[antimedia] antimedia: The media just doesn't get it....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by antimedia:
The media just doesn't get it....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1151197388.shtml


   ....and they keep providing proof. When will America wake up and fire
   these jerks? Two stories in E&P provide the evidence. First, there is
   [1]this little beauty.

     It happened today at the White House briefing, following a long
     exchange with Helen Thomas over Friday's revelations about another
     "anti-terrorist" surveillance program, this time involving certain
     bank records. The Bush administration tried to stop The New York
     Times, Los Angeles Times and others from publishing the news.

   Putting quotes around anti-terrorist shows that the editors at E&P
   don't believe that the financial surveillance program was really
   designed to catch terrorists, despite the known facts. It shows a lack
   of respect for the administration and for our government.
   Second, there is [2]this beauty.

     Harrisburg Paper Breaks News of Yet Another Possible Atrocity in
     Iraq
     Associated Press Published: June 23, 2006 2:15 PM ET
     HARRISBURG Two Pennsylvania National Guardsmen are being
     investigated in connection with the shooting death of an Iraqi
     civilian earlier this year and have not returned to the United
     States with the rest of their unit, a Guard spokesman said Friday.

   Note that the headline calls the shooting of an Iraqi civilian an
   "atrocity". Words have meaning. Those who use them to make a living
   know exactly what they are writing. The dictionary defines atrocity as
   (in part) "an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed
   force on civilians or prisoners." While shooting a civilian may be
   clearly illegal, depending upon the circumstances, it doesn't rise to
   the level of an atrocity.
   [3]This is an atrocity.

     Two US Soldiers were captured in Iraq. They were tortured and
     killed in the most inhumane abuse of human beings that I can recall
     in recent history. According to reports these men were beaten,
     their arms contorted, their testicles cut off, their penises cut
     off and stuffed in their mouths, their eyes gouged out, their
     hearts cut out and were beheaded. If reading that shocks or
     disgusts you let me take this opportunity to say that I'm glad to
     offend.

   E&P and the many of our media, as well as many on the left, want you
   to think there is some moral equivalence between a US soldier killing
   a civilian in the heat of battle (and make no mistake, depending upon
   the circumstances, killing a civilian, even in battle, can be murder)
   and "insurgents" breaking a captured soldier's arms, cutting off their
   testicles and penises and stuffing them in their mouths, gouging out
   their eyes, cutting out their hearts and cutting off their heads.
   We often hear the cry from the left, "We should be better than that".
   Clearly we are. Even in the worst of circumstances, our soldiers only
   shoot innocent civilians. They do not commit the outrageous behaviors
   that the "insurgents" are routinely guilty of. (I [4]read today, for
   example, of a 12-year-old Iraqi boy who was beheaded for the "crime"
   of accepting a soccer ball from American troops.) (Hat tip to [5]Texas
   Fred.) Can the media point to one story of American troops doing what
   was done to these two young men?
   If they cannot, then how can they possibly compare the behavior of our
   troops, even those accused of crimes, with the animals who committed
   these acts?

References

   1. http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002727594&imw=Y
   2. http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002727448&imw=Y
   3. http://alanwoody.blogs.com/woodys_news_views/2006/06/where_is_the_ou.html
   4. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200859,00.html
   5. http://texasfred.net/?p=98