Via LGF, a look at how the AP (as well as organizations like the tax-payer funded NPR), provides “expert” commentary without providing necessary context — in essence, acting as uncritical conduits for what amounts to enemy propaganda.
—Which it’s possible is the product of intellectual or logistical laziness (as well as a desire to appear “neutral,” which to the transnational progressive is the new black), but which could just as easily, and far more problematically, be the product of either an institutionalized or an editorial bias—a way to shape the news to correspond with a particular worldview and, if possible, affect a desired outcome.
And it is that latter prospect that is truly frightening—and all the more reason why none of us who remain skeptical of the ostensible agendas of many media outlets should be made to feel conspiratorial for ferreting out instances of biases or laziness.
Does the fact that the AP doesn’t provide any contextual information on who Azzam Timimi is mean that as an organization it is necessarily biased? Of course not. But does it suggest that in at least this instance they have done a disservice to their readers? I believe so.
And after a few such incidents—especially when they revolve around a particular story and don’t show a corresponding degree of laziness that benefits the opposing viewpoint in an ideological struggle—it is fair, I think, to note the pattern.
Now that Nasrallah has claimed a “historic victory” against Israel, watch for stories in the MSM supporting this claim.
We knew Hezbollah would predict victory, even as the Lebanese stood amidst the rubble. It is obvious this group has no interest in peace.
You, too, can host a Hizballah victory in your own country! Call now!
Our paper once quoted a local “businessman” from Iraq who said that the war was hopeless, partition must happen, blah, blah. I googled the man on the street and found he was the president of a US Kurdish separatist party. I was going to send a snarky email to the reporter, but he wrote the prior article, too, and just left it out for greater effect.
Years ago (oh lord, probably more than 20) the LATimes ran an expose on itself and its coverage on abortion.
And found their “news” articles were, indeed, biased.
Reporters, pro-choice, would interview the most reasonable and thoughtful pro-choicers, while seeking out the most outrageous anti-abortion, cartoonish pro-lifers they could find.
The AP plays to their own internal anti-Israel/anti-American bias and thus finds those “experts” to substantiate their worldview.
I will point out, however, that the whole “you filthy Westerners have enraged us, what do you expect?” tact from “moderate” moselms is no longer getting rave reviews from the Brits.
An expose on itself? Excuse me, I have to sit down.
This isn’t a pattern. It is the modus operandi.
Back in college, our school library had some 1970s vintage carpet with vibrantly disturbing color patterns. There was even a rumor some students from several years ago who stared at it too long while on acid went permanently insane. I don’t know if that’s true but it would explain some things, like Howard Dean.
ahem
Pretty amazing, eh? And the coverage began on the front page, below the fold.
It was so noteworthy I remember it to this day.
ahem, if you are seated I hope you can lean over and reach the tub. Dissonance like that usually makes me spew from both ends.
Gotta rant.
The idea that sentiment over foreign policy can be used as an excuse for mass murder is absurd. As such, it could only be swallowed by our so-called thinking classes and peddled without reflection by our clueless media.
I was “angered” by the foreign policy of the former Soviet Union, sponsors of an ideology responsible for a stack of corpses 100 million high (with no ICC warrants or calls for investigations by HRW in sight).
I could claim that it is impossible for me to “forgive” the cowardice of European foreign policies over the last hundred years, which have brought us a pair of world wars, industrialized genocide, and a Cold War which threatened the planet with nuclear armageddon. After all, my grandfather and uncles fought in the hot wars and I was taxed to fight the cold one.
I could be perpetually “outraged” over the inability of the UN to do anything other than wring its hands as slaughter occurs places like the Sudan.
And MY co-religionists are truly oppressed in places like China and throughout the middle east—this, in contrast with the largely concocted grievances nurtured by recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history.
I’ve got just as much right to feel things things on a personal level as any third generation British Muslim has to feel about what’s taking place in the middle east.
But the idea that any of this gives me a pass to fly planes into chancelleries of Europe or the UN’s tenement on Turtle Bay is lunacy.
But, then again, violence committed on behalf of politically fashionable causes and by ideologically protected groups has been a fixture of our political landscape for nearly half a century—and it doesn’t seem likely to disappear any time soon.
Whew. Thanks, Jeff. Sorry for the long post.
Vinny,
Great rant. You summed up everything I’ve been steaming about in a neat package – home run, man.
Not that that LAT story made much of a difference. I’m a pro-lifer and we all handed it around – “Wow, see, it’s just like we’ve been saying!” – and we waited for more evenhanded coverage . . . well, still waiting. Actually, coverage is somewhat more evenhanded, it depends on whether the story is coming from a newspaper (many writers from papers can be more sensible and evenhanded about the issue, depending on the paper and the city) or the AP (forget it, if you’re not pro-abortion you’re a clinic bomber).
I think it was 1992 or 93 that story came out IIRC.
I listened to the NPR piece, and having already seen Tamimi in action courtesy of LGF, two thoughts immediately rose to my mind. The first, a question: why does NPR think it self-evident that I need to hear this man’s views? Second, surely some Muslim Brits are insulted to hear NPR elevate this man to their representative.
Fortunately the fellow is irrepressable. Do you notice how just before his four minutes are up, he blurts out, “When the government sends smart bombs to the Israelis to bomb the Lebanese and the Palestinians, Muslims get angry!” Alas, no time for the obvious follow up question: Why? NPR failed to tell us who this guy is, but a careful listener would hear the whole story in that last outburst. Despite their pretensions, however the NPR audience are unfortunately no more perceptive than anybody else.
Vinny, (and friends!)
Your EXCELLENT rant is posted at
BrainSurgeryWithSpoons.blogspot.com
Good stuff, Vin and Jeff! Stay the course!
Karridine
I grew up listening to NPR twice daily (my father liked it) and I carried on the tradition with too many years of commuter driving until AM news/talk & the internet broke the gates on news dissemination. NPR is a polished, tightly-edited production of metered speaking tones and perky-music asides while full of the most ridiculously biased news analysis that ever thought itself as “balanced.” In my experience, only Network TV news is more heavily packaged and “prepared” for an audience. It’s unreality news.
Personally. I blame the lack of agressive curiosity on our institutions of learning. I don’t think the kids are being taught to think critically. They are being taught that all points of view deserve equal consideration.
OMG! Could Bloom actually have been right?
All of this, you know, begs the question:
Does the cArPet match the drAPes?