If it blows up buses and subways, it must be a terrorist
If it blows up buses and subways, it must be a terrorist
by George Jonas CanWest Publications
[..]There's nothing more distasteful than the sight of cowardice, intellectual muddle, and a fascination with violence masquerading as journalistic objectivity. There's nothing more ridiculous than the confused belief that the moral high ground lies in some no-man's land between good and evil. It's unnecessary to decide whether this moral confusion is combined with a hidden political agenda. While it's possible that some news organizations have been infiltrated by agents or supporters of al-Qaeda or Islamofascsim, I'd hesitate to ascribe to malice anything that can be explained by stupidity.
Some well-meaning members of the chattering classes open their minds so wide (as the saying goes) that their brains fall out. They persuade themselves that it's narrow-minded prejudice to call Dracula a vampire: Just describe what he does and let the readers or viewers decide what he is. But a refusal to call something by its proper and customary name is inaccurate reporting no less than it would be to attach a false, arbitrary or tendentious label to something. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's likely to be a duck -- and not calling a duck a duck makes it a canard.
Not calling terrorism terrorism is a canard (the French word meaning duck as well as false news.) I think the CBC's deliberate practice of canard-journalism is a disgrace. My old employer (I spent 23 years on CBC staff) would do better to emulate Arab and Muslim commentators, like Abdel Rahman al-Rashed on Al-Arabiya, who have since the London bombings come out to call and condemn terrorists as terrorists.
Posted by Ted Belman at July 24, 2005 08:26 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/9586
If it blows up buses and subways, it must be a terrorist
by George Jonas CanWest Publications
[..]There's nothing more distasteful than the sight of cowardice, intellectual muddle, and a fascination with violence masquerading as journalistic objectivity. There's nothing more ridiculous than the confused belief that the moral high ground lies in some no-man's land between good and evil. It's unnecessary to decide whether this moral confusion is combined with a hidden political agenda. While it's possible that some news organizations have been infiltrated by agents or supporters of al-Qaeda or Islamofascsim, I'd hesitate to ascribe to malice anything that can be explained by stupidity.
Some well-meaning members of the chattering classes open their minds so wide (as the saying goes) that their brains fall out. They persuade themselves that it's narrow-minded prejudice to call Dracula a vampire: Just describe what he does and let the readers or viewers decide what he is. But a refusal to call something by its proper and customary name is inaccurate reporting no less than it would be to attach a false, arbitrary or tendentious label to something. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's likely to be a duck -- and not calling a duck a duck makes it a canard.
Not calling terrorism terrorism is a canard (the French word meaning duck as well as false news.) I think the CBC's deliberate practice of canard-journalism is a disgrace. My old employer (I spent 23 years on CBC staff) would do better to emulate Arab and Muslim commentators, like Abdel Rahman al-Rashed on Al-Arabiya, who have since the London bombings come out to call and condemn terrorists as terrorists.
Posted by Ted Belman at July 24, 2005 08:26 AM