Here's an example of the coverup
Thanks for Telling Us
By Cori Dauber
It is not until the 17th paragraph (which is on the second computer screen, if you're reading online)of the Times piecethat you find confirmation that yesterday's raid in Toronto had something to do with Muslims or al Queda-oriented ideology. The 5th and 6th paragraphs do say:
The 17 men were mainly of South Asian descent and most were in their teens or early 20's. One of the men was 30 years old and the oldest was 43 years old, police officials said. None of them had any known affiliation withAl Qaeda.
"They represent the broad strata of our society," Mr. McDonell said. "Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed."
But that's not really what we call "showering the reader with details."
Unlike the earlier example from Reuter's, this doesn't ignore critical contextualizing information.
It just shoves it so far to the bottom of the article virtually no one would ever see it. (Michelle Malkin, by the way, is less than charmed by that "broad strata" phrase in any event.)
You may know, by the way, that there are different editions of the Sunday Times published: the one the comes out in the southeast is published very early. I presume any paper that got this bylined Times piece had it as a frontpage story. But the paper I'm looking at came out in time for the Reuters' story to be in the paper -- and it's on page 16, cut to 6 paragraphs below the fold.
Oh yeah, they were taking that story seriously.
Update: Man,even the CBC is pretty up front about what this is about, if in a not especially informative manner.
By the way, I did hear one of the news updates yesterday -- and I should have written down which network this was on, because now I can't remember which of the three it was -- pronounce that the arrests were made "in Toronto, near Ontario."
And we wonder why Canadians will mock us on occasion.
rantingprofs.com |
