The BBC covers itself with shame…
…as it provides cover for murderous Islamist terrorists.
Zombie reports on the now-familiar inverted pyramid of the BBC.
Checking out the NY Times’ coverage of the same event (the terrorist attack at the Nairobi mall), I see that the paper does a somewhat better job than the BBC, but displays some of the same reluctance to name the religious affiliation of the perpetrators—so important to the terrorists, and yet so seemingly unimportant to our intrepid reporters. The Times article doesn’t mention terrorism in the headline (we just have some generic “gunmen”), but is faster than the BBC to get to the point, using the phrase “terrorist attacks” in the article’s first paragraph. But it isn’t until paragraph six that we get to the Muslim angle, with this:
Several witnesses said the attackers had shouted for Muslims to run away while they picked off other shoppers, executing them one by one.
And what of CNN? Nothing in the headline; the perps are “attackers.” The lede mentions “armed gunmen” (is that not redundant, by the way?). We find the first mention of the identity of these “gunmen” in paragraph six (are you noticing a pattern here?), where they are identified as belonging to “an al Qaeda-linked militant group.” Also in that paragraph we find the mention of escorting the Muslims out and sparing them; this time it is a quote from the “militant group” itself that makes the claim.
The AP headline mentions no perpetrators at all: “Kenya Minister says 59 Killed in Mall Attack.” The AP is the only one of the three that mentions “al Qaeda-linked” in the lede, but takes away a bit from that by calling them “militants” rather than “terrorists,” although if the latter term ever fit a situation, it would fit this one. However, in paragraph two we get the word “Islamic” (again, followed by the softening noun “extremists”). In paragraph six we finally get to the term “terrorists,” but interestingly enough it’s used in a quote from a former prime minister of Kenya. And finally, it is in paragraph seven that we learn the group “specifically targeted non-Muslims.”
Lastly, we have the Guardian, whose headline mentions the now-familiar “militants” and the lede says “gunman” and then “al-Qaida-linked militants.” In addition, the paper cuts to the chase by paragraph five rather than six, and is more forthcoming and detailed than the others in its description, as well as presenting the Muslim/non-Muslim selection as fact rather than merely quoting someone about it:
The heavily armed attackers pulled up in several cars and shot their way into the most upmarket shopping centre in Nairobi, ordering Muslims out if they could prove their religion by reciting a prayer or answering a question on Islam. They started killing those who failed the test.
So it’s the Guardian that uncharacteristically does the best job reporting this particular story. But there is no question all of these papers could, and should, do a lot better. How about reinstating the term “terrorist” as a starter? And then perhaps they could work up to “Islamist terrorist”?
Meanwhile, as we wage this war of words, the terrorists are marveling at (and exploiting) our stupidity.
Wow, what a position to be in: if they say nothing, they lose all credibility as a news source. If they tell the absolute truth, they undermine their own worldview and manipulation of language.
So what we’re left with is the minimum amount of info that still constitutes “news.”
Well done, MSM. Well done.
PostModern Liberalism: A social cancer that will doom this society.
}}} Wow, what a position to be in: if they say nothing, they lose all credibility as a news source.
WHAT?
What IDIOT gave them back any credibility?
I mean, after watching Chris Matthews’ “tingle” and the manner in which they’ve been giving oral sex to Teh One for the last six years…?
What kind of idiot gave them BACK the least bit of credibility?
Jus’ Sayin’….
As Mark Steyn said, we’ve learned that the translation of “Allahu Akbar” is “move along, nothing to see here.”
Multi-Culti supersedes all other thoughts and considerations.
Our battle is far more internal than external.
No amount of Jihadis nowhere nohow can take us down. Incredible damage and human suffering of the most gut-wrenching sort? Yes a thousand times yes.
The BBCs of the world and the debased “culture” they represent will surely and without doubt be the end of civilization itself unless we defeat them. There is no compromise option with that side. Sorry to say.
“…covers itself with shame…”
Nope. If the MSM Progs had any shame, it would have tempered their journalistic malfeasance; but they don’t bother to hide their bias today anymore. That’s the problem in a nutshell, you can’t shame the shameless. It’s the difference between thieves in the night and daylight robbers: For the former, shine the light and you’re rid of them, while only the force of arms (at the hands of the law-abiding populace, hint hint) can do the trick. So with the present-day MSM too, something other than the ineffectual tactic of “naming and shaming,” remnant of days of decency long gone by, needs to be done in order to end their nefarious misinformation of the public.
The big trouble is, like I said before, finding out a means that’s both effective and legal for that. Otherwise, only in the context of some societal upheaval (civil war, revolution and other such that usually don’t end well) will this unyielding structure of evil we call the MSM ever be broken.
should be:
can do the trick *for the latter*
ziontruth: “you can’t shame the shameless.”
Needs to go into “Rules for Conservatives”.
Those rules sure are needed. A necessity for survival, not just for venting frustrations.
Dan McLaughlin’s 73 rules are great. Plus, they can be generalized and augmented. This is my rule, by way of witty aphorism (heh), for dealing with vicious enemies like the Islamic imperialists: “In history, those who are reluctant to stoop to the level of their enemies are called losers.”
Alinsky should be required reading for conservatives in order to inoculate themselves. For example, conservatives who are aware of the Alinskyan tactic of holding the adversaries to their own rules become careful not to construct a petard they might be hoist on.
(With a lode stone of humiliation) I want to rejoin the concervasation…..
“Alinsky should be required reading for conservatives in order to inoculate themselves. For example, conservatives who are aware of the Alinskyan tactic of holding the adversaries to their own rules become careful not to construct a petard they might be hoist on.”
When we play by their rules, we lose. Palin and to a lesser extent Cruz have figured it out. From the onset reject the lefts narrative and their PC agenda. Go straight to the message that we will live free or die. Let them decide what of sort of battle they choose to fight.
Go guerilla and find the circustances where a blade slicing the jugualr makes the quiet cut. DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO SET THE RULES OF THE BATTLEFIELD. The battlefied is of our choosing, a place where we inflict damage and slip away.
Study the masters and learn the principles of unconvential war. Slit, shoot, and move. Keep them guessing where death without mercy awaits their foul agenda. If you’re dead you can not kill more enemies.Instead teach them the unintended consequences of fucking with what they can not comprehend or imagine. Scope out your environment. Identify strong points and places to be avoided. Shoot and scoot. Whenver possible get behind them and shoot them in the back.
There are no heroes fighting by British rules; there are only survivours that live to to fight another day. If you have not long ago began the process of knowing the ground you will figth/die upon you are late to the game. Man. woman up and fight like girl.
I was in Smug Central today, Evanston IL, and heard a lecture about the dangers of Carbon Sinks and Fertilizer Run-offs.
One solution was to pick up trash from the beach. Another was to get government-funded algae-powered airplanes. Another solution was to get funding for the speaker.
I was completely surrounded by the well-meaning clueless (the bien pensants, as us educamated like to say).
I wanted to ask the speaker why “everything was a problem that needed grants to solve.” Why couldn’t they just enjoy life and encourage people to pick up litter? Why couldn’t they just admit that without petroleum products they would starve? Why do we have to live on pond scum?
I just can’t cut it in polite society anymore.
Is it really that shameful for someone to defend their military ally?
The thing about the Left is, if we have rules that we find it hard to justify all the time, then what about the Left?
How do they live with the rules which support and defend Hollywood rapists and Democrat corruption? If our rules are hard to follow all the time, their rules are impossible to follow… because they don’t have any rules they can be held to account to.
Which means they are hypocrites and people taking them seriously when they talk about good intentions or helping anyone, are supporting hypocrites.
Promethea,
Those who have achieved wisdom and enlightenment have never found it easy to live amongst the rest of human civilization. Something just never clicked, because ignorance was bliss and knowledge did not provide much comfort.
Going into the wilderness for months at a time, meditating and fasting in a cave alone for days on end, may be considered Spartan or certain esthetic, but at least it got a person away from human civilization.
Those who sought the truth about humanity and the universe, often found themselves hindered the more they were surrounded by humanity itself. The farther away they were, like light pollution, the clearer things became.
The thing about the internet, interestingly enough, is that it serves all kinds of purposes. A person is at the same time isolated, but also connected. What would have been impossible to achieve without this technology, many have achieved by using it to find greater and greater portions of the truth. Yet that in itself did not provide happiness, for the more people knew, the less they could live in ignorant bliss.
The BBC referred to the massacre of the defenseless ones as “a shootout.”
A “shootout.” You know, where both are men, both are armed with guns?
Leftism is evil because they always, inevitably, side with evil. Evan Sayet is right about that.
I don’t suppose as many as one person reading the first report had any doubt….
So, for what it says about the media, it doesn’t really matter to the rest of us.
The Narrative states that Christians are just as violent in the name of their religion as Muslims, or worse.
However, as the media waits for acts of Christianity-inspired terror, the thousands of acts of Islamic terror must be carefully obfuscated and explained away.
Evil can be hard to define. To clarify it in a very basic fashion for those that might need it against the minions of the Left, here is the difference between a villain and a hero.
The hero is perfectly fine with his concept of justice applied to himself, as well as to those above him in power and below him in power.
The villain is perfectly fine with his concept of justice being applied to his torture victims, but if anyone above him tried to torture the villain, the villain would claim that it isn’t justice.
So in practice, Ayers wants communism and the fall of capitalism. Except for himself as he lives on his private mansion.
Same for the Left. For Islam. Women can be mutilated, but it’s bad for it to be the other way around. Obama likes post birth aborting black kids, but his kids aren’t allowed to go to public schools.
Why do I emphasize the need for a thorough de-Marxification of the MSM? Because the line they dictate is the line the political leadership will toe. For which see:
British PM David Cameron: Jihadist Attack On Kenyan Mall Has Nothing To Do With Islam
No chance of a victory with this sort of thinking, no chance at all. Truces, ceasefires and short reliefs between every two Islamic acts of worship are the best that can be hoped for under such a regime of treasonous insanity.
Beverly Says:
September 23rd, 2013 at 3:19 am
Just like assault and batteries are “knock out games” with two parties implied as participating, or Zimmerman, or some elderly person, was “in a fight” when attacked, knocked down and battered.
They are through ideology and choice, and on their own terms of analysis, “beyond good and evil”, though they like to use those terms when rhetorically convenient.
What they actually are in residuum, if you turn it around and apply their own deconstructive analyses to them as subjects, is another matter for consideration altogether.
When a utilitarian “who” asserts that: all values are conventional, good is merely a synonym for a subjective experiencing of feelings of pleasure, teleology a delusion, rights a fiction, personal identity an illusion, life a meaningless fractal-like expression of some ultimately unintelligible stuff, finally has the spotlight of his own analysis turned on himself, what do we see there?
So, the upshot is that we clearly see one class thing (taken on its own terms), yet act as if it is another.
Pretty generous and even admirable in some ways. Until the social capital account itself runs dry.
I don’t remember who said it originally, but the kowtowing of Western elites to Islam is the greatest act of treason in history.
lacune,
Right.
And as for the past Christian terror (we learned tolerance from it) there is the truth of the Islamic terror:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/blaming-the-crusades-for-jihad-2/
The crusades served the all important purpose of defending Christians from being made into sex slaves by Islamic raiding parties, a natural tradition of their past conquests.
And it also served to get all the hotheads and criminals out of Europe, so that they could atone for whatever it is they did.
The Left, though, says you can atone for murder, rapine, and looting by giving money to the Left. They will give you a carbon credit.
Also the Left is more like AIDS than cancer.
The Leftist alliance weakens America, in order to take over the cells to reproduce more viruses. But in the doing, the host dies because any other virus or disease, like the cold, can kill the host now.
Whereas before, it was difficult, now it is easy. The Left thinks it will survive and Islam will not. They think the Left will survive to remake America while America will not.
For a virus, their long term thinking isn’t quite as good as a human.
Apparently Britain learned nothing by appeasing Hitler.
But the root of this pacification is the Europeans’ own lack of faith in anything. Europe abandoned Christianity a long time ago– a very small percentage of Europeans who describe themselves as Christians actually attend church or practice it in any way. So what’s left for the former Christians to identify with? What binds them together? The majority of them don’t really believe in anything. I don’t know if it is the same with Judaism in Europe or not, but I suspect it too has declined from where it once was.
In contrast, Europeans are faced with a community of people bound together by religious faith that is more important to them than the laws of the countries they live in. It doesn’t matter what they believe, the point is they believe in their righteousness, and that separates them from the non-Muslims who have no faith at all.
Without a strong faith of their own, they underestimate the danger they are in. Ignoring the power of a large number of people with an unshakeable faith, especially one that promotes violence to eradicate non-believers, is suicide. But it’s easy for the liberal media to dismiss faith when they have none themselves. They believe that reason and their own tolerance is important. They have no chance of understanding what they are up against.
Europe’s belief in Western ideals and culture died in WWI.
One of those little problems about a war run by incompetents + cowards. The US did not suffer that fate primarily because of Pershing’s honor and integrity, not to allow US troops to be used as cannon fodder.
The Left uses war primarily to get rid of Republican voters and to destroy the soul and spirit of a nation.
This was true in Vietnam, if nowhere else. But even in wars they didn’t start, they still use that strategy. Soviet WMDs that nobody controls any longer are a pain to clean up. So many people die from the poison.