orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/15/85)
Recently we have had yet another instance of the American press
reacting strangely to news from Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan government
claims that they have found the body of an American soldier killed
while helping the contras in Nicaragua. They have claimed that his
name is Roger Paterson, gave his dog-tag number, said that he is
from the Baptist religion and has type O blood.
Who can be sure if this is a valid claim or not? Perhaps they got
somebody's dogtag from somewhere else? Perhaps they made it up.
What I find curious however is the immediate American media response.
The nightly news plays an interview with a "Roger Patterson" (2 t's
not one, which is the name of the body the Nicaraguans claim to have
found in their territory) who says he's alive and well.
Therefore we true-blue Americans are supposed to say, "aha! another lie
from those nasty Commies!".
What kind of reporting is that? Simply looking up the name "Patterson"
in my local Morris County, NJ phone book I find that there are, simply
in this county, over 60 "Patterson"s listed. Of those I find one
whose name is "R.F Patterson, Jr.", which could be a "Roger".
What then are the odds of finding numerous "Roger Pattersons" throughout
the country? I would imagine the odds are quite high. Is it then valid
to argue that the "Roger Patterson" paraded before the nightly news is
*the* "Roger Patterson" whose body was claimed to be found by the
Nicaraguans? This is quite shaky evidence which criminals with the name
"John Smith" would probably find quite useful.
Prosecutor: "We have evidence that you were at the scene of the crime"
Lawyer :"No, I have incontrovertible evidence that John Smith was elsewhere!"
So this morning I immediately looked in the most detailed source generally
available on these minor news incidents: the New York Times. The Times story
plays like the nightly news theme: real Roger Patterson says he's alive.
However it provides several critical details missing from the nightly news
account:
1)Nicaragua claimed it found the body of a "Roger Paterson" not "Patterson"
2)the live "Roger Patterson" also says the dogtag number supplied by Nicaragua
is *not* the same as his dogtag number when he served in Honduras
If *I* were a news reporter and I wished to prove that Roger Paterson was
still alive then I would look for one major piece of identification:
id number. Then if somebody with that id number were around *that* would
be evidence. Or if there were no such id-number listed in Army records
then one would have evidence that the Nicaraguans simply made up some id
number.
I simply pose the question: why did the media mislead the American public
in this way? Is this any different than the media hype created around
the "phantom MIG" incident? Can the American media really be so casual
in trying to refute Nicaraguan charges with an obvious fraud?
just skeptical as always,
tim sevener whuxl!orb