from Mideast On Target email newsletter:
The New York Times: Denying Terrorism
By Yisrael Ne'eman
The first step in solving any problem or defeating any challenger lies in defining the issue at hand. The same exists for an adversary or an enemy bent on one's destruction. Over the years The New York Times has distinguished itself as the world's greatest beacon of liberal light through its sanctification of "balance" in reporting, especially when it comes to blatant Islamic terror activities. The Times, however, does not recognize terrorism for the horror it is.
Covering the elementary school hostage crisis and massacre in southern Russia The Times does its best not to be judgmental. In yesterday's leading article entitled, "Hostages Escape During Fighting Between Captors and Soldiers" the Chechen criminal perpetrators are referred to in either neutral terms as "captors", "fighters" or "attackers" or in the more positive aura of supposed freedom fighters when referred to as "guerillas". Only occasionally was the negative connotation "militant" used. CNN, during their ten-hour reporting, used similar terms in its studio but added the term "rebels" (whatever that means).
Approximately 1,200 innocent civilians comprised of mostly women and children were held hostage by more than 30 Chechen gunmen (and women) for three days and disallowed all food and drink despite the over 100 degree heat inside the school. The resulting gun battles, massacre and dynamiting of the school have left 330 dead, including 155 children. Showing revulsion and breaking with supposed journalistic objectivity, CNN reporters on the scene Friday began labeling the Chechens as "terrorists". Yesterday, their Moscow correspondent did the same with stunning consistency.
Following a horror filled week where two Russian aircraft were blown up in mid-air by Chechen suicide/homicide bombers and another exploded herself at the entrance to the Moscow metro, Chechen/Islamic terrorists decided on a Russian style 9/11 catastrophe. Yet The Times continues using innocuous terms to describe what are truly terror activities perpetrated against an unarmed civilian population unable to defend itself. Although reporting the facts, no terms of condemnation are used.
It is interesting to note that at least ten Arabs were among the terrorists, leading to strong suspicions of al-Qaeda involvement. But The Times insists on a solid neutrality, not allowing any prejudice to ruin their "even-handed" reporting.
The Times went further when criticizing Moscow's anti-terror efforts by stating, "Russian special forces have earned a reputation for rashness in hostage taking situations," a reference to the 129 civilians who died at the Moscow Theatre when the attempt to free them from Chechen terrorists two years ago was not fully successful. If there was unintentional criticism of the terrorists, the editors wanted to be sure they were covered and showed the Russian anti-terror forces to be just as murderous.
The Times deceives its readers by never using the word "terrorist" hence denying terrorism exists. In the absence of condemnation such behavior can be viewed as legitimate. By refusing to define the enemy as "brutal" and "barbaric" The Times encourages terrorism through its artificially "balanced" reporting, becoming an unwitting accomplice to the murder of future innocents. |
