Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tekboy who wrote (22400)	3/28/2002 1:05:12 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

that strikes me as a bit overstated. I mean, c'mon, try writing headlines that are catchy, informative, and unbiased yourself--it's nearly impossible, so I'd cut some slack on this particular example. Since different kinds of incidents were being discussed, there's no way to have summarized that day's stories succinctly without avoiding mentioning who did the killings; the best I could come up with is "5 killed in Mideast Strife"... I don't think it is overstated, tekboy, inasmuch as the coverage has worked steadily to blur the outlines of terrorist attacks and counter-terrorist reprisals into one big "cycle of violence". One need not ascribe the motives to malice. But the "diplomatic mindset" is very much in evidence -- NY Times coverage is an exemplar -- plus general laziness and herd instinct. (The Times and CNN do it, so I'm safe...). Most of all, "Day of Violence Kills 5" coverage saves the reporter from the hard work of having to figure out what actually happened and who shot who first. Reporting all sides' statements verbatim without tracking their credibility also saves the reporter from being accused making judgements. The overall effect, of throwing a veil of legitimacy over pure terrorist campaigns whose spokesmen spout one perfectly implausible lie after another, may not be intended, but it exists nonetheless.