There have been a couple of questions asked around the progressive blogosphere in relation to Joshua Sparling's
alleged spitting "
incident". Questions that I'd like to see answered, because the answers get to the core of Sparling's dubious story -
and the New York Times's questionable reporting.
One question, also raised by Digby
Tuesday, comes from Daily Kos member
bobtmn: "Where's the video?" Continuing, the poster says, "In these days of cheap digital video cameras, and everyone's awareness of the importance of capturing the Macaca Moments of the opposition, I wonder why Sparling doesn't have a video? This was a planned counter-protest, wasn't it? Wouldn't you expect that they would have brought cameras to show how awful the protesters were? Did Sparling or the people he was with have a camera? Did they take any pictures with it? He got FOX to agree to let him propose to his girlfriend on TV, so he knows how to plan ahead. So, isn't it fair to ask, 'Wheres the Video?'"
Of course it's fair. If Sparling, someone with a proven track record of finding himself at the center of allegedly anti-vet behavior, is allowed to push his suspect story with the help of the right-wing noise machine and the New York Times, we, as news consumers and as citizens, have the right (if not the obligation) to say, "Prove it." Prove, Joshua, you're not just concocting another conservative ghost story. Prove, Ian Urbina, that what you reported - and what now stands in contradiction to Sparling's story - is indeed true. If both of you plan to stand by this clearly unclear story, you owe us the answers to our questions. Until then, consider us skeptical.
The second question, raised in part by commenters
Melissa and
DBK on
Shakespeare's Sister, is this: Consider the hundreds, if not thousands, of veterans present as anti-war protesters at Saturday's march. Included in that amount were many, many veterans from the current Iraq war. Asks DBK, "Do you think any of them would let a brother soldier be spat upon or would stand idly by while people called him a 'baby killer'?"
Think about that for a moment. Sure, they may have their ideological disagreements about the prosecution of wars and the administration in power, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a more cohesive bunch when it comes to sticking up for their brothers- and sisters-in-arms than veterans. I'm fairly certain even the most ardent anti-war veteran would have jumped to Sparling's defense if he was, without provocation, spat at (or upon) or called a "baby killer" or a "murderer". This, in turn, would have likely caused a scene there for many to see. Why hasn't anyone stepped forward - especially a veteran - to confirm Sparling's account? That no one has speaks volumes.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(504 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
