The media tells us who they fear

Posted: January 12, 2011 in culture, media
Tags: , , , , ,

One of Rush Limbaugh’s favorite lines about the media and the democrats is they will tell you who they fear by their reactions.

One of the reason’s why the media has no problem “calling out” the Tea Party without evidence and why they have no problem going after the Catholic Church is not only do they disagree with their positions, but they understand and no they actually have no physical reason to fear them.

At No Paesran via Glenn we see the difference between reporting on people you fear vs people you don’t. First the shooting in Arizona and the Conservatives in Le Monde:

The shooting in which a Democrat was seriously wounded in Arizona has appalled the American Left, which denounces the “poisoned rhetoric” of the ultraconservatives…

He continues illustrating the comparative nonsense within the paper itself and their willingness to post blames, Yet not two weeks after the attack in Alexandra against Coptic Christians that was international news (prompting a rare positive reaction) we have this story out of Egypt:

An off-duty policeman has opened fire on a train in Egypt, killing a Christian man, but it is unclear whether the attack was sectarian.

At least another five people were reported to have been injured in the shooting on a train between Assiut and Cairo.

Officials said at least four of those hurt were Coptic Christians.

That’s just the fact but note how the story ends:

The BBC’s Jon Leyne reports from Cairo that it is difficult to see how the gunmen would have known he could target Christians by boarding the train.

Here you have the media making it a point to say it’s hard to see a direct religious connection the lack of evidence to make a connection to radical Islam vs the Coptic.

Although he approves of that last statement No Paesran’s head spins:

It is unclear whether the attack was sectarian! We learn that “Officials said at least four of those hurt [there were five wounded altogether] were Coptic Christians” and we learn that “Witnesses said hundreds of Christians later clashed with police outside the hospital where the wounded were taken” and we are reminded that “Tensions between Muslims and Christians in Egypt have been high following a bomb attack on a Coptic church in Alexandria at the new year that killed 23 people.” But! It is unclear whether the attack was sectarian!

All of this speaks volumes. I think it’s not just bias, I think it is the knowledge that if the BBC suggests islamic violence they may have to deal with repercussions personally.

Restraint is easy when your skin is at stake.

Comments
  1. Oh.

    It’s so obvious now that you point it out.

    I’ve been wondering for about a year why the media so carefully tippy-toe around any suggestion that a Muslim who tries to shoot or blow up innocent people might be motivated by, gosh, the brand of Islam he’s getting from his neighborhood mosque.

    Now I get it. They know that these guys, unlike their imaginary “right-wing extremists,” actually exist and actually mean it and could cause them actual harm.

    And here I thought they were just being exquisitely sensitive/stupid about Islam.