Terrorists
I'm sure you heard about that terrorist attack in Yemen. Terrorists blew up 2 car bombs near the main gate of the US Embassy in Yemen. They didn't breech the compound. They didn't murder any Americans.
I checked the BBC article about it looking for some of the legacy media's positive buzzwords about our enemy. Something like "Highly-coordinated" or "Sophisticated". Never mind that they killed themselves in failure.
Well, the BBC didn't disappoint.
Ah yes. They sure are enamored with that word.
You can almost set your watch to it. I think I can make their article more accurate.
There. I fixed it.
At any rate. Do you remember back when you were in college or high school, and you had to take a writing class? There are 2 highly loaded words that you shouldn't use. Those words are "Blame", and "Admit". One doesn't admit to eating dinner. One admits to committing a crime. It implies something shameful or wrong that you had previously denied, and now you've been forced to admit. Look at these two sentences.
Billy said that he ate half a pizza.
and
Billy admitted that he ate half a pizza.
Oh the difference word choice makes.
The way these people use the word is asinine, and I can see right through it. You can see right through it too.
It would be reasonable to say that John Edwards admitted to adultery.
Journalists really shouldn't use that word unless they are talking about some grave..... You know what? It's been abused so darn much, that journalists just flat out shouldn't use that word anymore. I've revoked that word for them.
Another word I don't like...is "Blame".
It implies that someone is innocent, as though some villain hauled off and "blamed" them. The weight that word carries means that the person doing the "blaming" is likely the one who actually committed this thing. It's an underhanded way of shifting focus from the actual crime/sin, to the person shedding light on it.
Now bear in mind, that it is possible for someone to be wrongly blamed. It's simply that journalists know full well how much impact and force that world carries, yet they fling it around willy-nilly. I've revoked that word for them too. They should have learned to stay away from those words in their first year Journalism class.
Oh, and I also noticed how they cutely put quotes on War on Terror. And I also noticed how they refuse to use the T-word. Always militants, or bombers, or resistance fighters. But the thought of using the T-word gives them vapors.
Ok. Enough of the lecture. Check out the BBC article and watch for our keywords.
I checked the BBC article about it looking for some of the legacy media's positive buzzwords about our enemy. Something like "Highly-coordinated" or "Sophisticated". Never mind that they killed themselves in failure.
Well, the BBC didn't disappoint.
Ah yes. They sure are enamored with that word.
You can almost set your watch to it. I think I can make their article more accurate.
There. I fixed it.
At any rate. Do you remember back when you were in college or high school, and you had to take a writing class? There are 2 highly loaded words that you shouldn't use. Those words are "Blame", and "Admit". One doesn't admit to eating dinner. One admits to committing a crime. It implies something shameful or wrong that you had previously denied, and now you've been forced to admit. Look at these two sentences.
Billy said that he ate half a pizza.
and
Billy admitted that he ate half a pizza.
Oh the difference word choice makes.
The way these people use the word is asinine, and I can see right through it. You can see right through it too.
It would be reasonable to say that John Edwards admitted to adultery.
Journalists really shouldn't use that word unless they are talking about some grave..... You know what? It's been abused so darn much, that journalists just flat out shouldn't use that word anymore. I've revoked that word for them.
Another word I don't like...is "Blame".
It implies that someone is innocent, as though some villain hauled off and "blamed" them. The weight that word carries means that the person doing the "blaming" is likely the one who actually committed this thing. It's an underhanded way of shifting focus from the actual crime/sin, to the person shedding light on it.
Now bear in mind, that it is possible for someone to be wrongly blamed. It's simply that journalists know full well how much impact and force that world carries, yet they fling it around willy-nilly. I've revoked that word for them too. They should have learned to stay away from those words in their first year Journalism class.
Oh, and I also noticed how they cutely put quotes on War on Terror. And I also noticed how they refuse to use the T-word. Always militants, or bombers, or resistance fighters. But the thought of using the T-word gives them vapors.
Ok. Enough of the lecture. Check out the BBC article and watch for our keywords.
posted by brando at 7:31 PM
2 Comments:
I'm ambivilent with regards to the phrase 'war on terror'. I think its a boat load of fertilizer.
How can you have a war on a method of waging war? Its like saying you will have a war on war itself.
Granted war is a broad term and terrorism is pretty specific, but its still not something I'd say you can have a 'war on'.
I think its semantics, and the phrase they really want to be able to use is 'war against militant Islam', but no one wants to admit to the Islamic angle.
If you want to talk about BBC bias, then how about an organisation (that employs hundreds of Muslims) refusing to examine the Islamic aspect of terrorist attacks carried out by groups with names like Islamic Jihad.
No doubt the BBC wishes to avoid any unpleasantness (or bloodshed?) but for a media organisation that prides itself onits journalistic integrity, any self imposed blind spot has to detract from that integrity.
Update:
U.S. officials have verified reports from the family of Susan Elbaneh that the 18-year-old from Lackawanna, N.Y., was outside the embassy with her husband apparently waiting to complete paperwork, according to her brother.
Post a Comment
<< Home