The Republican narrative of the MSM is a part of the Left and we all know they don't know or care about the military is why you get the responses you do when you write,

Or is this just one more example of the MSM’s lack of attention to detail in military matters?

I think you realize this even if it was not an intentional tweak on your part.

*sigh*

Time Magazine has a red cover. Ever notice that? They must be communists!

Which, of course, really goes with that Russian helicopter which, while in no way relevant to, well, anything, some low paid graphic artist was clearly supposed to recognize!! LOL!

Dodd is the new Charles Johnson!! He exposed Copter-gate!! Nice job!!

Isn't it amazing that the usual suspects can't say something as simple as, "that looks like an error," but instead have to question your questioning of the narrative?

Not to mention projecting all sorts of wild pronouncements I haven't actually made into my post. I pointed out something that looks like an error but expressly noted that I wasn't entirely positive and was looking for feedback. I noted later that the error does, once again, raise the question of media accuracy of military matters, but also expressly noted that how much it does so is really up to the person reviewing it.

I thought the rather flippant title would inform people that the post isn't really all that serious but, somehow, it apparently means I think that journalists want the terrorists to win. This post is "sad and pathetic" but there's nothing "unbecoming" at all about suggesting that Bush likes taking it up the a**.... Methinks someone really needs to attend to the beam in his own eye and leave the mote in mine be.

These people don't raise holy hell when James posts about Paris Hilton, but this post is "crap" "unbecoming" the blog? I must've touched a nerve.

Grow up.

(Note to James. Keep crap like this off your blog. It's unbecoming.)

Second: this error really doesn't change the basic purpose of the cover, which is to evoke the overall notion of withdrawal and to specifically send the mind back to Viet Nam and the last helicopter out.

Third: errors are all around us all the time, and the only time you will really notice them is if the error is made in an area in which you personally have some expertise. I frequently notice errors in the press and even in scholarly books about Colombia and Latin America, but surely see things daily about, say, Asia that I don't realize are errors.

Further, we all make errors, as I know I do on my blog all the time--although usually it isn't something huge, but every once in a while someone points out something that I really need to address (and I don't just mean typos, which are constant).

It's trite but true, nobody's perfect and therefore the issue boils down to whether the error in question really matters or not.

You "left it as an exercise for the reader" because you don't have any evidence to back up your ridiculous claim. Please explain how the intern who does the cover art for Time has any impact on the journalist who writes the story.

What is the job of an Editor, Jeff?

They are just so goddamn precious.

In fact, please explain any substantive criticism you have about the cover story. In what way is the journalist's ignorance expressed? How would the story have been improved if the intern doing the cover art knew the difference between a Hind and a Chinook?

Did you read the story, or did you just look at the pictures?

The extent to which this ignorance of the subject raises questions about their accuracy in other more substantive matters is left an as exercise for the reader.

But then they'd consider that propaganda, wouldn't they?

Or is this just one more example of the MSM’s lack of attention to detail in military matters?

The media gets lots of things wrong in everything they cover, it's not a thing unique to military matters. They're imperfect, like everthing else.

Plus, what jeff b said.