|
To
Judi Walsh
&
Emma Moody who is the Standards & Ethics Editor
of the WSJ.
News Editor, Newsroom Standards
This is an update to the Jack
Port article.
It's Worse
Than We Thought
The Wall Street Journal
supports Stolen Valor.
Take a look at the
March 2019 Press Release from the Wall Street
Journal Matt Murray. The Ethical,
fact-based news they speak of doesn't exist in this
case. There is no doubt that Port wasn't there
on June 6 yet Moody still stands by the WSJ story.
All you need to know is below. The Walls
Street Journal is not "fact-based news" in the June
6, 2019 article.
I will be surprised if Emma Moody lasts long at her
new job. It is plain to see she doesn't want
to correct the article even with the documentation.
Here is the key that proves
that Jack Port wasn’t in Normandy until
June 14, 1944.
These pages are from Jack Port with his signature
stating that
“I certify that the
information and remarks contained herein this
Temporary Service Record are True and Accurate”.
Jack Port signed this October 18, 1945 and shows
what date he entered and left countries in Europe.
This includes arriving in France June 14, 1944 and
leaving France September 7, 1944.
This information was sent The
Wall Street Journal to no avail. Judi Walsh
stopped communication with me when I provided this
document. Sounds the WSJ is covering their
you know what.
Even worse is what happened
here this year in Normandy
https://www.army.mil/article/223916/75th_anniversary_soldiers_support_d_day_events_in_france
The Prime Minister of France
Edouard Philippe accompanied Port to the memorial to
lay down the wreath at 4th Infantry Division
Monument. The Prime Minister of France
obviously didn't know that Port was not there on
June 6, 1944 but the 4th Infantry should have vetted
someone like Port and didn't.
The Wall Street Journal in its
wisdom decided that documents aren’t enough to
correct the article that Ms. Noemie Bisserbe wrote
June 5, 2019 as they still say Port was in Normandy
June 6, 1944. Below is the correspondent
concerning this issue with Judi Walsh and Emma Moody.
When presented with the
documentation that Port wasn’t in Normandy until
June 14, 1944 Ms. Walsh from the Newsroom Standards
said this;
“It can be interpreted several
ways”. I then asked what that meant. Ms. Walsh
responded with; “It's possible that he did land on
June 6, and he joined the other group later in the
month”. The WSJ just said “It's possible”. That’s
not news, that’s conjecture and in this case not
true.
I will try and dumb it down
even further so the WSJ can understand the records.
Even though there is nothing but page after page of
documentation showing when Port came to Normandy
(June 14, 1944) The Wall Street Journal clings to the notion that
Port was in Normandy June 6, 1944. Attached are the
documents mentioned above showing that in fact that
Port came to Normandy June 14, 1944 as a
replacement.
The following records came from
the Army and the
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC)
in St. Louis.
This is the cover sheet for
Jack Port’s Service Record along with yet
another documents that show he
came ashore in Normandy June
14, 1944. Saying that Port might have been with a
different unit is not possible. On this page it
shows that Port was assigned to Headquarters Company
2nd Battalion 12th Infantry 4th
Infantry Division June 15, 1944.
This link shows that Port was
assigned on June 15, 1944. That was the only unit
he was part of in Normandy. There is a difference
between Assigned vs. Attached assigned means that
this soldier is part of that Company. Attached
means that they are there only until they become
assigned to a permanent unit, in this case
Headquarters Company Second Battalion of the 12th
Infantry Regiment.
I think that the WSJ is
confused about the Service Record too. Because the
pages were scanned individually they think it’s
possible that the pages are from someone else. That
is not true either as all of those “pages” is
actually all together. When reading a book in
Kindle the pages are read one page at a time but
they come from the same book. So it’s hard to
believe that the WSJ doesn’t understand this.
The WSJ is also confused
thinking that because Service Records for Jack Port
were partially burned in the 1973 fire in St. Louis
that these might not be his. If you read the cover
of Port’s Service Record the only part missing is
his last name and Army Serial Number. You can see
his first name and that he has no middle name and
the dates September 21, 1942 to October 25 1945.
This information all matches up with Port’s
Discharge Paper the 53-55.
There are two Service Record booklets for Port and
they both match up. They both say that he came
ashore June 14, 1944. I’m not sure what more the
WSJ needs to admit they made a mistake. This is
willful blindness trying to cover up that the WSJ
doesn’t do fact checking.
Brian N. Siddall
August 3, 2019
Any (Jack) Port in a
Storm?
Newspapers and TV outlets have
shown once again they don’t know how to do basic
researcher before publishing an article.
Article after article has
Jack
Port as being on Utah Beach June 6, 1944. Once
again another, I was there, (but really wasn’t).
This time it's
Noemie Bisserbe from the Wall Street Journal.
Bisserbe has Port on the beach on June 6. I have
reached out twice to her and no response. When the
Wall Street Journal screws the pooch it makes it
look like Fox News.
A year ago
Logan Jenkins of the San Diego Union-Tribune had
Port on Utah Beach on June 6, 1944. If they had
just done an hour or two of research they would have
realized he wasn’t there on June 6, 1944.
Jack Port arrived in
Normandy on June 14, 1944, and joined
Headquarters Company Second Battalion of the 12th
Infantry Regiment
4th Infantry Division June 15, 1944 as a
replacement. His Military Operation Specialty for
most of the war was Typist/Messenger/Code Clerk.
Jack Port received a Bronze
Star Medal for Valor December 1944 while the 4th
Infantry Division was in Luxemburg. Just like the
most recent article about Arnald Gabriel; Port didn’t
have to lie and yet it wasn’t enough for him. There
must be some allure for people to risk their
reputation by lying. He had already been in some of
the ugliest battles in Europe in the fall and winter
of 1944/45 and yet it wasn’t enough.
In the end, it doesn’t matter.
Port
wasn’t in Normandy on the day of days, D-Day
June 6, 1944. There are so many soldiers who were
in Normandy on June 6, 1944 for someone to look up
to but some look up to liars like
Plumley,
Port and
Cook.
Bottom line, Port didn’t get to
Normandy until 8 days after D-Day. Some people will
say so what, he was there in Normandy, close
enough. That is like saying “hey, I was at the Twin
Towers in New York City in September 2001” but then
you find out they were there September 3, 2001 8
days before 9/11. Dates matter, always has, always
will.
Here is a link where
Port admits he lies but passed it off as a joke. We have to wonder about
everything he's ever said about his time in WWII.
Brian Siddall
July 20, 2019
(Updated August 24, 2019) |
