Warbird Information Exchange

Here's something I found on Newsbusters.org website. Where do they find just terrific journalists! From our great universities and colleges of course!

Magazine Reports New Veteran's Cemetery With Photo Of WWII Nazi Soldier
By Warner Todd Huston | January 13, 2008 - 11:18 ET
Lifestyle magazine, a publication that serves Pennsylvania's Delaware Valley area, published a nice story this week reporting how a long awaited veteran's cemetery is finally underway in Buck's County, Penn. Oh, the story seems nice enough, but there is one problem. The photo accompanying the story shows a soldier, circa WWII, in near silhouette trotting across a wintry field, rifle in hand. That there is a photo of a soldier from WWII tacked onto a story about a new veteran's cemetery isn't the problem. The problem is that the photo is of a Nazi German soldier from WWII and NOT an American soldier! This is a shocking mistake that reveals many things about the folks at Lifestyle Magazine.

Why is a story about an American veteran's cemetery being illustrated by a photo of a Nazi solder? The answer can only be that the folks at Lifestyle magazine are so unfamiliar with anything military that the glaring mistake went completely unrecognized by its Editors and designers.

Story Continues Below Ad

Let's face it - a large portion of the news media is absolutely clueless when it comes to anything outside of their "life sphere". At least, though, with the "desk-top" TV anchors, you'd think they'd have someone on their staff to do some basic research and clue them in....

_________________
Bob

I have to somewhat disagree with the comments about how the article started.

Anyone who has heard the song, and more importantly, knows the story behind the song, would not be so (to use the author's own words) "flippant" to call the song "trivial".

I like Newsbusters, but I don't like them suggesting that a heartfelt song written about a man whom was one of the few survivors of a devestating ambush "trivial".

BTW, here's a little narrative I found about the 173rd Airborne, the unit Niles was a member of -



Sorry, but it's just as much a travesty to belittle the name and honor of a man who served his country with the upmost distinction as to use a picture of a German soldier when writing an article about a veteran's cemetary. I looked at the picture. It's a German soldier. A Nazi soldier would be a member of the SS who were required to be members of the Nazi party. There is no way of knowing if that soldier was a Nazi or just a German serving his country in time of war.

Sorry, but in this case I think the man writing about how wrong the story is should not be speaking since he's just as wrong as they are in his portrayal of the facts.

The point is that our modern journalists don't seem to know their history and can't do some basic fact finding. If you read between the lines you can surmize which side of the political aisle their teachers came from also. Anybody who knows their history knows the difference, as you pointed out, that it was a German soldier. A Nazi was the political party member in Germany at the time. That German soldier may have been a Nazi party member, but it is doubtful.

By "if you read between the lines" you mean "if you impose your own political prejudices on the story." Newsbusters.org, of course (slogan: "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias") is in the business of doing exactly that.

Having looked at the actual photo in question I cannot agree with Newsbusters' characterization of the mistake as "glaring", at least not to a lay person. It is indeed in near-silhouette, with no national emblems or insignia in evidence. I guess the writers and editors were supposed to recognize the shape of a German helmet, or the type of gun he was using. Rather a tall order for the editors of a local general interest lifestyle magazine. The idea that "anyone who knows their history" would find it obvious that this soldier is German is just wrong. History is not about the shape of helmets.

Apparently the point newsbusters is making is that all US citizens should be experts on the national military uniforms of various countries, circa WWII (and presumably at all other times in history?). This is just an example of obsessive buffs in a subject area (in this case some military buff at newsbusters) hooting at the media for not being as expert as they are in their favorite subject area, something I see a lot of on this forum and every other expert-buff forum that I frequent. It is a sign of people who need to step outside their little world and recognize that not everyone is or should be as expert as they are in their area of interest, or perhaps who just feel the need to be superior to the great unwashed. The truth, though, is that journalists cannot be experts in everything and they are going to make mistakes for that reason. Considering that it is their job to speak and write about things they can't possibly know a lot about, I feel they do a good job at it. Better, anyway, than the people who criticize them for these type of errors could do.

August

The article and myself are not stating they should be experts. If I were to write an article on something I know nothing about I would find an expert and ask them. That's what journalists are suppose to do, ask questions, and their editors should catch the mistakes. If I wrote an article about BMW cars (which I know nothing about except the're made in Germany I think) and put a photo of a Toyota with the article, that would be the same thing this journalist has done. Maybe they shouldn't have included the photo and then nobody would have said anything. ????

Sorry August, but the journalists bring it upon themselves. They do have a responsibility to be correct. It is the journalists themselves who use the heading of "journalistic integrity" to describe the idea that a journalist will vett his or her story with people who do know the subject before publishing it and it is the job of the editor to catch when this isn't done by proofing not only the writing, but reviewing the sources used and ensuring that those sources are legitimate and appropriate for the story being published. There is a tenant of classic journalism that for every source you have, you must have 2 other sources confirm the first before publishing it. If this journalist had used that basic premise, he would have prevented himself from publishing an incorrect image and, more importantly to me, made a better case by having more information pertinent to the local story by telling the stories of local vets who'd lobbied for the cemetary's creation instead of trying to make it a "nationally recognized" story by using words from a song, that while very well written and very heartfelt, doesn't have a direct relationship to the story. Sorry, but this is stuff taught in High School Journalism.

BTW August, if your assertion was true and most journalists were doing a pretty good job, you wouldn't have subscriptions declining at an ever increasing rate and the many of the major newspapers having to continuously increase their rates or sell even more advertisement space and suffers just to stay in business. People have always voted their pleasure or displeasure with their feet and money. Their money is leaving the newspapers in droves. That should tell them something if they actually cared.