And the point is...?

A Soldier Home From War, and a Mother Fighting Hard by Clyde Haberman

Read at NYTimes.com




I want to apologize for not posting the last two days. Villanova University's internet was down the past two nights, and as the internet is essential for picking articles and posting them, this was certainly an issue! It hopefully will not reoccur.

This essentially incoherent article lacks a central point, but uses quotes and sensationalism to drive home the journalist's own personal points-- war is bad (duh!), and we should be out of Iraq. Seriously, read this article 3 times, and you'll still be pondering its meaning. It is undoubtedly one of the most appalling pieces of professional writing I've ever seen published.

"Physically, John Di Iorio has been back for a few years. Back to his parents’ house on Staten Island. Back from active Army duty. Back from Iraq. Back from the roadside explosion that ripped his Humvee apart and rattled his brain, damaged nerves and hurled shrapnel into his spine, thigh and abdominal wall."

Grammatical error aside (seriously, NO ONE noticed the missing comma in the last sentence between thigh and abdominal wall?), this first sentence is perplexing. The first and sometimes second paragraph of an article typically summarizes the main theme while piquing the readers' curiosities with colorful language and imagery. However, the last graphic sentence--while I'm sure is only a cursory description of the pain he endured-- seems a bit excessive, or more accurately...sensational. Based on the title, I assume the main theme was supposed to be about a mother's fight about something involving soldiers (the whole thing is poorly executed and ambiguous), so how are the details of the son's injury relevant? Haberman relates the horror of the soldier's injury to emphasize the horror of the war in Iraq. Horror, however, is an unfortunate aspect of every war. Haberman exploits it in order to express his personal disdain for the situation in Iraq.

"She does know that the extent of his injuries was not detected at the time. 'They put him back out in the field without knowing there was this shrapnel in him,' she said.'"

Evidently he didn't know, either. This quote is irrelevant to the mother's "fight," and was incorporated to depict the doctors in Iraq as incompetent and the commanders as indifferent (as long as their soldiers fulfill their duties).

"Don’t even get her started on the doctors, she said. She has tried on her own to get information from them, only to 'get the runaround.'”

Ms. Di Iolio and Clyde Haberman are apparently oblivious to privacy laws that prohibit the doctors from discussing John’s condition. This is why his mother gets the "runaround." They legally can't tell her more unless her son specifically allows them to inform her. For more information on privacy laws, visit the United States Health and Human Services website.

“'They acknowledge he has the shrapnel in his body, but he has to prove that it came from Iraq,' she said. 'That’s where I blow a gasket. Prove? How’s he going to prove that?'”
“He’s got a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. That’s great. But all I want is medical advice — where to go, what’s the right thing to do.”

This is so confusing. Why does he need to prove the shrapnel came from Iraq? The article relates that he receives medical treatment from Veterans Affairs doctors, so the complaint is simply puzzling. Is he not financially covered for the treatment involving the shrapnel in his body, or did the journalist just add the quote to further imply medical incompetence? The reader never knows.

Also, once again the mother complains she doesn’t receive medical advice, but her son goes to the doctors alone, and privacy laws prohibit the doctors from discussing his medical condition.

"Like some other New Yorkers, John Di Iorio responded to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A neighbor of his, a firefighter, had died in the World Trade Center. So Mr. Di Iorio joined the Army and went proudly off to war, even if it was in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11."

The clear "jab" at the end of the paragraph is an argument I hear far too often: "Why did we invade Iraq even though it had nothing to do with 9/11?" The ignorance is almost unbearable. Never once did those who favored the war--the military, president, Republicans, and Democrats-- ever propose that the government of Iraq was responsible for 9/11. In fact, the media almost immediately reported Al Qaeda’s involvement. Weapons of mass destruction housed in a country run by a mass-murderer were the main concern. Although this is knowledge readily available, the liberal media (Rosie O’Donnel included) constantly distorts this information so that clear facts become muddled, and all that remains are anti-war and anti-Bush sentiments.

The second “jab” occurs when Haberman strips John Di Iorio's decision to go to Iraq down to a mere whim. Overcome by emotion, he immaturely decides to go "proudly" into war; at least, this is the picture Haberman paints for us. I assume the connection between the friend's death and John's enlistment was assumed by the journalist and/or his mother since John is never interviewed. Without his input this connection is mere speculation, and irrelevant as well. The whole paragraph is simply inappropriate.

"The rest of us got to go about our lives. No political leader asked for a comparable sacrifice from us, not for a second. We could dwell unhampered on more immediate concerns, like A-Rod’s millions or the latest on Paris Hilton."

My response to this: WHAT ON EARTH?! Ok, no political leader asked for John to go to war; he voluntarily enlisted. But how on earth is mentioning “us" (assumedly the journalist and readers) and our lives during the last few years relevant to this story? A-Rod and Paris Hilton certainly aren't. Besides, it's a bit insulting Haberman assumes the typical American is infatuated by celebrities (I certainly couldn’t care less).This paragraph is so out of place it's almost comical. Is the New York Times seriously so desperate to fill the inches of their pages that they'd include a paragraph as pointless as this?

“'The child that you send over is nothing like the child that comes back to you,' said Ms. DeLisa, the organization’s chief executive. Returning soldiers, many of them anyway, are 'not at peace with themselves or with anybody around them,' she said. They need help."

AND

"She knows something else, too. Mentally and emotionally, her son is far from back. That’s a road less traveled."

AND

"But then, she said, he’s not what he once was. Suppressing bitterness isn’t easy for her.

'They took my son from me,' she said. 'He’ll never be the same. Never.'”

AND

"'On Veterans Day, all that Cathy Di Iorio wanted was to have her son back. It was too much to ask for. 'It’s not happening — let’s be honest,' she said."


Not once does the article address Ms. Di Iorio's desire to help soldiers psychologically, yet Haberman mentions the emotional effects of war repeatedly. This has become the central point of the article, yet it has nothing to do with Ms. Di Iorio, the main person of the article. Why, then, does he mention it? Clearly, he possesses anti-war sentiments, and there is nothing wrong with those opinions. What's wrong, however, is that he and his editor allowed these sentiments to leech into his “fact-based, unbiased” reporting. Not only does this compromise their journalistic integrity, but in this case, has produced one of the worst articles I’ve seen published in the New York Times to date.