SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!

National Debt Clock


A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!

Eurabia Watch


Family Security Matters has started a new feature, called Eurabia Watch, which will warn Americans that what happens in Europe with political correctness and Islamism will soon be on its way to America. What do you think?







View results


Sign Up for FSM Updates!

HOME > PUBLICATIONS > Exclusive: Military Writing Too Often Wrong

February 20, 2010

Exclusive: Military Writing Too Often Wrong

W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

Print This
  Comments (5)

Just under three weeks ago – January 30th to be exact – the New York Times published an op-ed by Leonard Garment, former White House counsel for President Nixon, who wrote the following lede (which has since been corrected after at least one person I know notified the Times):
“In April 1969, three months after his inauguration, President Richard Nixon hosted a party at the White House to celebrate Duke Ellington’s 70th birthday and award the Duke the Medal of Honor.”
Problem is Duke Ellington never received the Medal of Honor, which is the nation’s highest award for valor in combat.

The Duke did however receive the Medal of Freedom, an entirely different award.

But Garment obviously did not know the difference, nor did any editor at one of the largest publications (perhaps the most-influential publication) in the country.

I probably would not be bringing it up, except it happens all the time, and by noted writers and editors in huge papers like the Times.
Which begs the question (pardon the cliché); why is it that we journalists seem to be able to write with deftness and authority when it comes to business, economics, entertainment, sports, health, politics, crime, you name it. But when it comes to the military – or almost anything related to the military – the errors are legion?

There also have been instances (and more often than one might imagine) wherein sailors are referred to as U.S. Navy soldiers, and no one – according to the photo cutlines I frequently see – seems to know the difference between a soldier or a Marine, much less the difference between a battalion or a regiment. And whenever anyone writes about foreign militaries, forget about it.

But our story continues.
On February 4th – less than a week after the Times gaffe – the (Alabama) Tuskegee News published a glowing tribute to Lt. Col. Lee Archer, a retired Air Force officer and former Tuskegee Airman, who passed away last month. It too made a similar claim: “In 2007, he [Archer] and other Airmen were awarded Congress’ highest honor — the Congressional Medal of Honor.”
Not true.
That same day, the Seattle Medium, also writing about Archer, published the line, “In March 2007, about 350 airmen and widows received the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor from President George W Bush at a ceremony in the US Capitol.”
But no such decoration exists.

What Archer received was a Congressional Gold Medal. It is not in any way the Medal of Honor. There is no such award as a Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. And the same article that said there was, also said, “Archer retired from the USAAF in 1970.” But the World War II-era USAAF (U.S. Army Air Forces) did not exist in 1970.
Ten days after the gaffes in the Tuskegee News and the Seattle Medium, the (Delaware) News Journal published a piece making the claim that “Maj. John L. Harrison of Philadelphia served in the U.S. Air Force's Tuskegee Airmen and received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest commendation for valor.”

Again, not true.
But it gets worse.
On February 15th – just over two weeks after the Duke Ellington screw-up – an editorial was published in the New York Times, which said:
“Fixing the Pentagon’s dysfunctional procurement system takes more than just killing off anachronistic projects like the now-terminated F-22 jet fighter.”
Of course being "anachronistic" is an opinion, and opinions are fine.

But "terminated?" Now we are in the realm of fact. And fact is, the F-22 – a super-stealthy air-supremacy fighter – has not been "terminated." The current Defense budget has them capped at fewer than 200 airplanes (187 to be exact, last I checked). But building the F-22 is ongoing, not "terminated."

The same piece goes on to say, “The Air Force, in particular, will need F-35s to replace the canceled F-22.”
Again, the F-22 has not been “cancelled.” Instead, a cap has been placed on the future number of F-22s to be built.
Moreover, the F-35 – an also-stealthy multi-role fighter – is not replacing the F-22.
The F-35 is replacing the F-16, the A-10, the AV-8 Harrier, and the F-18.

The F-22 is designed to replace the F-15.

The F-22 and the F-35 are different airplanes, both fifth-generation fighters, neither of which competes with the other. Meant for different missions they are, rather, designed to compliment each other.

The F-22 is still being built. It's operational. And it will be for a long time.
At any rate, having discussed the problem of marginally accurate military writing with colleagues for years – and talking about it more intently over the past few days as my colleagues have urged me to write about it – a brand new revelation jumped out at me this morning. 
This time it's Tricycle Press (an imprint of Crown Publishing), which proudly proclaims,

"On March 10, Maggie Gee, one of two Chinese American Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) to serve in WWII, will be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by President Barack Obama."

Not true. And don't get me started on the other mistakes (re: the military) in the piece.
The problem when it comes to military writing or writing about things mentioning – or associated with – the military, is that far too many writers and editors are simply winging it. There is no attention to detail, and there seems to be a cavalier approach on the part of some writers and editors when it comes to learning the technical particulars and the culture of the military.
So unfortunately, we can only expect more of the same.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a former U.S. Marine infantry leader and shipboard counterterrorism instructor, who writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. Visit his website at uswriter.com.

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (5) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!

Print This
  Comments (5)

Gretings...I'm the former National Public Relations Officer, Tuskegee Airmen, Inc. (TAI)...please note that the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor does exist...

Congressional Gold Medal of Honor

The first award is the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor – more commonly known as the Congressional Gold Medal – the nation’s highest and most distinguished civilian award. First awarded in 1776 to General George Washington, there have been over one hundred medals awarded. There have been two two-time winners – Major General Winfield Scott (1814, 1848) and John Horn, Jr (1874, 1904). Major General Zachary Taylor was awarded this special distinction three times: in 1846, 1847, and 1848.The medal has been awarded to individuals and groups from all walks of life.

It was originally awarded to military leaders for achievement in battle, but became a civilian medal after the Medal of Honor was instituted. The medal is presented both for singular acts of exceptional service and for lifetime achievement. Congressional legislation is required to make the medal, and needs at least two-thirds of the House of Representatives to sponsor the legislation to the House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, Technology, and Economic Growth and 67 Senators to sponsor it to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Once the legislation is past, the Congress commissions the U.S Mint to design and create the medal. This ensures that each medal is unique, representing each individual and/or event that it has been awarded for. The legislation provides for duplicate copies of the medal to be cast in bronze for sale, on occasion.


posted by: Ron Brewington
Saturday, February 20, 2010 at 09:27 PM

My mother is one of the WASP who will receive the Congressional Gold Medal on March 10th. Sadly, she will be receiving it posthumously. My own family keeps messing up the name of the honor and is using mish-mash terms like "Congressional Gold Medal of Honor" despite gentle reminders. I just sigh and smile and simply remain filled with gratitude that Mom is being honored at last.

Best,

Merujo

posted by: Merujo
Saturday, February 20, 2010 at 09:32 PM

Sorry Mr. Brewington, but the information you copied from coinlink is not true.
There is no such thing as a "Congressional Gold Medal of Honor "

posted by: Bat
Sunday, February 21, 2010 at 09:21 AM

I've seen the Vietnam Honor Medal translated by lawyers and journalists into the Vietnam Medal of Honor.

I've seen an enlisted OCS candidate described as a battlefield commission, again by lawyers and journalists.

I've seen an Aviation Crew Badge described as Aviation Wings.

Editors and writers just don't have the time or interest in checking facts or accept at face value what a court would call heresay. The probable reason is that reporters don't like to question the veracity of veterans. There is an assumption that veterans are all truthful, and that is not a good assumption.

posted by: FormerJournalist
Sunday, February 21, 2010 at 10:11 AM

The Congressional Gold Medal does exist. It is NOT the same as the Congressional Medal Of Honor but a different award with a similar name.
For a list of past awards you can check this link from the U.S. House of Representatives:

http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/goldMedal.html

posted by: Tyler
Sunday, March 7, 2010 at 01:44 AM