Why don't Al Qaeda atrocities get media attention?

[waste gate]

The title says it all. I will not give an opinion because it may influence the answers. I used the Al Qaeda so that no one will accuse me of something I'm not asking.


What do you think?

[Tchocky]

Well, they do.

*shrug*

[PeriscopeDepth]

Because atrocities are expected from some groups of people, IMO. This makes covering American troops sexually humiliating someone (EDIT) less of a fire than savages mutilating American corpses. And the fanatics are the modern day savages. I don't mean it literally (at least not to ALL Muslims), but they have the same image as American Indians in the Old West.

Yeah, I know not PC. That's how it is though, IMO.

PD

[waste gate]

Well, they do.

*shrug*

I haven't seen it T. Can you point me toward some instance. I'd be more than happy to see it and take it as an example of where my paradigm is not correct.

[NefariousKoel]

Because it is more trendy for Western media to complain about their own over someone they have no influence over. I suspect it makes them feel they are making an impact. Most every reporter believes he or she is making a difference in the public's opinion for good or worse.

In actuality, they're just subverting the culture that gives them this freedom while ignoring the more oppressive ones for lack of attention and influence there.:nope:

[waste gate]

Because it is more trendy for Western media to complain about their own over someone they have no influence over. I suspect it makes them feel they are making an impact. Most every reporter believes he or she is making a difference in the public's opinion for good or worse.

In actuality, they're just subverting the culture that gives them this freedom while ignoring the more oppressive ones for lack of attention and influence there.:nope:

Well said NefariousKoel. :up:

[The Avon Lady]

Because it is more trendy for Western media to complain about their own over someone they have no influence over.
Oh no, not so (http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/015906.shtml)!

Why just look how open the western mass media is in making sure we're in the know (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2248322920070622?feedType=RSS).

[Reaves]

This reminds me of people protesting Iraq. They would have big signs with various countries leaders heads on them saying how they are murderers and criminals yet all the while I never saw one about Saddam or his kids.

[The Avon Lady]

Well, they do.

*shrug*
Well, they don't (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/update-on-bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm).

*cough*

[The Avon Lady]

Did NBC perpetrate "emotional terrorism"? You decide (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/03/new-vent-nbcs-emotional-terrorism/).

[P_Funk]

This reminds me of people protesting Iraq. They would have big signs with various countries leaders heads on them saying how they are murderers and criminals yet all the while I never saw one about Saddam or his kids.
Thats because they're not protesting Saddam. They're protesting the involvement of their own country in something they feel is immoral. You can't say that every war should only be judged by how evil the enemy is. Thats just too simplistic. Its like that old debate about patriotism. Some people think that patriotism is like being a soldier; just do what you're told and don't rock the boat cause its bad for the country. Others feel that its about criticism of the leadership to keep the good of the nation.

As for this thread's subject, I don't see the point. It reminds of when the military complained that the media wasn't covering the 'good side' of the war. Its all partisan interest. Naturally every biased party (and we're all of us biased) want to hear the things that we feel are significant mentioned more. We hear a criticism of our own side and we dismiss it. Its all perception. The complaint that so called al Quaeda attacks aren't covered enough seems fatuous. We're all of us aware of them and they get more coverage than our own atocities. A few weeks back there was a report that an American air strike killed 50 or 60 Afghans. Thats pretty big. Didn't last very long.

I don't think that the argument is valid really. The information is always available. If people can't dig ont he internet or the newspapers for the same car bombings every day then they deserve to be poorly informed. Don't blame the newspapers or the TV stations. As much as I think that Bill O'Reily is a mouth piece for some danergous thinking, the morons that buy that crap are the real problem.

[P_Funk]

Did NBC perpetrate "emotional terrorism"? You decide (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/03/new-vent-nbcs-emotional-terrorism/).
The story is probably BS in the end. I remember watching it actually. But I object to the term "emotional terrorism". Just another propoganda tagline. I always find it hard to take people seriously when they give me those lines. Its sensational, and it exaggerates the story. I also reject it out of hand because its coming from the military. I never trust the military's spokespeople. They can give up hard evidence but critical observations of society and government, they should be left out of. I mean thats why we have those obnoxious White House correspondents isn't it?

[Camaero]

I think it is a HUGE problem. Considering that most Americans are very stupid, they miss out on what our enemy is doing and only see the bad of what we are doing. In a poll I saw recently, people would rather take advice from Oprah than Warren Buffet....

That reminds me, please, everybody stop their wives from watching Rosy before it's too late.

I almost get tired of quoting Winston so much but he was just damn good!

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

I guess I shouldn't say that most Americans are stupid, it's just that they do not give a damn until something hits home. Pearl Harbor pissed us off, 9/11 pissed us off, but now that 9/11 has faded, we are back to not caring until, in the future, we get hit again.

[NefariousKoel]

Thats because they're not protesting Saddam. They're protesting the involvement of their own country in something they feel is immoral.
Just like those liberals who went to Iraq before the war even started and most naively offered to be human shields for Saddam's Iraq.

They didn't like being taken up on their offer and proceeded to flee & cry. Naivety is quite something isn't it? Naive enough to believe this isn't a real war, while it is.

[P_Funk]

Thats because they're not protesting Saddam. They're protesting the involvement of their own country in something they feel is immoral.
Just like those liberals who went to Iraq before the war even started and most naively offered to be human shields for Saddam's Iraq.

They didn't like being taken up on their offer and proceeded to flee & cry. Naivety is quite something isn't it? Naive enough to believe this isn't a real war, while it is.
Thats a totally incomprehensible comparison. Opposition and public dissent is equal to direct material support of the enemy. I wish I could think like that too. Would make things alot easier.

[robbo180265]

Thats because they're not protesting Saddam. They're protesting the involvement of their own country in something they feel is immoral.
Just like those liberals who went to Iraq before the war even started and most naively offered to be human shields for Saddam's Iraq.

They didn't like being taken up on their offer and proceeded to flee & cry. Naivety is quite something isn't it? Naive enough to believe this isn't a real war, while it is.

Or maybe they were among the 250,000 that marched repeatedly through London because they felt that the reasons for going to war with Iraq (remember WMD's?) were wrong and that invading Iraq would only make the Middle East worse.

I hate to say I told you so...........

[Skybird]

Strange. I read regularly essays and articles in the

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
Tagesspiegel,
Die Welt,
Focus,
Der Spiegel,
New Yok Post,
Washington Post,
International Herald Tribune,
Guardian,
Independent,
BBC,
Le Monde,
France24,

about atrocities and murderings and in general: violence commited in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewehre by Al Quaeda, or other factions, but of course: plenty of civilian deaths from US air bombings too.

But WG cannot see islamic terror crimes getting media attention. - Hm. Why am I not surprised.

This whole thread is just another of his usual standard provocations - already to be smelled in his suggestive wording.

[Iceman]

I think it is a HUGE problem. Considering that most Americans are very stupid, they miss out on what our enemy is doing and only see the bad of what we are doing. In a poll I saw recently, people would rather take advice from Oprah than Warren Buffet....

That reminds me, please, everybody stop their wives from watching Rosy before it's too late.

I almost get tired of quoting Winston so much but he was just damn good!

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

I guess I shouldn't say that most Americans are stupid, it's just that they do not give a damn until something hits home. Pearl Harbor pissed us off, 9/11 pissed us off, but now that 9/11 has faded, we are back to not caring until, in the future, we get hit again.

Agreed not stupid just short sighted and wishful thinkers...I almost hate to do it but both my children and wife watch the news with me and see for themselves how crazy the world really is...it really hits home in my sons eyes when he sees the video that is played over and over alot of a truck bomb on an Iraqi freeway going off and a guy walking down the road by it narrowly escaping.

The world is a seriouly F!#@$%ed up place and I'd rather they see it for what it really is....they, "my children", also continually point out alot of good ,watching Animal Planet how people rescue animals and Discovery and How it's made...there still is Good left or it would all be bad...

the Good is what's worth the fight.

[Konovalov]

Strange. I read regularly essays and articles in the

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
Tagesspiegel,
Die Welt,
Focus,
Der Spiegel,
New Yok Post,
Washington Post,
International Herald Tribune,
Guardian,
Independent,
BBC,
Le Monde,
France24,

about atrocities and murderings and in general: violence commited in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewehre by Al Quaeda, or other factions, but of course: plenty of civilian deaths from US air bombings too.

But WG cannot see islamic terror crimes getting media attention. - Hm. Why am I not surprised.

This whole thread is just another of his usual standard provocations - already to be smelled in his suggestive wording.

:yep: :yep: Saved me from saying it. Not sure what planet he is on but I am guessing it is one without any access to news media access. Quite frankly not a day goes by where I don't here of another suicide bombing in a market square in Baghdad or elsewere.

:damn: This thread should have been ignored. More waste from wastegate. :lol:

[Letum]

Strange. I read regularly essays and articles in the

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
Tagesspiegel,
Die Welt,
Focus,
Der Spiegel,
New Yok Post,
Washington Post,
International Herald Tribune,
Guardian,
Independent,
BBC,
Le Monde,
France24,

about atrocities and murderings and in general: violence commited in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewehre by Al Quaeda, or other factions, but of course: plenty of civilian deaths from US air bombings too.

But WG cannot see islamic terror crimes getting media attention. - Hm. Why am I not surprised.

This whole thread is just another of his usual standard provocations - already to be smelled in his suggestive wording.


^ This.

[Heibges]

The title says it all. I will not give an opinion because it may influence the answers. I used the Al Qaeda so that no one will accuse me of something I'm not asking.


What do you think?

For the same reason the Paris Hilton thread was 10 pages long?:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[waste gate]

Strange. I read regularly essays and articles in the

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
Tagesspiegel,
Die Welt,
Focus,
Der Spiegel,
New Yok Post,
Washington Post,
International Herald Tribune,
Guardian,
Independent,
BBC,
Le Monde,
France24,

about atrocities and murderings and in general: violence commited in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewehre by Al Quaeda, or other factions, but of course: plenty of civilian deaths from US air bombings too.

But WG cannot see islamic terror crimes getting media attention. - Hm. Why am I not surprised.

This whole thread is just another of his usual standard provocations - already to be smelled in his suggestive wording.

If you have seen all these stories, pray tell why haven't you posted them? - Hm. Why am I not surprised.

[Skybird]

Should I even spoon-feed your mash to you, maybe? Help you washing your hands and clean your teeth, and bring you to bed?

[waste gate]

Should I even spoon-feed your mash to you, maybe? Help you washing your hands and clean your teeth, and bring you to bed?

The question was, why haven't you posted the stories, not how you want to be my slave, thanx for offering. Please answer the question.

[cobalt]

Should I even spoon-feed your mash to you, maybe? Help you washing your hands and clean your teeth, and bring you to bed?
The question was, why haven't you posted the stories, not how you want to be my slave, thanx for offering. Please answer the question.

maybe because every other day you or avon lady posts some story about Islam?

its called spam

[Skybird]

The question was, why haven't you posted the stories, not how you want to be my slave, thanx for offering. Please answer the question.
I'm also not your butler. Read your newspapers yourself, instead of trolling around in this place.

[robbo180265]

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/GZN35FKUUNETBQXKNAFENAK5LL6QFTER.jpg

[waste gate]

I'm also not your butler. Read your newspapers yourself, instead of trolling around in this place.

I'm not trolling. I'm asking a legitimate question. You told everyone that you read about Al Qeade atrocities on these sites:
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
Tagesspiegel,
Die Welt,
Focus,
Der Spiegel,
New Yok Post,
Washington Post,
International Herald Tribune,
Guardian,
Independent,
BBC,
Le Monde,
France24,


Why haven't you posted any of the arcticles. I know you aren't shy. If it is because it doesn't fit your political agenda/paradigm that is OK with me. I am pretty sure everyone knows where you stand. But please don't insult our intellegence by your silence on the topic.

Why don't Al Qaeda atrocities get media attention?

[Konovalov]

It would be a legitimate question if it were not for the fact that my 7 year old nephew could do a google search and bring up a mountain of news links to what you are asking. Why don't you give it a go here: (http://www.google.co.uk/)

Now stop bloody trolling and trying to bait forum members. :down:

[waste gate]

Perhaps I'm confused. How do I troll a thread I started?

Beyond that, how does one troll any thread in an open forum? Are questions trollling? Is having a different opinion than the starter of the thread trolling?

Is censorship a good thing?

[The Avon Lady]

Strange. I read regularly essays and articles in the

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
Tagesspiegel,
Die Welt,
Focus,
Der Spiegel,
New Yok Post,
Washington Post,
International Herald Tribune,
Guardian,
Independent,
BBC,
Le Monde,
France24,

about atrocities and murderings and in general: violence commited in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewehre by Al Quaeda, or other factions, but of course: plenty of civilian deaths from US air bombings too.

But WG cannot see islamic terror crimes getting media attention. - Hm. Why am I not surprised.

This whole thread is just another of his usual standard provocations - already to be smelled in his suggestive wording.
Back on topic - hopefully.

I disagree with you, Skybird.

Admittedly, I can only refer to English language media. I find every English language publication you listed - perhaps excluding the NY Post - to underplay Islamic attacks worldwide. That doesn't mean they're unreported, although that, too is often the case. The stories are shoved way back on page 30 (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25770_NYT_Defends_Burying_JFK_Plot_Story&only) in printed versions, barely make the headlines list on their Internet home pages. As for TV, it is often that incidents go completely unreported.

Here's but a most recent example: When Does a Massacre Matter? (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/232536.php).

I follow several media watch blogs and reports and this is far far from a unique case. It happens all the time.

Could it be that people don't know what they're missing? Sounds about right to me.

And when these events are reported, they are often reported with a slant (another example from the NY Times (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016851.php))or overshadowed by some other event the media wishes to use as a distraction. Sorry, I can't be bothered to post links to what amount to hundreds of such reports on the media over the last few years. It would make for a great term paper some college student. But it was a cinch posting the links I included above and in previous posts, just a sampling from only very recent events.

That's the way I see it.

[P_Funk]

But this is all biased interpretation anyway ont he parts of AL and WG. What they perceive as paramount news goes unreported. Some people want other things to get more reporting. That its reported isn't the question, as AL said. Its about it not being given the weight that some think it deserves. And why? Must every publication put every atrocity around the world front and center? Why are then Islamic atrocities so significant? There are atrocities all over the world that aren't even reported. Ask someone about East Timor and see how many strangers you'll go through before you get more than a quizzical look.

Once again its a matter of spin. So what if it isn't on page 1 or 2 or 3? If someone wants to know they'll go looking for it. And thanks to CNN and Fox News you always hear for 5 hours about the latest terrorist attack or attempt. I remember browsing the news channels in the immediate aftermath of the recent London car bombs. After a few hours CBC moved on to other stories but still updated, so did BBC. But CNN just kept going and going and going, repeating irrelavent information and interviewing people with only vague conjecture to offer.

But again, if you care then you will find the information. Those taht don't care will just gloss over it anyw ay if its upfront. And if you feel the need to have the population so carefully controlled in their thought impulses then you have an odd argument on your hands, but that I don't suspect is what you mean, AL.

[The Avon Lady]

But this is all biased interpretation anyway ont he parts of AL and WG.
Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Shoe.

Other.

Foot.
What they perceive as paramount news goes unreported.
Though sometimes true, I said much more, even when stories are reported.
Some people want other things to get more reporting. That its reported isn't the question, as AL said. Its about it not being given the weight that some think it deserves. And why? Must every publication put every atrocity around the world front and center?
Can't speak for others but I never said that.
Why are then Islamic atrocities so significant?
Go figure.
There are atrocities all over the world that aren't even reported.
Again, not speaking for others, I pointed out the slant of what is reported, lopsidedly so, of stories no more or less significant.
Ask someone about East Timor and see how many strangers you'll go through before you get more than a quizzical look.
And if you feel the need to have the population so carefully controlled in their thought impulses then you have an odd argument on your hands, but that I don't suspect is what you mean, AL.
But it is the other way around. Much of the west has been made numb and ignorant by major media that has many times twisted the truth and subdued facts.

I'll finish here.

[P_Funk]

But this is all biased interpretation anyway ont he parts of AL and WG. Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Shoe.

Other.

Foot.
You dismiss my point far too quickly. I don't mean just to say that i think you're reaching with your statements. I mean also that it is a normal impulse in people to want to see what they think is important given more weight.

Some people want other things to get more reporting. That its reported isn't the question, as AL said. Its about it not being given the weight that some think it deserves. And why? Must every publication put every atrocity around the world front and center? Can't speak for others but I never said that.
That doesn't mean they're unreported, although that, too is often the case.
You said both so lets split the difference.

And if you feel the need to have the population so carefully controlled in their thought impulses then you have an odd argument on your hands, but that I don't suspect is what you mean, AL. But it is the other way around. Much of the west has been made numb and ignorant by major media that has many times twisted the truth and subdued facts.

I'll finish here.
Again I'll point out that if people wanted to care they'd find the correct unbiased information. I assume that you know what they don't because you found reliable sources. I don't suspect that you do your own journalistic digging every day to learn everthing. Surely you aren't at the sight of every terrorist attack in the Islamic world or everywhere else that sees one too.

Ignorance in adults is a choice. Children learn from their parents. The information is present enough to give people a chance to know about it. News as a rule is general and if you want more you dig (like turning to A16 to finish the remaining 3/4 of the article from the front page).

Some people tell me politics are boring, that they dont vote cause they don't care. It doesn't matter which paper they read or who wrote it. They don't care. And if they want to persist in thinking twisted versions of reality then they will. We live in the computer age. Theres the information in most anyones home or at the library.

I'm not saying that journalistic integrity isn't an issue, but if we really cared then we'd make it harder for corporations to buyup every news outlet and dilute the stories into easy to hear unboring exiting drivel.

[The Avon Lady]

But this is all biased interpretation anyway ont he parts of AL and WG. Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Shoe.

Other.

Foot.
You dismiss my point far too quickly. I don't mean just to say that i think you're reaching with your statements. I mean also that it is a normal impulse in people to want to see what they think is important given more weight.
The inverse is no less true. Hence my response to you.
Some people want other things to get more reporting. That its reported isn't the question, as AL said. Its about it not being given the weight that some think it deserves. And why? Must every publication put every atrocity around the world front and center? Can't speak for others but I never said that.
That doesn't mean they're unreported, although that, too is often the case.
You said both so lets split the difference.
I did not say that "every publication put every atrocity around the world front and center."

And if you feel the need to have the population so carefully controlled in their thought impulses then you have an odd argument on your hands, but that I don't suspect is what you mean, AL. But it is the other way around. Much of the west has been made numb and ignorant by major media that has many times twisted the truth and subdued facts.

I'll finish here.
Again I'll point out that if people wanted to care they'd find the correct unbiased information.
This statement alone is a mouthful.
I assume that you know what they don't because you found reliable sources. I don't suspect that you do your own journalistic digging every day to learn everthing.
But I do too easily find people pointing out the innacuracies and much worse in many major newswire reports and mass media outlets. This happens pretty much day by day.
Surely you aren't at the sight of every terrorist attack in the Islamic world or everywhere else that sees one too.

Ignorance in adults is a choice.
There is ignorance due to disinterest. There is ignorance due to disinformation. My claim is the masses are poorly informed and sometimes intentionally kept ignorant.
Children learn from their parents. The information is present enough to give people a chance to know about it.
What if their information suppliers are simply unreliable and unprofessional?
News as a rule is general and if you want more you dig (like turning to A16 to finish the remaining 3/4 of the article from the front page).
That's easy and that's only a fraction of my point.