The New York Times Can Suck An Egg

Surprise, surprise, violence in Iraq. The headline mentions, "scores dead." The New York Times, is just one of many newspapers that doesn't know an important story from stock quote.
Of course, in due news wire fashion, they are to include all the relevant facts:
"After the attack, [...] onlookers scaled the burning armored vehicle. Helicopters that flew in to protect the Bradley were then fired on from the ground and fired back, the military said in a statement, adding that the aircraft then destroyed the armored vehicle as well."
No mention of the onlookers who were on the vehicle. The Times even goes as far as to spread the military's pathetic excuses, saying that the helicopters,
"fired upon the anti-Iraqi forces and the Bradley, preventing the loss of sensitive equipment and weapons."
I, the layman, would have thought the way to avoid loss would be to recover the weapons. The human race has lost a great many loved ones. Turns out, we could have avoided all of that if we shot rockets at everything. Like the video game baddies who fall in a hailstorm of bullets and disintegrate, Bradley Armored Vehicles are designed to regenerate back at the base when exploded.

The people who print these stories are worse than branding execs who put, "may cause anal leakage" in small print on snack food packaging. When a spokesperson gives such an outrageously blind statement, it's any free speaker's duty to pull the ostrich's head out of the sand. If only these news spinning techniques existed back in the good war:
"Yesterday, our armed forces lost control of 2 Milton-Bradley^tm Nuclear devices over Japan. The president ordered the detonation of the devices, preventing the loss of the sensitive weapons. A popsticle stick house in Hiroshima was destroyed."