Yesterday I forecasted that by and large the mainstream media would paper over or outright ignore the testimony of Captain Richard Phillips. The commanding officer of the MV Maersk Alabama told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that arming senior officers on merchant ships should be part of a larger anti-piracy policy that includes beefed up U.S. Navy patrols and escorts. Also testifying, Maersk chairman John Clancey disagreed with his employee about arming the civilian sailors.
Well today, that newspaper which touts itself as bearing "all the news that's fit to print" failed to include a story on the testimony by the former Somali pirate hostage. That's right, the New York Times failed to even carry an Associated Press wire story, according to a search of the New York Times Web site for content published between April 30 and May 1 that mentions "Richard Phillips." A similar scouring of the print edition's A-section confirmed that the paper didn't carry the story.
What's more, it's not as though the Times was unaware of Phillips' testimony before the fact. As Kate Phillips and Janie Lorber noted in an April 30 post at the Times' The Caucus blog:
High Seas Piracy: This present threat should also garner attention before the same congressional committee when Richard Phillips, the cargo ship captain held hostage for days by Somali pirates, testifies about these modern-day dangers. John Clancey, the chairman of shipping company Maersk, Inc., will also speak.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Arming = Alarming
May 1, 2009 - 10:33 ET by expatriotNo good can be gotten from arming the ships captains and designated senior crew members because they would be given firearms! /sarc
That is completely anathema to the amateur presenters at the old gray mare.
Fight back?
May 1, 2009 - 10:48 ET by iveseenitallFight back against terrorism? Protect yourself and your crew? What? Is the guy nuts?
How un-Obamian!! Negotiate. Talk to the bastards. Afterall, they're only trying to put bread on their tables at home. They have famililies too, ya' know. Just ask Punch, Keller and Barry-- they'll tell you the same thing.
Cower whenever you can! It's the "Obama Doctrine"
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
36 Hours
May 1, 2009 - 10:52 ET by expatriotIt took thirty six hours for the teleprompter in chief to give the authority to the captain of the navy vessel to take the appropriate actions.
No sooner given than mission complete. But thirty six, 36 for you libs, hours to vacillate over that easy decision? God help us.
You forgot to bow to the
May 1, 2009 - 12:19 ET by Ruths husband BenYou forgot to bow to the pirate chief and apologize for being American!
Obama: "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers." -Ed Mahmoud
God! The rampant stupidity
May 1, 2009 - 10:49 ET by QueenMumGod! The rampant stupidity of the MsM is mind-boggling. I would guess that a wide majority of Americans think it just common sense to allow crew members to be armed in light of the threat of piracy. I'd go further and fit the ships with missile capabilities. How twisted is the lib brain that anything that flies in the face of the liberal agenda can be summarily ignored.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
armed vessels
May 1, 2009 - 10:52 ET by AgnosticSince Obama is most likely to cause the moth-balling of significant portion of the fleet why not just take some of the big guns and mount them on the merchant ships. You would only have to have them used once then you wouldn't even have to supply ammo because the pirates would chose a more healthy line of work.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Hey Ag. Why not just
May 1, 2009 - 11:21 ET by QueenMumHey Ag. Why not just transform the military vessels for civilian use? Wouldn't it be more environmentally friendly? Not to mention more fiscally responsible. Sell the vessels for commercial use and put the money back into the defense budget.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Queen, two reasons
May 1, 2009 - 11:42 ET by Agnosticthis can't happen.
1) under the Obama administration the display of military force will not be allowed unless it used to protect the reputation of Obama (Still giving him limited credit for the pirate episode)so military ships can't be used even by private enterprise.
2) "put the money back into the defense budget" - this would be against everything Obama stands for in budgeting. Remember the only budget item worth cutting is the military. BTW, did you happen to notice the slight of budgeting hand the Obama administration did with WOT?
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
WOT? Yeah. It wouldn't
May 1, 2009 - 11:49 ET by QueenMumWOT?
Yeah. It wouldn't work for the Obama administration to help the commercial sector while putting money back into defense.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
budgeting
May 3, 2009 - 06:27 ET by AgnosticI meant where President Obama overestimated, at least by his public statements, the amount of time we will be spending in Iraq and how much future years will cost. Then he claimed it as a cost cut when he decided that he would pull the troops in 2010.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Media absolutely unreliable
May 1, 2009 - 10:49 ET by MAS1916The radio version this morning only carried the part of testimony where Captain Phillips said that he didn't think giving the actual crew guns was necessarily the best solution. It didn't note that the Capitan did feel that an armed security force was necessary.
all the news
May 1, 2009 - 11:11 ET by katainkentthey are permitted to print. Isn't this paper bankrupt yet?
I love to help the helpless but I'm not gonna help the clueless ~Dennis Miller
I dont want the USA
May 1, 2009 - 11:22 ET by Dan The Man 2I dont want the USA patrolling foriegn waters if it has nothing to do with USA interests. If the ship is flagged USA or the USA has an interest such as humanitarian food supplies or such then we need to protect them.
In other cases the parties should pay for their own protection. And perhaps they pay the USA for protection. I wonder how much it takes to operate a fleet in the area. Conversely a simpler option might be unmanned air support operated from ship. It has great range and can manuver to kill the enemy.
All solutions will require trained and skilled personel. The solution of paying the USA is kind of aboherent because it would put us on par with mercenaries. The USA military is not made up of mercenaries; a reason why we are such a good cohesive force. Mercenaries go for teh highest buck.
You got it Dan the Man
May 1, 2009 - 12:26 ET by dvdaughtryMercenaries go for teh highest buck.
I work for the maintenance and repair arm of Maersk. I asked my execs the very same questions about arming the crew.
I got some answers like hazardous cargo and the true inablity to out arm the mothership. It was also mentioned that many of these pirates are poor and have nothing to lose, so they will go to extremes.
The bottom line is this: our ships are GARGANTUAN. Hundreds of millions of dollars are loaded onto these vessels. It simply isn't worth it to the insurance companies to put that kind of money in jeopardy for a "measely" few million dollar ransom: pay the United States Armed Forces, or the "small" ransom.
It doesn't solve the problem, but that is the answer. It's about money on both sides.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
I still like the David Copperfield approach
May 1, 2009 - 11:35 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonA flash
A bang
A puff of smoke
POOF!!!!
They disappeared.
No time wasted on negotiations, pandering, etc....
Just a few fewer dregs of society to fret over.
http://gjresult.com
It occurred to me, that if all the journalists
May 1, 2009 - 11:41 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltwho buy the NY Times for purposes of monitoring it and it's errors/ommissions actually stopped buying it, the circulation of that rag would drop by 50%.
ACORN!
May 1, 2009 - 12:16 ET by slickwillie2001The perfect liberal solution would be to send ACORN community organizers to Somalia. They could quickly help the Somalis to see that suing other countries in international courts, blaming them for the sad state of Somalia, would be far more lucrative and safer than this particular style of piracy. Obviously the state of Somalia can be blamed on hundreds of years of Western imperialism and oppression. Banks have been redlining Somalia for decades, preventing an inflow of capital that could lift the Somalis out of their current state of destitution.
Here in Vermont
May 1, 2009 - 13:13 ET by aeroplaneIn our home state of Vermont, the local Burlington Free Press reported it-
but dig this spin- it said something like "Captain Says Guns Are Not The Answer" then explains his testimony that guns are PART of the answer...