|
Monday, December 20, 2004In response to this Belmont Club post about AP grabbing live-action shots of the triple murder of election officials, one poster wonders if it's safe to consider the AP an enemy:This is not "aid and comfort" to terrorists. On the contrary, it is active cooperation with them in providing the pipeline of information that is at the heart of terrorist tactics: the communication of information in the present that is intended to strike fear...Wretchard notes the language used to describe the gunmen. The tone and tenor are not dissimilar from what you'd expect from the coverage of a rally by a Democratic candidate for office. These guys are definitely with the enemy. The question is why. Short and sweet answer? Terrorism works quickest on the faint of heart. And for all the b.s. we hear about the intrepid reporter taking any risk to find the truth, the average journo picked his career because it looked pretty in the movies, not because he'd lived a life that let him know there were deadly important stories to be told. These AP jokers, just like the espèces de merde working for Paris Match didn't pick sides on principle or even anti-Americanism. Rather, they're like the CNN collabos who were in Iraq pre-war: They like to pretend to bold, important missions while having their tushies covered, so they screw around with the side that won't shoot them and busts its ass not to shoot any innocents. So don't go overboard figuring out the political motives of the folks playing the anti-US angles. All you need to know is who they need to sell out to if they want minimum risk carnage shots with minimum risk of consequences. You'll never see an AP story about Marines boldly and bravely shutting down a group of insurgents because we have a free press; AP doesn't need to buy us off. 
posted by gbarto at 7:49 PM |
Archives
|
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.Old TurkeyBlog here.
