Belaboring The Obvious
Note the headline on this wire story. Now, here's the fair and balanced version.
Why use a phrase that conveys an important fact quickly when you can inject an editorial agenda?
I did a search on Fox's website for the following phrases: haircut barber, flight pilot, law policeman, and tooth dentist. Strangely, I didn't have any luck.
Why use a phrase that conveys an important fact quickly when you can inject an editorial agenda?
I did a search on Fox's website for the following phrases: haircut barber, flight pilot, law policeman, and tooth dentist. Strangely, I didn't have any luck.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Friday, July 06, 2007
13 Comments:
I forget what the rationale is for referring to suicide bombers as "homocide bombers."
FOX also doesn't mention the bomber was dressed as a cop when he blew up all the policemen.
As I mentioned in another post, I have been in the unfortunate position of being captive to Fox News on TV lately (staying with sick relative) and it is really pathetic how they attempt to frame everything. It's increasingly desperate on their part...all things revolve around senseless terror, as if there are absolutely NO reasons why these people are attacking US interests.
I find it strangely fascinating, but then someone will say something that is so off the wall I just have to leave the room. Tgh.
I couldn't find biased commentator, hypocritical politician or idiotic Hannity either.
Every fatal bombing is a "homicide" bombing. A "suicide" bomber is one who dies in the balst. There is a difference, and not just to the bomber. If one is indifferent to surviving a bombomg, or even welcomes not doing so, the range of ways to accomplish the bombing is greatly increased, making the suicide bomber more dangerous.
Generally I appreciate your take on things, but in this instance I think that someone who obscures the difference is the less impartial observer.
They're still using that phrase? I thought it was delightfully stupid the first time I heard it, years ago. Of course it is redundant and specifically non-descriptive. It's real utility is as an indicator of who is really in the tank.
Mimikatz, you missed the sarcasm tags in the original post.
Mimikatz is right. A homicide bomber (or in the old days, just "bomber") is someone who has the skill and equipment to build and plant a bomb and either remotely detonate it or use a timing device. A suicide bomber obviously is someone who is willing to die but also is someone without the skills of a so-called homicide bomber.
Also, critically, a homicide bomber lives to bomb another day.
Back again. This is what Wikipedia has to say (emph added):
"Some effort has been made to replace the term suicide bombing with the term homicide bombing. The first such use was by White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer in April 2002.
"Fox News Channel and the New York Post, both owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, are two media organizations that have adopted the term. Fox News began using the term after it was suggested by former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu during an interview."
My fuzzy sense is that the White House doesn't use the term as consistently as FOXNews, but I may be wrong.
Won't it be fun when the Wall Street Journal joins in this idiocy... Go Rupert!
The wilful blindness is just stunning at times... also on Fox News on the TV, last week one of the big headlines was "Glasgow Bomber's Motive: Money" ... a hired mercenary, you might imagine from the headlines? No, if you listened to the story, the revelation was that the aforementioned Iraqi terrorist at Glasgow came from a family who used to be rich in Iraq, but their properties were all bombed so now they're peniless. So, the announcers intoned solemnly, his motive was "revenge for the financial loss."
Apparently we are supposed to believe that, if the US had bombed his family's holdings flat yet they still had a lot of money left, then this terrorist would have been throwing rose petals in the Glasgow airport instead of shrapnel. How can anyone possibly believe the stuff on that channel?
Oh well, I guess we should just be ecstatic that they're not still trying to pawn off the "hate our freedoms" line on us. At least this was some slight, halfhearted, vague, clumsy attempt to understand the thinking of our enemies.
...brings to mind the old saying about "a terrorist is somebody who has a bomb but lacks an air force"
Thanks for interesting article.
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
honours concerned methods kbps edulaura east garg sussex essen furthermore watershed
servimundos melifermuly
Post a Comment
<< Home