Home | About | Donate

Context-Free Coverage of Terror Helps Perpetuate Its Causes



Thank you for pointing out how one-sided stories go, and this, in particular:

"None of this background was explained when the New York Times (11/14/15) reported Hollande’s assertion that the attacks in Paris were “an act of war,” as though France hadn’t long been making war on ISIS, and repeated without context his claim (using an Arabic acronym for ISIS) that “France, because it was foully, disgracefully and violently attacked, will be unforgiving with the barbarians from Daesh.”


Yes, thank you, Jim, for pointing out what should be obvious, if most media consumers had access to--even knew about reporting on--the background for "why they hate". It feels so alienating and impotent, to be a citizen of the Empire but have so little power to rage against what gets funded by my country. A country, to paraphrase ML King, that is the largest purveyor of death and destruction, arms and interventions, in the world.


Excellent analysis from Naurekas. I would add that here in France, a country that once had some of the best mainstream journalism in the world, the decontextualization of this (and the prior Charlie Hebdo) attack in the French MSM has been just as bad as that just cited by Naurekas for the US. And to my neverending dismay, there are far fewer French-language alternative news sources than there are for those lucky enough to speak English. In today's France, the journalists march to the tune of the Elysee palace. Having relentlessly demonized Vladimir Putin for the past few years, they have suddenly, now that France is coordinating strategies with the Russians, started talking about him respectfully, without the snide insinuations of just yesterday. As we know, however, that could change again in a New York minute, since, when they're not marching to the Elysee's tune, they're marching to the White House's.


Blowback doesn't occur in a vacuum, but an inferno of one's own making


You mean that most people don't know jack about most anything? Do you mean that media consolidation was more effective than Citizens United? That busy people leave it to 'their' media outlets to do the thinking for them?

There was a time when in a mythical city that never was but faked it pretty well, there were 8 major newspapers and several local borough papers and any number of specific interest papers that could be found at another legendary myth the newsstand!

Despite this plethora of news and opinion sources, the game was based on talented reporting. 8+ excellent writers earned their pay distinguishing themselves from each other while all reporting the same stories with all of them including the same facts. It was the writing that people liked. They expected the news to be the same whatever paper they bought. Facts were facts and that was that. We didn't massage the facts we reported them was the code being followed. Have you heard the news? From whatever source was still the basic news.

Well that's changed. People find their news source gives them a different world view and often enough what seems like different facts. The bombing was Hezbollah? They bombed Hezbollah? The rebels fighting the Syrians. The Syrians fighting the ISIS fanatics? The rebels fighting the ISIS. Putin the opposition fighting Putin the ally???????

Okay wait... which paper said what? Something doesn't sound right? What was said last week? Don't confuse matters about this week! Assuming there is only one Putin ...um...one right? Okay ...one... um which one is ... heck are we with Putin or against Putin and is Putin for either of those points of views and are we as well for that matter? Sigh.

They don't literally dumb down their readership... they dumb down the readership of other papers. Didn't you know? You get the right way to see it with Jiffy News. You know what you want to know with Acme newscorp.

Why waste money buying another newspaper when you've already got one. Heck they don't even agree! best stick with the one you and your friends and family already accept as news.

What are you a reporter? What do you care if they slant the news? Whatever they say on the 11 o'clock news is good.

By these means thousands die and the deaths are barely noticed or understood. The banality of entertainment news is that it tries not to be controversial. Easy listening news interrupted by tragedy only when necessary.

Which came first the dumbed down chicken or the preference for easy listening entertainment news egg?


I don't understand this concern about "the religious element in the attack". The attackers were from ISIS which claims to represent Islam. That's pretty well-known. And at least one attacker invoked the Islamic mantra "Al Akbhar!" (sp) ("God is great!") before his killing spree. What do you want said about that? People invoke all kinds of reasons and causes for what they do. None of us likes to imagine that some of our acts might be "mindless" so we tend to try to make them meaningful with some sort of coherent narrative. There's nothing special or unique about these attackers' invoking a large cause for their actions.


"Vladimir Putin has always been our friend and ally."
Ministry of Truth


Please explain your point. Give us some context and details to understand what you mean by "downplays the religious element in the attack."


Speaking of lack of context, the media has been mindlessly repeating the line that Friday's horrors were the worst such massacre in France since WW II, ignoring the massacre of about 200 Algerians in 1961. The country was in the throes of the Algerian war, with rightwing French and Algerians both engaged in bombing and other terror attacks when some 30,000 Algerians marched in a demonstration of support for independence. The chief of the Parisian police, Maurice Papon, directed the mass killing of demonstrators and the French govt never agreed as to the final number of dead. Maurice Papon had much experience in such work, having served the Vichy regime and was later convicted of deporting French Jews to death camps.

Another piece of context is that about ten per cent of the French population is Muslim, a far larger proportion than any other western nation, making the kind of repressive action advocated by our American xenophobes quite problematic. It will be far easier for Hollande to bomb Syria than to get a grip on the terrorist problem within France, unfortunately.


I think Bernie is the first realistic chink in Oligarchy's armor. Not in all my decades (I'm feeling just how many of them these days...lol) have I ever seen someone like Bernie who has been an independent for most his career, ever get this close to winning the WH. I admire him so much for being the people's politician and marching alongside us and for speaking truth to power because that is just who he is and not only when it was convenient or strategic.

No politician will look perfect to everybody but dagnabit (I love that word...lol) look at how much worse the other ones look!!!