Let's face it, the terrorists won another battle. They have captured the hearts and minds, such as they are, of the MSM. I was hoping to find out a little about the terrorist (by definition) attack yesterday in California. As the reader might know I am not a big fan of the Fourth Estate. Of course, I believe they are good at pure reporting. As events unfold, they are still the first with who, what, when, where, etc.
As the dust settles and the vitals are recorded, the MSM immediately goes into spin mode. They try to massage the facts to fit their template. Square pegs will fit square holes but they will also be hammered into holes of every other shape. To paraphrase a popular commercial, if you're a journalist, it's what you do.
I gave up early on in my search for information. Reuters, Yahoo, MSN and a few others all offered stupid headlines at the top of their page.
What was the killers' motive?
Was the shooting of 31 people an act of terrorism?
Was this an example of workplace violence, terrorism or possibly a combination thereof?
Had the shooters' been radicalized?
The banal semantic exercises are insulting to the reader. We saw a small group indoctrinated with an overwhelming hate for infidels commit a series of terrorist acts in a workplace setting. That much is certain. We would like to know the how's but the why's are something known to 100% of the readership. If you are a jihadist, you commit jihad. It's what you do. If you are a terrorist...
In 2001 we did not question subject ourselves to the workplace violence vs. terrorism debate. Even ten years ago, we would not have witnessed such ridiculous verbiage. Then we got a new president who has a soft spot for enemies of The West and a press who has a soft spot for said president.
The press has retreated from acknowledging the obvious. San Bernardino is the new normal and acting perplexed is the new journalistic norm. "What in the world motivated these killers?"
No comments:
Post a Comment