More Islaamofascist butchers killed
Al-Reuters described the killers as “suspected suicide bombers.” Umm, what proof do they need that these are not “suspects” but are in fact dead terrorists? What is the threshold of evidence here? Perhaps these idiots are supposed to reassemble themselves and write out confessions and then Al-Reuters would be willing to jettison the “suspected” adjectival description? Surely no other news organization has as many deliberate ‘duh moments’ as this activist organization passing itself off as a news agency.
On the other hand, Jordanian law enforcement doesn’t appear to live in the lah-lah land where Reuters dwells:
| Jordanian police spokesman Captain Bashir al-Da'jeh told Al Jazeera television: "At 9 this evening, there were three terrorist explosions in three hotels in Amman. There are a number of dead and wounded. They are believed to have been carried out by suicide bombers." | |
| Jordan's King Abdullah blamed a "deviant and misled group" for the attacks, in a statement carried by Petra. "The attacks targeted and killed innocent Jordanian civilians," he said. |
Meanwhile, folks, there is a button on the sidebar. Click it and you get the email for al-Reuters. Drop them a friendly note, and be sure to send us a copy, either through the comments or email. We'll assemble them into a post if we get enough...be sure to write in your usual erudite and elegant style.
10 comments:
Yeah...except confusing "media" and "humanity" is a categorical error. Back to Logic 101 for you!
Quark, can you tell me why they weren't rounding them up before this -- like say, the Aussies did?
Just a thought.
A. Scotia, any ideas?
CJ they're not afraid of offending terrorists; they agree with them. US = Satan.
Why bother sending a comment? I have sent several to various MSM and never heard from them nor saw it posted. Of course, I was not complimentary. Honestly, as the knife slits their throat at their workplace, they will be typing 'a suspected terrorist is modifying my throat now....
Axis--
Nothing changes if you don't complain, either. And making a complaint is good for the person doing it. Otherwise it's just sitting around complaining...it's one of those tipping point things: it only works if enough people do it.
As an example, there was enough complaining done that they got rid of that excresence of an "International Freedom Center" at the Ground Zero Memorial...Soros, for all his money, couldn't pull it off. And was he mad, or what??? They even refused Pataki's offer to build it elsewhere. If they couldn't contaminate the memorial, what good was it? Even ol' Hillary was forced to come out against it.
Complaining works. We could've had Harriet Miers...
I don't want to defend Reuters too much, God knows, but in this case I think they were the victims of their owm lousy editing. What they meant to say was not that persons found obviously to have blown up the scene were "suspected" suicide bombers, but that the cops were not yet 100% sure that the blast was caused by suicide bombers at all. Often the body of the human bomb is hard to piece together after one of these things. There are other ways to blow up a building, after all - the sentence right after the one you quote supports this interpretation.
They said what they meant in a clumsy and misleading way as:
Police said the blasts were caused by suspected suicide bombers.
Today the same story has been re-phrased to read:
Police said they thought the blasts were the work of suicide bombers.
In a simultaneous article about Baghdad, they just say "Suicide bombers" without qualification.
Of course, they don't say "terrorist" and you can type emails until your arms fall off and they will not.
This isn't your smoking gun. Keep your powder dry until a more egregious example comes along. It won't be long.
Link to revised story here
Its actually not the same story since it includes the new Al Qaeda claim, but it incorporates the earlier story and revises it as I noted.
Al-Reuters - you certainly can coin the phrases. I will give them a verbal blast for being so &^#&(# biased. We need to always call their hand/complain, anywhere, anytime we see so-called journalists being to biased and anti-American.
Cato--
When a news organization is reporting blasts in three separate hotels with lots of body parts, it is terrorism. Especially when the local law enforcement says it is.
Al-Reuters has no integrity. That's what the button on the sidebar is for. If every right-of-center blog had a notification system, and used it, things would change.
As they would with al-NPR, if they thought their money was being threatened. In fact, that's why, through gritted teeth, they now have to speak to the conservative constituents sometimes -- they are answerable and they know it. Doesn't mean they're not doing all sorts of under-the radar stuff like the snarky remark that kicked off the Baron's post on them.
And al-Reuters and their ilk are what got places like CAMERA started. Let the little stuff go and it just gets bigger and uglier.
As CNN and Eason Jordan...Jordan Eason?...whatever...learned to their chagrin.
Spoilsport Cato again -
I don't mean to quibble (much), D, but not calling them terrorists is not what you complained about - it was the phrase "suspected suicide bombers" - My only point is that if we want to complain to al Reuters about something (and we should, often) the complaint should be specific and accurate, otherwise it will be too easy for them to blow it off. They aren't going to be impressed by a lot of Americans emailing them and saying "you guys suck". It will only reinforce their current views. And you certainly can't threaten their funding.
Post a Comment