Letter to NY Times re: alleged spitting incident
February 5, 2007
Byron Calame
Public Editor
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Calame,
On January 28, The New York Times printed an article by Ian Urbina headlined "Protest Focuses on Iraq Troop Increase." As we noted on our Media Matters for America website, the article reported that an unnamed protester spat at the ground near Cpl. Joshua Sparling, a wounded Iraq war veteran, at the January 27 anti-Iraq war protest in Washington, D.C., and that Cpl. Sparling "spit back," and subsequently said of the protesters: "These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned."
Mr. Urbina did not attribute this account to any source, implying that he actually witnessed the events. But his description provides no further details. Did he or anyone at the Times in fact observe the alleged incident? Who was the protester who allegedly spat at the ground near Cpl. Sparling? How far from Cpl. Sparling was the alleged spitter? How far from Cpl. Sparling did the spit land on the ground? Did Mr. Urbina make any effort to talk with the alleged spitter?
Still more questions regarding the Times' reporting on the incident were raised when Cpl. Sparling gave a different account from that in Mr. Urbina's article. Appearing on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Cpl. Sparling claimed that he "did not" spit back at the protester, and that his comment as quoted in the Times -- "These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned" -- was meant "just for the vulgar people," not all protesters. Additionally, Cpl. Sparling offered additional details into the alleged incident: He claimed that there were actually several protesters who spat at him, and he gave a vague description of one of the alleged spitters -- presumably the one referred to in Mr. Urbina's article. Given Cpl. Sparling's additional statements, will the Times stand by its reporting? Does the Times have any additional details to add? Can the Times confirm or deny Cpl. Sparling's claims of several spitters?
These are important questions that require immediate attention. Since the Vietnam era, the myth of soldiers being spat at, which, while having been discredited, has been invoked repeatedly to tar anti-war protesters. In its account on the Sparling incident, the Times gives credibility to another purported incident -- and to the broader myth -- but without the indicia of solid, clear, and accurate reporting.
It is incumbent upon the Times to clarify its January 28 article, offer what details it can regarding Cpl. Sparling's allegations, and, if necessary, investigate the matter further.
Sincerely,
David
Brock
President & CEO
Media
Matters for America
This is an articulate and timely letter, directed at the correct people and worded respectfully. As such, don't hold your breath for a response.
Does MMFA really want to risk its reputation even further with this issue? Just last week, MMFA implicitly promoted Slate's Jack Shafer and the Spitting Image book by Jerry Lembcke. They claim that spitting incidents during Vietnam are "urban myths" that developed after the Vietnam War ended.
Central to Lembcke's claim is that there are no contemporaneous news accounts of spitting incidents during the 60's and 70's. THIS IS NOT TRUE. See this Dec. 21, 1971, report on the CBS Evening News, which clearly reports that a returning vet says he was spat upon.
In other words, Lembcke (and Jack Shafer) have been flat-out debunked, and MMFA propagated the falsehood. Again, MMFA could descredit itself quite easily should more information surface.
My 2 cents. Thank you.
The abstract for that story does not say that anti-war protesters did the spitting. Nice try though.
Good grief, Rusty. Is a little honesty too much to ask for?
Who on earth do you think spit on the man? An infant?
You're trying to move the goalpost on the issue.
(Correction: It was Dec 27, 1971, not Dec 21)
"Is a little honesty too much to ask for?"
You cannot with honesty say that this person was spat upon by an anti-war protester because he was a Vietnam vet. Just because you want it to be so in order to be the Grand Debunker, doesn't make it so.
DAVID BROCK: "Since the Vietnam era, the myth of soldiers being spat at, which, while having been discredited ..."
Wrong. It is not a "myth." It has not been "discredited." The 1971 CBS story clearly tells of a veteran who says he was spat upon.
Brock is wrong. He owes a correction and an apology.
A central thesis of Lembcke is that the spit stories developed after the war ended. He is wrong also, as the CBS story clearly shows.
Who on earth do you think spit on the man?
- shoes89 / Monday February 5, 2007 07:59:23 PM EST
It could have been a war supporter who spit on him.
Puh-leeze. The dishonesty here is astounding.
There was a lot of government infiltration of a whole host of groups during the 60s and the 70s to try to push them to commit violence and other crimes to discredit them in the eyes of the public and decrease their numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if a war supporter claiming to be anti-war did it to somehow discredit the anti-war movement.
They still do that. There's been reports of agent provacateurs trying to incite violence at anti-war rallies since this little war crime began.
"The dishonesty here is astounding."
If one refers to your post, yes. Agreed.
You've yet to answer a really simple question: can YOU say with honesty that the veteran in the sketchy summary you linked to was spat upon by an anti-war protester solely because he was a Vietnam veteran?
If somehow you can delude yourself into thinking you can say that with honesty, then you will at the bare minimum need to provide what is known outside of right-wingnut circles as proof. Proof is something besides hearsay and wishing-it-were-so.
Even if you have further evidence, which I seriously doubt, that oneone incident of veteran being spat upon does not make you the Grand Debunker, Columbo, or Miss Marple you so wish to be. I would say it's more like Inspector Clouseau, but that'd be a disservice to the French.
Of course I'm talking about your dishonesty.
The story is entitled, "Vietnam Veteran." The subject is a Vietnam veteran. In the story he tells about the hardships he faces returning from Vietnam. He tells of his experience in Vietnam. He tells about being spat upon in Seattle.
For cryin' out loud ... What other implication is there?
You are not honest with me or yourself. Everyone makes mistakes. People you support make mistakes. Get over it. I'm sure Lembcke and Shafer will.
Gee whiz ...
Shoes, don't get all bent out of shape because you can't prove your assertion. Some Vietnam vets were harassed by vets of older wars who saw the returning soldiers as "losers."
Anyway, all you have is the self-serving testimony of a kid with an ax to gring. Just like with Sparling. If you want to believe it, that's on you. You haven't proven anything.
gring = grind
Shoes, before you get angery and leave, let me ask you something:
A. Have you read the book, or the research regarding the falsehood of the spitting incident?
B. Have you actually viewed the video link you posted?
C. If not, how do you know the book does not prove the reported spitting incident is false?
As someone who was alive at that time and remembers it, let me tell you something. It was not unheard of in those days to infiltrate anti-war groups and create problems (as was done with the civil rights marches). You also have to understand that at that time, much of the media was not a friendly place for people against the war.
10 to 1 this is a bs piece of propaganda perp'd by the righties... I think Brock and his rep are safe.
Now... in regard to the mistreatment of vets following their return from Vietnam. I do believe (and know by way of first-hand accounts from Vets) that they were mistreated. All misplaced anger (at the time) by folks obviously pissed off at the ridiculous admin who got them there. I do not think people today harbor those feelings. I know of no one (and you're talking a fairly broad spectrum of folks from conservative to very liberal...in a very large melting pot = LA, CA) who think poorly of the troops or their efforts. It's sympathy across the board...and anger at our lousy admin for prolonging this madness.
I think Lembcke and Shafer's claim was that there was no evidence or corroboration of any spitting incidents. I'm assuming that since the soldier was from Kansas that he was returning to the Sea/Tac airport and the alleged incident took place either there or at Fort Lewis.
I'm sure had the incident taken place, the witnesses to this incident would have beaten the spitter senseless. Regardless of what the movies and TV have been showing us for more than 30 years, the citizens of this country on the left or right, for or against the War in Vietnam, would not have stood by idly while something like that was going on.
Most people on both sides had family members who served in Vietnam.
I'm leaning towards this being a myth.
This story has been made into a big deal and this Sparling guy has been made into the Rightwing poster child, regardless of major inconsistancies in his story. Thhis was obviously shoddy reporting from times so let them clearly get the facts out .
Shoes, you are completely wrong...
Mr. Brock merely called for a more thorough investigation of the spitting incident.
It is very troubling that the Times article did not appear to have investigated the spitting incidence to any significant degree.
Whose account did the Times writer rely on? This is what we must know? Was it a right-wing nut-job website for instance?
Your example needs some work before you can claim to "debunk" this myth.
1. Who is this guy? Is he reliable? Some people have been known to exaggerate this claim. Is this guy one of them? Were there any witnesses?
2. Could the "spit" been something else? Bird dropping? Precipitation? Sweat?
3. Who spat on him? Was it an anti-war protestor? Did the spit hit him? Could the spit have been accidental? Chewing tobacco? Was the spit an accidental discharge in a shouting match?
4. How do you know Lembcke and Shafer haven't already researched this one and found it baseless or unfounded?
When you have definite answers to these questions, then I will take your claim a little more seriously. Not that it really even matters. The myth was very widespread during and after the war. One or two examples do not justify the implication that spitting on soldiers was widespread. It wasn't. You only found one (albeit apparently questionable) example. If even a fraction of the claims were true, you should have found hundreds or even thousands of examples.
"How do you know Lembcke and Shafer haven't already researched this one and found it baseless or unfounded?"
Shafer e-mailed me. He clearly left me the impression that learned about the CBS tape after his most recent article on the issue.
"He clearly left me the impression"
How wishy-washy and murky is that? "Clearly left an impression"?? If he wanted to be "clear", he wouldn't have "left an impression". Pathetic joke.
Also, Shafer didn't do the research, Lembcke did. How do you know Lembcke hasn't seen this tape?
"debunking"
One link (from you--a right-winger with a proven, anti-progressive agenda, I might add) to a sketchy summary of a vet saying he was spat upon (by who? what circumstances? what proof? what witnesses?) does not a "debunking" make. Certainly when stacked against an entire book of research and contrary evidence.
You are (probably deliberately) distorting Lembke's claims about the Vietnam War era spitting incidents. He notes that while there are many reported cases of people claiming to have been spit upon by protesters, anything beyond a cursory investigation of each supposed event discredits the claims.
Never has Lembke claimed that reporting of such incidents never occurred, just that almost all the reports don't withstand investigatory scrutiny.
Bransby: "Never has Lembke (sic) claimed that reporting of such incidents never occurred ..."
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Lembcke: "If spitting on veterans had occurred all that frequently, surely some veteran or soldier would have called it to the attention of the press at the time." Then Shafer adds, "In researching the book, Lembcke found no news accounts or even claims from the late 1960s or early 1970s of vets getting spat at." (link)
There is a news account. Lembcke is wrong. Shafer is wrong. Apologies and corrections are owed.
Thank you.
"Apologies and corrections are owed."
You're not "owed" anything. Get real.
Again: one link to one person's vague, sketchy, unsupported, unelaborated account to have been spat upon somewhere, sometime, for some unknown reason, is not a "debunking."
You've got no circumstances. No elaboration. Who spat on him? Why? What was the incident?
You've got nothing and you're acting like you're Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes rolled into one.
Good grief, D_C. Face it. Bransby was flat-out wrong. I provided evidence to show he was wrong. End of discussion.
You guys keep moving the goalpost every time you're caught being wrong. What happened to a little honesty?
Actually, you didn't provide evidence to prove I was wrong. After looking this up myself, however, I admit that I was wrong about what Lembcke had said about reporting.
That, however, is irrelevent since Lembcke is correct about the real lack of news coverage of the alleged spitting events. The link you provided is dubious, and even if it was actually reported in the news one time, it still doesn't disprove Lembcke's main point that while spitting incidents are talked about frequently today, such incidents must have been extremely rare if existent at all.
"I provided evidence"
You provided a link to a news summary in which one veteran says one unknown person spit on him at some unknown location at some unknown date for some unknown reason.
If this was a court, you'd be laughed-out of it.
The goal posts don't need to be moved-you fumbled.
How does one guy saying he got spit on in 1971 destroy Lembcke's whole thesis? Lembcke says himself "[m]y search for evidence turned up a couple of claims which, if interpreted generously, could have been construed to suggest that veterans or servicemen in uniform may have been spat on."
He never says it never happened, just that it was not as widespread as it has now commonly thought.
The Times article has created a monster. Since that time, "spit at" has become "spit on", invoking memories of reported shameful behavior towards soldiers returning from Viet Nam. Now we have a new perspective on the Viet Nam-Iraq comparison. The War Lovers prefer this one, as opposed to the original comparison, i.e. that of a misguided, mismanaged and corrupted war, which they deride as traitorous defeatism. Finally, how is it that alleged incidents like this seem to happen so much to this particular person? Could it be that he seeks such confrontation as a "counter-protestor" with a bullhorn? This young man obviously has an agenda, is enjoying his resulting fame, and is just what the War Lovers have been looking for.
And if he was spit at, it was because he was a pro-war cheerleader, not because he was a veteran. They seem to ignore that small but crucial peice of information.
Why on earth would anyone take seriously such a claim from a person who's purpose was to protest against the protest? Of COURSE he's going to say that the peace protesters were "vulgar" and "not Americans". The fact that he describes the participants in a massive peaceful protest as such suggests immediately that he is not a reliable source for information. It looks very much as though the Times reporter was casting about for something juicy, came across this counter protester with a wild tale, and reported the wild tale as fact.
What I find most disturbing is how this report about a dubious alleged incident has so completely undone everything positive that the peace demonstration accomplished. It's true that there were FBI provocateurs in the protests in the 1960s. However the media landscape has changed dramatically since then - into a "Freak Show" in which wild allegations have significantly greater power than simple facts and good reporting. Progressive organizers take heed: the “legs” this unsupported report has gotten shows how we are vulnerable now to this type of manipulation.
Thank you for the letter. These hoodlums must be held accountable for their "journalism" practices. The dirtbag radical right eat this stuff up, and they don't care if it is verified or not. If it turns out to be false, sweep it under the rug as so unbelivably many things have in the past few years.
Lets all fight this, I am so tired of this crap.
-Steve Hokc, myspace.com/o0xst
Mr. Brock's indefatiguable efforts against a veritible sea of mis-information, distortion, outright lies and propaganda, and possibly even agents provocateur is a blessing, as in this case of the alleged spitting incident. Godpseed and power to you sir.
The alleged spitting incidents were perpretrated by rightwing Republicans who were angry that the returning vets lost the war. this is also what happened to Sparling. He was spit at by a rightwing blogger, who, naturally, missed. this is the real story.
It's comical that the right proves the lack of journalistic integrity these days by the NY Times by having the rightwing propaganda foisted upon the readers ...
The New York Times had better respond to this letter from David Brock. It deserves an honest response as to what exactly is going on here--and what this reported relied on to make his claims.
I will have lost considerable respect for the Times if they fail to respond.
If an anti-war protestor calls the NY Times and claims to have been spat on by a soldier, without providing evidence, will the NY Times run a story on it?
"See this Dec. 21, 1971, report on the CBS Evening News, which clearly reports that a returning vet says he was spat upon."
I've noticed that all the rightards have been foisting this clearly inconclusive extract as 'proof' that ALL these incidents occurred to support their <a href="[link to www.harpers.org] fantasies in a 'pre-emptive' strike to explain the loss of their failed enterprise. Once again, It's all the dirty effing hippies fault, not the war planners.
Everything old is new again.
Literally or figuratively?
I'm always amazed that all of the right wing bedwetters get so outraged at a few reported incidents of vets being spit on.
Are any of these people equally outraged that the delegates to the RNC of 2004 who wore purple heart band-aids mocking the purple heart?
Are they outraged that there are still many Vietnam Veterans who have not been spat upon, but who have been living on our streets for the last 40 years?
Are they outraged that year after year, veterans benefits have been cut, along with the taxes of very wealthy?
We live in a country that thinks nothing of sending it's young people to war but is willing to spend nothing to care for them when they return.
Be preparred. The estimates of proving basic care for this generation of Veterans for the next forty years is between $350,000,000,000 and $650,000,000,000.
I'd be willing to bet that the welfare of the Veterans of the War in Iraq will also be ignored.
For those of you who did not see this the first THREE TIMES I posted it (on earlier string)
MMers...THis is HUGE, and every time I post them, crickets chirp and it frustrates me because I think these videos show that Sparling is a LIAR. Open and shut case. I wish MM would do an entire post of just these videos. Watch them and you will see the attitude Sparling had during the protest. He was clearly instigating. He was yelling into a MEGAPHONE taunting the protestors, and he and his "tribe" (his word) were egging the protestors on by hanging Jane Fonda in effigy, Chanting "Jihad Jane". Sparling himself was chanting "Swim To Cuba", he was next to someone holding a sign saying that "If Bin Laden was a piece of As$, Clinton would have nailed him", he made a youtube video of himself that he entitled "Code Pinko Rally" in which at the beginning he states that he is about to "head home" and he recounts what had happened that day but fails to mention the spitting incident. Watch these videos and you get a better picture of what was actually going on here. Sparling's dad in these vids is the large man in gray wearing a big hat. They are all short vids:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL0_-FVvSRg&mode=related&search=
2) He talks into the megaphone at the 10 second mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw1MQZZTtMM&mode=related&search=
3) A man on a megaphone (I say it is him but could be wrong I suppose) chants "Swim To Cuba" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGoalLZ_PA8&mode=related&search=
4) A very good shot of Sparling with megaphone at the 1:03 mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ24o0W1U_g&mode=related&search=
5) Here they are yelling "Jihad Jane" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTm39i6p45I&mode=related&search=
6) And the most important one, from Sparling himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhm4gtI4QJQ&N
Chris, I'm sorry that nobody responded to your initial post about the videos. It does look to me like they were indeed being very provocative at the least. And I have to say that calling anti-war protesters communists is pretty far afield and ludicrous.
From what I've been able to gather, Joshua Sparling is something of a professional rabble rouser and I would give his version of events not even a grain of salt. The NYT was hoodwinked, lazy or just contributing to the noise machine with this spurious article.
I did see the initial video you posted links to and the videos today. Thanks. I'm sure others did as well and didn't respond much like myself. I don't post a lot, mostly read.
JuliaJane,
Thanks. I am sure that many who watch the videos do not comment on it, like yourself, which is fine. I do wish that Brock or someone else out in the media would pick up on the vids and link them in an article on their website or get Sparling on their tv program and then confront him with them so he can look in the camera and explain why he thinks he is a "victim" when he is the only person at the event with a bullhorn except for the keynote speakers...INSTIGATING. I want someone to nail his behind on national tv so then MM can display it, and also Newsbusters would post it on their site for all the right wingnuts to see and whine about it. That is not happening, and I think it is a missed opportunity. If this joker gets a book deal and gets rich off faked episodes like this, I will be really ticked off. I emailed all of these videos to New York Times, Glenn Beck, and Alan Colmes. No responses. Shocker. Two of those outlets are supposedly liberal media outlets. Further proving the liberal media is a MYTH.