Terrorists and Double Standards

Pages: 1 2

All one need do to conclude without doubt that the mainstream media is working on behalf of Islamic terror and against the Judeo-Christian West is to compare and contrast the story The New York Times ran in the wake of Nidal Hassan’s massacre at Ft. Hood with that of Anders Behring Breivik’s carnage in Oslo. In the forty-plus paragraph story on the Muslim Hassan’s murder of 13 American soldiers, the killer’s religion was not mentioned once. Not once. This despite the fact that Hassan had been well known for giving a Power Point presentations on Islam’s holy requirement to commit mass murder of infidels. It was also widely reported that he shouted the cry of Islamic terrorists — “Allahu Akbar!!!” — as he opened fire. He even had a business card – a business card for goodness’ sake! – which identified him as a “Solider of Allah.”

How many paragraphs into the story did it take The New York Times to mention Breivik’s supposed Christianity? None. It was in the headline: “As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist.”

Clearly this is a double standard. But the Times would deny that it is anything other than honest and impartial. The editorial board would swear the paper has no pro-Muslim/anti-Christian agenda. And, in a sense, they’d be telling the truth.

Yes, there are folks in the mainstream media who see their mission in life as promoting Islamic terror and helping to overthrow the Judeo-Christian West. Their purpose in covering up Hassan’s jihadist agenda while highlighting whatever links to Christianity Breivik might have had, then, is obvious: They want to tamp down hatred for the folks they want to see win and to drum up hatred for the folks they want to see destroyed.

But not everyone at the Times is a calculating America hater.  Nor can we accept the notion that all the earnest journalists who followed the lead of The New York Times in how they reported this (and other related) stories are engaged in a conscious effort to tear down Western civilzation and promote a global caliphate.  So why do they do it?

Much of the answer can be found in a eulogy that Barbara Walters gave on the night that her colleague Peter Jennings died in 2005. Walters said, “What made Peter great is that he knew there’s no such thing as the truth.”

To thinking people, this statement is mind-boggling. After all, isn’t the journalist’s job to report to his readers/viewers the truth about what’s happening in places the reader/viewer can’t be? It also provokes the question: If Jennings “knew” there was no such thing as the truth, then by what criterion did he select the stories he would report on or keep covered up each night and the facts he would use or reject in the telling of that story? And the answer is this:

Jennings was not an evil man. He probably didn’t want to see Islamic fascism take over the world, America turned into part of the Islamic caliphate or the Jews of Israel marched into the sea.  He wanted to be a good journalist. He knew that a good journalist is someone who can convey the truth to his followers and since the truth is that there is no truth, Jennings saw his job as nothing other than to manipulate the stories to undermine the things that his viewers recognized as true.

Pages: 1 2

  • Pacliberal

    There are no liberals; at least in the way that 99% of Republicans envision them…..the “professional” liberals, i.e. , hippies, anti Vietnam war protesters literally ran for their lives after the lunatics started coming into the picture….after JFK was shot,…and then a few years before the Vietnam war ended; most of the professional liberals gave up the cause and pursued regular careers, jobs seeking the American dream… it was the left overs…the organizers of the organizers that used the media as a circus performance to burn draft cards, and stage protests, and demonstrations, ironically it worked— 1% of the entire movement stopped the war.

    After the Vietnam war ended; they basically stropped working, for the movement… all that was left were the lunatics, that had no idea about liberalism to take their place.

  • StephenD

    In the absence of rational thought, there is chaos. We in the general public must rely on the media to be "fact checkers" and reporters of the truth. It truly is the 4th column of Government. If we must, we should demand a clearing of the halls. There should be a "truth test" and when it is found they had falsely reported something their legitimacy should be removed (License to Operate?). The American people should be able to “shut down” any media outlet that reports known falsehoods or has not done due diligence to expose the facts.
    There oughta be a law….

  • Brujo Blanco

    The NYT is a tool of the antisemitic and anti-American left. The NYT does not allow the truth to interfere with their journalism.

  • Mo_

    I only wish this article had been longer! It gets to the heart of what is going on in our world today. I wish there was a way to inform more people about this practice of brainwashing – because that's what it really boils down to.

    And it's everywhere, 24/7.

  • esperantominoria

    What a sad thing the NYT is,truly,double standards,40 plus paragraphs and never say the man is a Muslim by his own definition!.It reminds me of the double standards of many Leftists against Israel.
    Here they are are denounced by fellow Leftists and Liberals,and I myself am a Liberal,for human rights

  • TK Heekin

    Dead on. In some quarters it may be said that "the Truth" is, in fact, God. When the truth is perverted so is God. The Left, of course, loves this. If I could spell the name of 'Crime and Punishment's" author I would do so when referring to his quote, "Without God everything is permitted." Chaos. When chaos dominates the "government" will be called upon to impose order. But first we must destroy truth.

    • Chiggles


    • sedoanman

      "But first we must destroy truth."

      No need to because it doesn't exist, at least according to Barbara Walters and Peter Jennings. It was Barbara Walters who unwittingly gave away the Leftist media’s secret while supposedly heaping high praise on recently deceased Peter Jennings. Between gushes of admiration and sighs of sorrow Walters waxed poetic about this Canadian-born socialist whose mother had raised him to hate America. On and on Walters went until, near the end, she offered the highest praise a Leftist could fathom: “What made Peter so great,” she said “was that he knew there was no such thing as the truth.”

  • Jaladhi

    >"But not everyone at the Times is a calculating America hater. Nor can we accept the notion that all the earnest journalists who followed the lead of The New York Times in how they reported this (and other related) stories are engaged in a conscious effort to tear down Western civilzation and promote a global caliphate. So why do they do it?"

    I think you are being too nice to NYTimes and the rest of the liberal media. I am convinced everybody in the editorial board of liberal media is totally brain dead and traitorous to our country. When these people hide the truth and tell lies and hold it as their mission in life, there is no other description of them other than what I spelled out..

    Multiculturism is their religion and they will lies to no end to promote it!!

    • Bamaguje

      I agree with you Jaladhi, birds of the same feather flock together.
      If any New York Times journalist disagrees with the newspaper's persistent unsavoury distortion of the truth, he/she would resign.

      • Jaladhi

        I think if any journalist disagreed with the policies of editorial board he would be fired even before he gets a chance to resign!!

  • Jaladhi

    Correction to the above post; "Multiculturism is their religion and they will tell lies to no end to promote it!!"

  • aspacia

    The NYT has always had a communist leaning agenda. During and after the Bolshevik Revolution, TNYT whitewashed Soviet atrocities. They still do. Hearst had his jingoist agenda as well and pushed for the Spanish American War.

    I do not trust any media source, and read all sides of the issues.

    • Bamaguje

      Bolshevik revolution?
      I had no idea NYT has being telling lies that long.
      Why are they still in circulation?

      • Jaladhi

        Bamaguje, please google Duranty, a reporter for NYT in 30's or later onb how he wrote glowing accounts of Soviet Union while its citizens were dying of famine and NYTimes published those reports. That is how NYT is also known as Duranty Times synonymous with lying.

        Maybe your question is rhetoric and you know alll this!

  • sedoanman

    It is the Left's obsession and fascination with death and communism that are the prime movers of their dementia.

  • Ozzers

    Let me get this straight. Jennings knew 'there is no such thing as the truth' to be the truth?
    If there is no such thing as the truth, is there then no such thing as a lie?
    Eight year olds will party.
    I would go on but I am lying all the time.

  • Bert

    It would be refreshing if a small group of American patriots, living in Manhattan, would be able to stage an ongoing vigil in front of the New York Times. They could hand out flyers that expose the current lies of Times to those who pass by. They could also challenge the editors to come down and debate in front of their building. It would be very useful if a few good Americans could do this and create their own news story. Let's see if The Times would cover this story.

    • tagalog

      You could probably count the number of "American patriots" living in Manhattan on the fingers of one hand.

    • Paclliberal

      I doubt that it would make a difference…I think it was in the movie, Three Days of the Condor, Robert Redford said, something like the media will jump all over his story, but Higgins replied, “who will print it.”

      It was a fictional movie, in which the CIA, in theory, knew about the role of media control by the MIC …but, it would not surprise me that the writer of that novel stole that line from some… not so well known… liberal protesters of that time.

      Back then some liberals knew the president…. some even wrote the kennedys; because, they knew them personally, and would no doubt have conversations like what was said between Higgins and Redford.

  • tagalog

    I doubt that news reporters, on average, give much thought to whether or not what they're reporting is the truth. To the extent that they're any good, they're concerned with getting corroboration of the stories they tell, but I think the extent to which they're interested about the truth is the extent to which they want to get an unusual take on any particular story, so that they can be perceived as having a fresh approach to the news. In short, I think the interest of most news reporters is in being seen as fresh and new.

    There are some accepted principles of conventional wisdom that news reporters follow slavishly. Some years ago, I noticed a blatant example of this when a hurricane destroyed some homes in a neighborhood. When the news reporter asked a woman whether she was scared or not, the woman reported that she was not so frightened of the hurricane, but she and her neighbors were frightened of some looters, but the husbands had organized into a neighborhood watch and patrolled with their guns – at that point, the news reporter announced, "And now back to you, Mr. Anchor." That was the end of guns on the news on that show.

    • kender

      I think collaboration is a better word when discussing the libmedia

  • kender

    The truth is that there is no truth makes the truth a lie, for without a truth one cannot say there is a truth.

    Great article.

    • Maxie

      It's postmodernist lore, derivative of Nietsche, that asserts that "God is dead" which renders biblical morality (truth) null and void. So truth is whatever the totalitarian Left says it is to meet its ever-shifting political needs. So we have 'situational ethics', 'moral relativism' and other ambiguities useful in the deconstruction of our Judeo-Christian, capitalistic ethos. This births the shameless double standard used so effectively by the Marxists in our midst. http://maxentropy.squarespace.com

  • Ghostwriter

    Here what I think,both Hasan and Breivik are monsters and deserve to be seen like that. That's my standard.

  • steven l

    Reflexive complex of superiority from "liberals" who fail to face the issue with honesty. Political correctness (use of what they consider as a reason-based argument) more vital than "TRUTH" even if it is unknown. They want to impose a post-theistic world while they can't answer many fundamental questions. Reason has limits they refuse to admit.
    What about accepting that no one knows? But do not hurt others.

  • Goebbels

    Was there an actual source for the Barbra Walters quote? It does not seem to exist outside of this article. Its almost like it was made it up to deliberately mislead. I did find a FOX article where Bill Reilly who knew him and Barbra Walter sit around and say nice things about what a great person he was, but that's about it. Any url with that quote preferably with a date and location and source (standard journalism 101)would be appreciated. Thanks!

  • Bamaguje

    Thank God for the internet and the alternate views it provides, otherwise we might all be clueless as to the real truth, if we relied on the professional liars who aver that "there’s no such thing as truth."

    • Goebbels

      Not so sure you are any more clued into the truth because of the internet per se. As I ask immediately above what is the source of this quote of one celebrity reporter saying something about "the truth" and a peer? So far there is none. It may exist or the author may have misremembered it or picked it up from a fabricated source or made it up. Just because its an alternate source does not say anything about its credibility or objectivity.

  • seashell55

    Goebbels is right that the quote attributed to Barbara Walters does not seem to exist. Anywhere. In addition to the O'Reilly transcript, Larry King had Walters on his CNN show the night after Jennings died. There is nothing in the transcript that remotely resembles this truth quote. So yeah, a link, a url, a clue or something along those lines is needed.

  • seashell55

    Mr. Sayet must of had a bad day yesterday when writing this fable. It turns out the claim that the NYT did not mention his MUSLIM religion is not quite accurate, either. About half way down, the article states that much about the shooting was unclear. A little further down comes this:

    Military records indicated that Major Hasan was single, had been born in Virginia, had never served abroad and listed “no religious preference” on his personnel records.

    Shortly after that comes this:

    The Muslim Public Affairs Council, speaking for many American Muslims, condemned the shootings as a “heinous incident” and said, “We share the sentiment of our president.”

    The council added, “Our entire organization extends its heartfelt condolences to the families of those killed as well as those wounded and their loved ones.”

    So, the reasonable assumption here is that the NYT did not want to falsely report his religion, yet it included the statement from the Muslim Public Affairs Council without qualification.

    A different situation altogether from the situation in Norway where government authorities gave out the shooter's religious characteristics as confirmed shortly after the end of the event. To equate the reporting of the two events is false equivalence of the worst kind and not one that reputable journalists should make. Talk about confirmation bias, it's all right here in its glory. Good job making a point.

    Who wants to talk about the truth now?

    • RalphB

      You make a case that is plausible on the surface, seashell, but you neglect to explain why the Times did not think the shouts of "Allahu Akbar" were relevant to discerning Hasan's motivation.

      Perhaps you are suffering from a bit of confirmation bias yourself?

      • seashell55

        Perhaps you are suffering from a bit of confirmation bias yourself?

        Perhaps I am, but I'm the one doing all the work here on what's true and what's not. As far as I can tell (after some quick Googling), the AP was the first media org to report on the shouts on Friday, the day after the shooting.

        The announcement was made by Fort Hood's Lt. Gen. Robert Cone. At that time, Lt. Crone would only say that the reports were unconfirmed. Soon after Lt. Crone broke the news, the story of the shouts was covered by all the media outlets, including the NYT.

        So actually, I don't think any possible confirmation bias on my part had anything to do with the failure of the NYT to include the shouts in their Thursday reporting. Even Fox didn't have the story till Friday. But apparently their failure to report the shouts on Thursday was not noticed by anyone here?

        • RalphB

          > AP was the first media org to report on the shouts on Friday, the day after the shooting.

          My mistake, but I do find it surprising that the Times knew this: "Military records indicated that Major Hasan was single, had been born in Virginia, had never served abroad and listed 'no religious preference' on his personnel records" and yet did not know what multiple witnesses knew immediately after the attack. Then again it is also clear that Obama, the Army, and the FBI were falling all over themselves to persuade us that there was no evidence this was a terrorist attack, so why should the Times, a mere newspaper, question authority?

          It's also interesting to note just how much the Times knew about Hasan's Muslim connections later on October 5th (despite their report of his "no religious preference"): the Times website reported "other soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim," "He was mortified by the idea of having to deploy," "a man calling himself Nidal Hasan . . . discussed suicide bombings favorably," a man named Nidal Hasan wrote , "If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory," that Hasan worshipped at a Silver Spring, Md. mosque for ten years and and "was very serious about his religion" and wanted to marry a woman who was equally religious and wore a hijab.

          All this was known October 5 and printed the next day: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/us/06suspect.ht

          Yet did the times manage to connect the dots? The article is titled "Suspect Was ‘Mortified’ About Deployment." On the 7th they did a story, "Painful Stories Take a Toll on Military Therapists," pushing the "vicarious PTSD" meme. Do you know if the Times ever did manage to connect the dots?