Why don't Al Qaeda atrocities get media attention?

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

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Well said NefariousKoel.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by NefariousKoel

Because it is more trendy for Western media to complain about their own over someone they have no influence over.

Oh no, not so!

Why just look how open the western mass media is in making sure we're in the know.

[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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Well, they do.

*shrug*

Well, they don't.

*cough*

[The Avon Lady]

Did NBC perpetrate "emotional terrorism"? You decide.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Did NBC perpetrate "emotional terrorism"? You decide.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by NefariousKoel

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.