear Mr. Chairman, Publisher, and Mr. President, Gen. Manager of the New York Times,

  My name is Major Robert L. Hanafin, U.S. Air Force-Retired. I am a Veteran of Vietnam, the Gulf War, and a Retired Military Officer who had a child serving in the U.S. Army in Bosnia and Iraq. Our military family has closely followed online reporting by your newspaper from Ohio and found it overall to be both credible and impartial in your coverage of the Iraq War that is why, on behalf of our military family and other military families who have diverse views on ‘our war’ we are contacting you.

  We wanted to express our sincere concerns about insulting remarks made by your Public Editor, Mr. Clark Hoyt  about Veterans and Military Family activists who have intimate and passionate pro and con views on ‘our war.’ Speaking from a non-partisan, independent political view, Mr. Hoyt owes both the ultra right wing Veterans for Freedom and moderate to left-wing Iraq Veterans Against the War and our supporters an apology for his arrogance regardless our diverse views on ‘our war.’

  Mr. Hoyt’s lame excuse that the Times ignored Winter Soldier on the grounds that you also ignored an announcement by the pro-war group Vets for Freedom claiming more than 13 times the membership of Iraq Veterans Against the War, the group which organized Winter Soldier,” is irrelevant unless the NYTs was intimidated by the right-wing into ignoring WS2008. Could it be that the NYTs feared retaliation from the right? Well there’s only one way to find out who has the most members and support, and the NYTs is about ready to find out via BOYCOTT. Why?

  Mr. Hoyt draws a far-fetched parallel between an anti-Iraq War group, representative of YOUR PUBLIC OPINION POLLS, presenting eyewitness testimony about atrocities in Iraq and a neo-conservative group releasing an intimidating press release about media bias. The NYTs should be use to both sides of the Iraq debate putting out press releases about media bias. You must have been getting such pressure since the invasion in 2003. 
Kowtowing to the right wing by ignoring both sides is what the NYTs have actually done. The only positive thing to come out of that is NOW a so-called liberal and progressive leaning news source has taken an excuse away from the NEOCONS as to why our government lost the Iraq War exactly the same way it lost the Vietnam War. God does have a sense of humor; this time around, we did not have the draft and still are being bogged down in Iraq.

  Mr. Hoyt’s comparison is absurd and belittling to both groups of Veterans and Military Families. There sure are military families who support the Iraq War and not because federal law (the Hatch Act) says, they have to. Further, the size of IVAW and Vets for Freedom are not directly comparable, as IVAW is restricted to Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, whereas anyone can sign up on the Vets for Freedom website, which stipulates, “Non-veterans can also be members of Vets for Freedom.”

  He claims that “news organizations like the Times, with your substantial investment in independent reporting from Iraq, tend to prefer your own on-scene (Pentagon controlled embed program) accounts of the war” is akin to asserting that reporters on the police beat prefer to write about crimes they have seen themselves rather than talking to eyewitnesses. Given that Times reporters, like all Western journalists in Iraq, have great difficulty traveling freely outside the Green Zone. Journalists have to agree to limited journalistic freedom and be monitored by the Pentagon just to get into the embed program. The only stories the Pentagon is going to allow from the embed program after Abu Ghraib is don’t worry be happy, accentuate the positive or get kicked out of the embed program. It is hard to imagine how the Times can provide a full and accurate picture of the war without interviewing people who have participated in it. And of course the paper does often interview U.S. military personnel about what they've seen, though when they are whistleblowers trying to call attention to what they describe as "the human consequences of failed policy," the Times suddenly has much less interest in what they have to say. The New York Times’ decision to assign one of its two available correspondents to tour with the Secretary of Defense instead of hearing the first-hand accounts of the Winter Soldiers demonstrates a very strange notion of “independent reporting.”

  The only realistic way to have avoided insulting both sides was to cover the event and counter-demonstration to it. The American people are not that ignorant that they do not realize there are two sides to the national debate over Iraq but to do a blackout on the debate is not only dumb, it is suppression of debate and freedom of speech by the very instrument of independence all Americans depend on – an impartial press. If the time comes when the vast majority of Americans, regardless of diverse views or alienation, passionately feel the mainstream media cannot be trusted or is a propaganda extension of partisan politics, the social upheaval will make the 1960s look like a barn dance.

  The Iraq War, and War on Terror, is Bush/Cheney/McCain/Liebermann/Clinton derived concepts without asking, let alone demanding, our nation goes on a full war footing. When has the American people been asked to, or told, WE have to ALL share in the sacrifices, loss, suffering, and endurance of other patriots? Selective Service, to include drafting journalists, has never been implemented, yet taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted on maintaining an apparatus to do THE DRAFT.

So that management at the NYTs realizes that not all of us who question the Iraq War actually oppose it or war. Our military family to a degree, since we have no more children to sacrifice on America’s political alter, sort of hopes Senator McCain, Senator Clinton, Senator Leibermann, and their surrogates on the right-wing get their way about staying in Iraq another several decades. As a Retired Military Officer, I seriously believe Senator McCain has what it takes to decide to implement the draft. He would provide the ground forces necessary to avoid these never ending back to back deployments (voluntarily or otherwise) that exploit real American patriots. The point is that despite Mr. Hoyt’s stereotypes to the contrary very few of our associates within the anti-Iraq War movement want the draft anymore than NEOCONs do. However, fortunately the sentiment among military families to force the rest of America to share in our nightmare is growing. Take a poll on that, or will that to be inaccurate? 

  America is not at war gentlemen, it is now the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Liebermann/Clinton war unless the NYTs has been wrong in your polls of national support for the war being at rock bottom. Lacking full National commitment, and manning resources necessary to subdue any nation in the Middle East, regardless the nobility or waste of the cause, it is our Military Families, troops, and Veterans of ‘our war’ that endure the heaviest burden. Whom more than ‘us’ have EARNED the Constitutional right to public debate over our war that the mainstream media has an obligation to cover not suppress into silence by claims of ignorance.

  Regardless one’s views on torture being no big deal or a national shame, war crimes, or violations of the Geneva Convention, the righteousness and nobility of ‘our’ cause, a growing number of us feel, Mr. Hoyt’s response was uncalled for and demeaning. That message of what the NYTs really stands for is making its way via Independent online means and on the street word of mouth across America and throughout the vast majority of American voters that your polls say do not support the War in Iraq. The ABC/NYTs public opinion poll needs to add one more question then decide if the debate by those who were sent in harms way is worthy news. Do you believe that war crimes have been committed during the Iraq War or War on Terror by all sides or by a few bad apples on both sides of a WAR?

In Mr. Hoyt’s response to media activists who wrote to your paper about ignoring last month's Winter Soldier hearings, he explained that reporters at the Times had "not been aware of the group (Iraq Veterans Against the War) or its meeting," but likely wouldn't have covered it if they had been aware of the event.

First off, any intelligent reader is never going to believe reporters at the NYTs do not know how to turn a computer on or research the various patriotic factions involved in our national debate on Iraq and the War on Terror. Management of the NYTs goes way beyond arrogance and elitism in questioning your reader’s intellect. The idea that the NYTs was unaware of Winter Soldier is NOT TRUE; your D.C. reporters were repeatedly sent press releases about the events, the same ones that other media outlets received that did manage to cover the event, ranging from Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now to the New York Times' corporate sibling the Boston Globe.

  That said, frankly our military family doesn’t really care if the NYTs covered opposing views of Winter Soldier 2008 or not, because suffice it to say WS2008 got international and national coverage with or without your blessing. One need not have a degree in journalism or decades of experience in mainstream media to figure out how to do a Multilingual Google search. Just type three words into Google’s advanced search and you will get 108,000 hits for Winter Soldier Iraq and unfortunately most one-sided in favor of views shared and testimony given by Iraq Veterans Against the War, their family members, and other eye-witnesses. The NYTs and other politically correct papers have done a great disservice to those who in fact support the Clinton/Liebermann wing of the Democratic Party and Bush/Cheney/McCain wing of the Republicans Party by denying Veterans for Freedom to express their views.

  Fortunately mainstream media overall did not plead ignorance to the event or organizations involved and the comments of Mr. Hoyt admit that even the NYTs was paying attention but chose to ignore either sides point of view in this National Debate. What were the real reasons for this?

  The Associated Press, BBC News, NHK News, Editor and Publisher, San Francisco Chronicle, the Nation, Salon, Time/CNN, Harvard Law, the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel, National Review,  Institute for Public Policy, WTOP TV News, Washington, DC, our local station here in Dayton, Ohio, to name a few really makes a point. However,  even The Army Times, an affiliate of Military Times Newspapers, covered the Winter Soldier testimony and debate from all view points. The fact that the Army Times covered the event is in out military families mind far superior to the NYTs ignoring it.

  The opportunity to shed light and report news that got both international and national coverage without you disputes Mr. Hoyt’s insulting contentions that Veterans, Military Families, and troops who served in Iraq are not relevant to the National Debate on Iraq because each is passionate. That is flawed logic that reflects poorly on the NYTs journalistic credibility, independence, and agenda. AP and othe media networks covered WS2008 long before the event was held in Maryland. Then it spread throughout international mainstream media to local and national TV coverage and of course, to our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and even the Arab media. Any representative pleading ignorance of the event is not only the loss of the New York Times in the end, it highlights your ignorance on an international basis as Mr. Hoyt’s remarks spread across the net and hard copy Independent News networks. Just ask your circulation department once home deliveries begin to bottom out as progressive organizations cry Boycott. 

  Several grassroots organization at the National Level, including True Majority, Veterans for Common Sense, Veterans for America, and Military Families Speak Out, just to name a few are now discussing contacting our New York state chapters to boycott the New York Times home delivery for comments made by Mr. Hoyt. His comments are perceived as insulting to military families, and Veterans on both sides of the debate, which happens to be a National debate about war, sacrifice, and endurance that touches but a teardrop in a ocean of American people. National debate on Iraq should never exclude those who served in combat there regardless of views that the war as a noble cause or waste of time, money, and lives. 

These young men and women, who served but decided not to make the military a career, as I did, obviously have deep concerns that I as a Veteran, Retired Military Officer, and Army Dad must share regardless my views when this next generation of warriors is told their opinions do not matter. That message is transmitted to our love ones our troops in the field the Army Times have assured us of that. Mr. Hoyt’s remarks only serve to lower the credibility of the New York Times at a time when I understand hard copy circulation of mainstream media outlets is sharing in our national economic decline. Your Senior Vice President for Circulation in the NY area alone knows of what I say. The last thing any media network needs in either a focused boycott that can spread nationally during an election year. The results for many mainstream media employees could be welcome to the food pantry and unemployment line.

  Mr. Hoyt took it upon himself, on behalf of the New York Times, to violate the constitutional rights to free speech of both sides in the debate, to suppress dissent, and pass judgment on diverse factions of the debate on Iraq that is a National debate. The NYTs should last of all had excluded Iraq and Afghanistan war Veterans and their families regardless their numbers, membership or views. The Hatch Act forbids our active duty troops, families, and even Veterans still under military obligation from saying anything negative about their war.

  Frankly, we do not see the New York Times as shunning the Winter Soldier 2008 testimony as a big deal. However, Mr. Hoyt’s excuses that, “News organizations like the Times, with its own substantial investment in independent reporting from Iraq tend to prefer their own on-scene accounts of the war, rather than relying on charges and counter-charges at home by organizations with strongly held political viewpoints about the war.”

  However, problems experienced by Pentagon embedded journalists once they start reporting anything negative about the war has already hit the National Best Sellers list. NYTs and other embedded reporters were given a once of freedom of the press as long as you staid away from stories like prison abuses, torture, water boarding, and such, then things went downhill between the media, right-wing and Pentagon from there. Only a dummy does not realize that Pentagon Public Affairs is going to crack down on any negative reporting of the Iraq War that leans toward liberal journalists being the reason THEY lost Iraqnam.

You know and we know that the NYTs is only going to get a one sided, partisan view of the Iraq War in-country, because it is illegal by federal law (the Hatch Act) to give any negative views about your war without having the Chain of Command come down on you. For the record, Iraq Veterans Against the War may have lower or higher numbers than pro-Bush Vet groups, but who cares. That is not the point of national debate nor is it Mr. Hoyt’s prerogative to pass judgment on any Veterans or Military Families until he and his family have walked in our shoes. Then maybe, just maybe he has earned the right to debate the Iraq War as we have. He, and the NYTs, has some gall trying to dictate which group has a voice in national debate.
 
  Let us be clear on this. We are expressing concerns on behalf of both those who question and oppose the war and those who support President Bush and Senator McCain. Those who support the President and his policies in Iraq say supporting a President’s war policies cannot be separated from supporting our troops. We passionately disagree with that having served in and opposed Vietnam yet staid in the Armed Forces to help build the All Volunteer Force. However, I would defend with my life both Veterans for Freedom’s and Iraq Veterans Against the War’s first amendment rights to both have a view and take part in the National debate on Iraq. Is that what needs to happen?

  It is that last sentence or so, that many Veterans and Military families are going to find both arrogant and insulting regardless our diverse views on the war, Mr. Hoyt’s comments serve only to show what WE do have in common and against mainstream media that represents a nation that IS NOT fully committed to WAR. This is worse than a Greek tragedy for all sides of the debate.

  you, the management at the NYTs, are contributing to a degradation of journalistic independence and freedom by suppressing public debate over such life and death issues as war and peace. What is disgusting about this is that only one percent of the American population is committed to enduring the sacrifice of the war as the rest of the nation views our burden as after innings in a Baseball game that never ends.

  In closing, a television journalist, and commentator, who we respect for not only his maturity but insights into the future of journalism shared quite a few concerns that inspired us to contact you even if you receive this like the three Buddhist monkeys hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

  Mr. Bob Schieffer of CBS Face the Nation gave this lecture to a graduating class of journalist, the location is not important, but his cautionary message sounds as if it was intended just for you the editorial board at the New York Times. Mr. Hoyt please pay close attention.

  His lecture came long before the rise of cable TV, the Internet and 24-hour news cycles, but what he predicted about mainstream media so many years ago has come to be. Even he did not understand that as news outlets multiplied, many would begin to cater to a specific portion of the population rather than the overall audience and readers. His initial observation was at a time when information did not have the capability of reaching so many people instantly in ways that mainstream media really could not keep up with.
Case in point with the New York Times, you are but an increasingly minute part of the information highway. Quickly being outnumbered by Indy media and in self-denial about it like some of our troops about PTSD, the downside is that catering to either Veterans for Freedom or Iraq Veterans Against the War (and their views) given the new electronic media has led to narrow casting as opposed to broad casting. Ignoring both groups in a national debate only serves to further alienate each and result in your readership and home deliveries becoming gradually narrow. Evidently, that is the only language you understand, so hit you where it hurts – the bottom line, and maybe you will begin to remember what journalism and news “reporting” is all about.

  Former New York Times reporter James Naughton, the long-time managing editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, and President of the Poynter Journalism Institute, noted that, “People no longer get the same information. Each group finds the news that is tailored to its particular group [interests/views]. We share his belief that this is one reason our nation has become so polarized on so many issues and why people now define objectivity of the NYT (along with most media outlets) as being only that which agrees with our point of view.

We have a final few questions for the New York Times. In the sharply divided politics of today, is anyone winning? Is the answer to belittle all divergent views on war? We passionately believe that to suppress debate is not the role of journalist, and we are a warrior family not journalists. OUR sacrifice allows us a seat on the national debate panel, but when you suppress dissent or debate on national issues, that makes me feel as if my military service were in vain.

  Differences in our society are widening rather than narrowing and mainstream media has played an instigating role. This is not only our understanding alone as warriors, but also what many real journalists like Bob Schieffer, Bill Moyers, and Walter Cronkite believe. Republicans and Democrats are becoming less likely to live next door to each other, attend the same church, or subscribe to the same media. This is something our military family observes and can relate to as swing voters here in Ohio surviving within a Republican stronghold. It is as if we were abolitionist living in the south before the American civil war afraid to speak our minds but do it anyway, because the hypocrites around us do not have a loved one in the Armed Forces.

  We tend to believe nothing unless we know the speaker or writer’s motivation, and those of the New York Times are not on trial online across the NET as the results of insensitive comments to Veterans and Military Families made by one man on your staff.
When someone with the journalistic credentials of Bob Schieffer says, “This sad state of affairs is the outgrowth of the mean spirit that now pervades our politics-the I’m right, and if you wear a different political label you are wrong even before you say anything attitude.” That is not the insightful part of his observation this is, “the mainstream media is partly the blame [for the polarization of Americans].”

  Mr. Schieffer teaches future journalists that mainstream media has allowed to pass for political discourse pitting the people with extreme positions on one side of an issue and pairing them with the people who holds the most extreme position on the other side and allowing them to scream at each other.  Mr. Hoyt wants to suppress that which he and you create. These match ups are designed to produce sparks and play gotcha! Not to shed the light of truth on any particular issue, mainstream media has made an art out of instigation and alienating the American public.

Your representative Mr. Hoyt has the gall to pass judgment on the polarized positions the New York Times likewise Fox News has created. What Mr. Hoyt says, insults, and judges just is not going to fly. He should be disciplined for the potential financial loss he is going to eventually cost the Times.

Respectfully,

Major & Mrs. Robert L. Hanafin
SP/5, U.S. Army (69-76) 
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired (77-94)
Veterans for America (VFA)
Editorial Board member
OurTroopsNewsLadder
http://ourtroops.newsladder.net/

Related Links:
New York Times Explains Winter Soldier Blackout
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9818

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3340