From TimBlair
The WSJ’s Tom Gross asks:
Why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the perpetrators terrorists? Why did Jon Snow, one of Britain’s most respected TV journalists, use the word “practitioners” when referring to the Mumbai terrorists? Was he perhaps confusing them with doctors? …
Meanwhile – perhaps even more disgracefully – a New York Times report on the last day of the siege stated: “It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”
And they probably only murdered those hostages by accident, too. Gotta wait until all the facts are in. Yet the same caution isn’t exhibited when reporting on Western responses to terrorism, as Brett Stephens notes:
Click and click again for more.It’s worth wondering why a media that treats nearly every word uttered by the US, British or Israeli governments as inherently suspect has proved so consistently credulous when it comes to every dubious or defamatory claim made against those governments.
4 comments:
Did you expect anything other than fubar? Now the Indians are going to use a "truth serum" to get more information out of him... its a harmless injection with some chemicals in it that stimualtes the brain to give truthful responses. Already in the western media is "it's a violation of human rights" and officially recognized form of torture.... Maybe tell the victims who had their families blown away by AK47 fire - see who is really getting tortured.
The NYT infamously refused to report in 1945 that the people killed in the concentration camps - were targeted because they were Jews.
... and thus the dawn of the age of politically correct. rather an extract would read "Those who were assisted out of their mortal form to a better place were largely from a undisclosed minority."
More like "a symbolic response over the oppressive post-colonial powers..." or so mindless garbage that makes me want to kick someone's head in.
Post a Comment