Newsweek Caught Stealth Editing 2015 Article to Smear Tom Cotton on “Ranger” Issue
We’re getting into scary territory if the media will just edit or erase anything that contradicts the truth of a Republican’s past or make Democrats look bad.
National Review covered Salon’s hit piece on Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK), which tried to accuse him of lying about his military record.
But there’s a small part in the National Review article that should drive everyone mad.
At Salon, Roger Sollenberger claimed that completing Ranger School does not make one an actual Ranger. He also insisted that the military agrees with him. I emphasized the important part:
In his first run for Congress, Cotton leaned heavily on his military service, claiming to have been “a U.S. Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan,” and, in a campaign ad, to have “volunteered to be an Army Ranger.” In reality, Cotton was never part of the 75th Ranger Regiment, the elite unit that plans and conducts joint special military operations as part of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command.
Rather, Cotton attended the Ranger School, a two-month-long, small-unit tactical infantry course that literally anyone in the military is eligible to attend. Soldiers who complete the course earn the right to wear the Ranger tab — a small arch that reads “Ranger” — but in the eyes of the military, that does not make them an actual Army Ranger.
Newsweek jumped on Salon’s back with its own article about Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) telling Cotton that he wasn’t a Ranger if he didn’t wear the 75th Ranger Regiment beret.
Someone better put Crow in touch with retired Command sergeant major Rick Merritt because he said he knew of plenty of Rangers who served in other regiments.
Caroline Tabler, Cotton’s communications director, told National Review that his office contacted Newsweek about the Crow article because of an article it published in 2015.
That Newsweek article told everyone about how Shaye Haver and Kristen Griest became the first females to graduate from Ranger school. The media identified these women as Rangers.
Newsweek issued a celebratory article in 2015. The opening sentence (emphasis mine):
For the first time in the Army Ranger School’s 64-year history, two women have completed the intense training program and will become Rangers.
Newsweek acknowledged Haver and Griest as Rangers even though they could not join the 75th Ranger Regiment because it “does not allow female Rangers.”
Instead of saying, “My bad!” Newsweek decided to edit the 2015 article:
For the first time in the Army Ranger School’s 64-year history, two women have completed the intense training program and will be allowed to wear the coveted Ranger tab on their uniforms.
Wait! It gets better! Newsweek added this blurb at the bottom:
Correction: This article has been changed to note that completion of the course allows one to wear the Ranger tab, but does not make one a Ranger.
Excuse me?!
Fuzzy wrote about The Washington Post deleting part of a 2019 profile on then-Sen. Kamala Harris because she mocked prisoners begging for food.
WaPo added it back in after the backlash, but still.
I see people complain about others using Orwell to describe these situations. Yes, 1984 was about a totalitarian government and not supposed private companies.
But since the media has taken such a liking to Democrats, I say yes, you can describe this situation as Orwellian. The Democrats do not even have to ask the media!
Will there be more of this?
How long before the media just up and changes everything without acknowledging a “correction” or an explanation.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
What makes you think they don’t already do that.
doubt crow or solenberger would be able to complete the first few days of the course–screw them–thank you for your service sen. cotton
Seem familiar? Ds bristle when the comparison is made.
“I myself [Shirer speaking] was to experience how easily one is taken in by a lying and censored press and radio in a totalitarian state. Though unlike most Germans I had daily access to foreign newspapers, especially those of London, Paris and Zurich, which arrived the day after publication, and though I listened regularly to the BBC and other foreign broadcasts, my job necessitated the spending of many hours a day in combing the German press, checking the German radio, conferring with Nazi officials and going to party meetings. It was surprising and sometimes consternating to find that notwithstanding the opportunities I had to learn the facts and despite one’s inherent distrust of what one learned from Nazi sources, a steady diet over the years of falsifications and distortions made a certain impression on one’s mind and often misled it. No one who has not lived for years in a totalitarian land can possibly conceive how difficult it is to escape the dread consequences of a regime’s calculated and incessant propaganda. Often in a German home or office or sometimes in casual conversation with a stranger in a restaurant, a beer hall, a café, I would meet with the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions one was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless it was even to try to make contact with a mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for the truth, said they were.”
Shirer’s Rise & Fall, pp. 247-248.
Shirer’s Rise & Fall has two chapters which bear familiarity to what we are witnessing here in the USA. Not only will his remarks be eye-opening, they sadly point to our future, and in many ways describe our present.
Nazification of Germany: 1933-34, pp. 198-230
Life in the Third Reich: 1933-37, pp. 231-276
Now I have to go back and read that big, thick book again!
Seriously, thanks for this. I’m looking forward to delving into “Rise…” one more time.
Worth reading – a true classic.
Yep. The propaganda machine has several functions. The folks living under the regime know damned well that the posters are all outrageously false, but cannot say so and are required to parrot what they say. This has a severe impact over time and eventually the population looses its grounding to the truth and are easier marks for the regime to control
The propaganda machine always counts on the kool-aid drinkers never questioning them.
The establishment media and their friends in the Democrat/socialist political sphere also count on busy people who “don’t have time” to seek out original or at least reliable sources. These naieve people still trust the mainstream media, believing the MSM honestly “summarizes” and “interprets” the news for them.
The Joseph Goebbels media gets away with this – and much more – because of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, a term coined by the late Michael Crichton.
https://lawofmarkets.com/2020/04/13/the-gell-mann-effect/
“How long before the media just up and changes everything without acknowledging a “correction” or an explanation[?]”
The MSM only corrects post facto “stealth” revisions when they are caught red-handed. Why in the world would anyone think that those corrections were the only times that the MSM had engaged in such skullduggery?
So, Newsweek is saying that if you have a tab on your uniform that literally says ‘RANGER’ on it, you are not a Ranger?
My uncle was with the 3rd Ranger Battalion, 6615th Ranger Force, and captured at Anzio. Since he doesn’t meet the qualifications if being in the 75th, I guess he is not a Ranger either….. SMH.
First, the article calling his “Ranger” service into question is a tempest in a teapot. But, they are correct. If you attended “Ranger School” successfully and were awarded a “Ranger Tab” you are considered “Ranger Qualified” but are NOT considered a “Ranger”. Trust me, I understand how confusing that is but I will say that most everyone who attended Ranger School or who served in a Ranger unit or in the Infantry knows and understands this minor yet critical distinction. However, when you are speaking to the general public about your service, defaulting to “I was a Ranger in Iraq…” would not be entirely inappropriate.
I will also say that while the ONLY Ranger units in the Army Inventory today are with the 75th Infantry (Ranger) Regiment, this was not always the case. The Ranger lineage is long and storied and goes far back in history beyond there being a “Ranger School”. So, those who served in many units throughout history are also considered “Rangers” who were never assigned to the 75th or attended Ranger School.
All of that said, Tom was imprecise in a forgivable and understandable way. It also does not denigrate actual Rangers nor elevate Ranger School graduates beyond their accomplishments. As said, a tempest in a teapot.
For the record, I was an Infantryman assigned to 2nd Platoon, Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion (the only REAL Ranger Battalion), 75th Infantry (prior to and after the Regimental HQ was formalized) and also attended Ranger School (Winter Class).
The US Army Ranger Association disagrees with you. Tom Cotton is eligible for the Ranger Hall of Fame, just for having the tab:
Either qualification makes you a Ranger.
Gen. Scott Miller also disagrees with you:
And he was talking specifically to Rangers who were ineligible to actually serve in a Ranger unit. He said they’re still Rangers.
So either you’re right, or they’re right.
They are just jealous because there is no dumbass patch for them. Luckily we all know they rate one.
Sen. Cotton represents Arkansas (AR) in the Senate, not Alaska (AK).
The problem of “revisionism” extends to ALL information sources. The progressive left has taken to rewriting history and I’m not just talking about the 1619 Project. Look at ANY information depository and you will find it has been edited or rewritten in the last 3 years with a bias in the direction the Progressive Left.
A good example is Wikipedia. Until 3 years ago, they were very strict about preventing political bias. Now if you go to their pages on a wide range of issues they are all slanted and, in some cases, materially false – such as immigration, race relations, gay movement, populist movement, crime and law enforcement.
Another is the change of definitions at various dictionary companies. The most recent high profile example was the change to the definition of the term “stacking” in the Fall 2020 because Democrats did not like the optics of “stacking the court” (expanding the number of justices so that you can fill the new seats) and wanted to change the definition to one where they could accuse the Republicans of stacking the court.
Don’t forget changes in language which is the key to culture. These changes are subtle but far-reaching. Now there are things you can say – and things your not allowed to say. Groups you can criticize and those you cannot. Now every person under 30 asks you about your “preferred pronoun”.
These are elements of brainwashing and mind-control that I never thought I’d see in the USA. We used to make fun of the USSR for using these tactics.
Tyranny is when a powerful minority forces their will upon the majority. 3 to 5% of people trying to tell the other 95 to 97% what to do. We defeated the British Tyranny in 1776. But the modern Tyranny has make traction b/c they are more insidious. They are not identifiable by Redcoats. They are often members of the community who have been brainwashed by radicals and media. They are the enemy within.
There is a war in progress in this country. It is not a physical conflict (usually) it is a war for the soul of America. Make no mistake – we all become slaves if we lose this war. That’s why we must all become soldiers in it and fight against the tyranny. People have to wake up and fight.
Wikipedia has had a political slant for a while. Anything pertaining to impending anthropogenic climate catastrophes was heavily slanted 10 years ago. What’s happened is the slanting has become much more widespread and much more blatant.
This is just not so.
Officially, of course, there is no “they”. “The cabal does not exist.” Except that it does, and when you edit political articles you quickly run into it. The admins stick together and always back each other up. And every political article that gets hot will inevitably be frozen in a version that is slanted to the moderate left. [WP:TAGTEAM] [WP:WRONGVERSION] And that was back when I was active in WP editing, which was at least 10 years ago. — ~~~~
I finally gave up when I got blocked for something completely non-political and that should have been completely uncontroversial, and decided **** it, if they’re going to block me for that they’re not interested in building a better encyclopaedia and they can keep their little playpen.
Several people have since asked me to come back, but I’ve been there, done that, and got the bruises on my head from beating it against the wall, and don’t care to do it any more. If I happen to notice an error, especially on something that isn’t likely to be controversial, I fix it as an anonymous IP, and if someone reverts it stuff them, I refuse to care.
Wait. Newsweek is still in business? And someone actually reads it? I suppose any trash piece of Schiff can find some audience.
I’m never too early for my dental appointments so I wouldn’t know.
The reason they the MSM propaganda machine, is doing this is because they correctly fear Senator Cotton.
He could easily be the standard bearer for the MAGA in the future. He has the same basic worldview that we all appreciated from DJT. He doesn’t posses the off putting attributes of DJT.
In other words he is a more articulate, younger version of DJT. Like me and many others he walked away from his civilian career in post 9/11 world. Choosing to become a line infantry officer v a JAG officer (military lawyer).
He scares the progressives and rightly so. He isn’t a typical DC politician. They know it and know how big a threat his potential Presidential candidacy would be. So they are laying the ground work to attempt to undermine him.
Cotton is a serious and intelligent person. I was most impressed by his foresight as the only (I believe) senator who voted against the legislation that ultimately allowed 1/3 of Congress to, essentially, approve the Iran deal, which turned the 2/3 treaty ratification requirement on its head. Even though AIPAC promoted this bill as in Israel’s interest, Cotton saw through the ruse that it really was a trap set by Obama. I congratulated him on that when meeting him several years ago.
Sorry, this is just completely confused and upside down. That is not what happened.
The 2/3 requirement to ratify a treaty was irrelevant, because 0bama had no intention of having it ratified. There was nothing in the agreement that he didn’t already have the power to implement on his own, so he didn’t need anyone’s permission and had no need for it to be a treaty. He was happy with it being just a private agreement between him and some other people, which he would implement because he could. The only way to prevent it was for Congress to pass a law against it, which he would veto, and then to override that veto. And that requires 2/3 of each house.
People worried about what sort of deal 0bama was likely to make had anticipated this all along, so they tried to put together the necessary 2/3 in each house to restrict the president’s powers and prevent him from doing what he ultimately did. But the numbers weren’t there. Some Democrats said they wouldn’t tie 0bama’s hands until they saw what he came up with. Maybe he would make a good deal. So they tried negotiating with 0bama and the Corker-Menendez bill was the deal he agreed to.
What it said was that whenever he made a deal with Iran he could not implement it without first submitting it to Congress and giving opponents a chance to put together the necessary 2/3 in each house to block it. 0bama refused to compromise on the numbers; he didn’t have to. But he agreed to give them time to try to put them together.
Without Corker-Menendez there would have been no waiting period. 0bama would have been able to implement the deal the day it was finalized. As it happened he managed to pressure enough Democrats that the attempt to block it failed, but at least they had the chance. Without this deal they would have had no chance at all.
So no. Cotton was wrong to oppose it. But in the end it didn’t matter, the numbers to block 0bama couldn’t be found anyway, so it didn’t matter.
The media is delving into a pointless pissing contest within the military that they don’t need to. He’s tabbed and that’s what matters. There isn’t any stolen valor or whatever else they want to push.
Where the pissing contest comes into play is that you’ll get tabbed guys in the regiment that will say the tabs that haven’t been in the regiment aren’t the real deal. But among line units, they’ll refer to anyone with a tab as a ranger. Overall I’d say that someone with a tab that’s been in the regiment deserves more respect, but I don’t have a problem with anyone that wears a tab calling themselves a Ranger.
Yeah, this is more of a military thing among members.
They sure are scared Cotton will run for President in 2024 if they are attacking him already. I went through Jump School and was assigned to an airborne unit. Everyone that earned the wings was a paratrooper whether in a leg unit or not.
We picked up a couple of Recon guys in our rifle company until a billet opened up at 1st Force and for a couple of fng’s they were pretty squared away.
For what its worth a buddy of mine served in 3rd Battalion (Ft Benning I believe) for 5 years. He has told me that Ranger School “is a basic Army school.” He said it was tough but essentially consists of patrolling for very long periods and going without sleep for insane amounts of time. While he respected guys with Ranger tabs he never considered them “real rangers” unless they had served in one of the line battalions. One man’s opinion here. I did my 5 active as an MP and served with guys who had been to Ranger school. Always respected the tab but, from what I can tell if you have “The Scroll” you can call yourself the real deal.
Reading about the brutal hegemony of Mao in preparation.