Free Markets, Free People

Journalism – kingdom of fools

I’m sure you’ve been at least keeping tabs on the drama in Sidney, Australia (now thankfully concluded).  When you watch some of what passes for reporting these days, you sometimes get an indication of how poor the journalism of today is:

Despite the Sydney, Australia hostage-taker displaying a flag reading in Arabic, ”There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God,” despite his being a self-proclaimed sheikh and despite his demand that police give him an ISIS flag, MSNBC “The Rundown” host José Diaz-Balart wondered if Iranian-born Man Haron Monis is motivated by Islam at all. (VIDEO: NBC Journo: Islamic Lone Wolf Terrorism ‘Not A Religious Issue’)

“Could very well be he’s hiding behind the flag of Islam to just deal with his own criminal past,” Diaz-Balart said. “It may have very little to do with it. It’s still too early to tell.”

Yet, when it comes to lynch mobs on little other than here-say evidence, we get the full narrative treatment – take the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, or better yet, Ferguson.  In both cases, the media played judge, jury and lynch mob with hysteria driven reports that had no real basis in fact.   In fact, precisely what all the talking heads and other experts claimed came to be absolutely false.

Meanwhile, Islam gets the benefit of the doubt even when it appears that perpetrator in this case had a history of religious fueled violence.  Like the shootings at Ft. Hood were a simple matter of “workplace violence”, this is just some guy using Islam as front to hide his “criminal past”.

The simple question I wish someone would put to the reporter is “why?”  If he’s simply a criminal, why would he care about his past?

Oh, I know – too early to tell.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

20 Responses to Journalism – kingdom of fools

  • He should have tried this place instead:

  • Anything that comports with leftist narrative, no matter how fuzzy or weakly supported = “facts beyond dispute”

    Anything that contradicts the leftist narrative, no matter how clear and obvious = “too early to tell”

    Most frustrating of all: when you point this out to them, they look at you like you’re the one who’s crazy.

    • You’re under the misguided impression that truth is from the bottom up. Facts being the foundation and a conclusion coming last at the top.

      Truth is from the top down. Our conclusion is the only reality against which the facts that we will acknowledge will be judged.

      Unfortunately the only way to see through the wall of BS sometimes is to let yourself do the same at least temporarily. If you approach it purely altruistically you will eventually get sucked into the group think and drink the cool-aid to some extent. Or at a minimum by the time you ferret some truth out of the ‘facts’ they’ve approved, they’ve done their damage and moved on.

  • I tried to find it, and I think it was something Ed Driscoll quoted, but the gist was that Soviet propaganda had as only an ancillary purpose to tell a lie. The REAL purpose was to sell a lie that was so facially implausible and false that, when you had to buy into it, you were humiliated and debased. The purpose was to break you, and separate you from your connection to reality. Because embracing reality takes courage and effort.

    Just like relating the truth about Ferguson or Garner means you HAVE to be ready to be vilified. Just like saying, “Wul, dur…” when someone has to wonder about the motives of Major Hassan.

  • The simple question I wish someone would put to the reporter is “why?” If he’s simply a criminal, why would he care about his past?

    >>> I wish some of these “reporters” would get caught in this situation to find out first hand instead of innocent people.

  • Oh oh oh, when will the coffee/chocolate shop work place violence end?

    Clearly this man was an white islamic…oh wait…..
    can’t say that…



    • All the copies were surreptitiously confiscated. They need to add the latest modifications to appease fanatical feminists.

      In particular, “rape” had to be redefined to “anything men do that women don’t like”. This was a two-step process. First “sexual assault” was defined out of whole cloth to mean “anything men do that women don’t like, or even something they initially like but decide they don’t like at an arbitrary time afterwards”. Then “sexual assault” was conflated with “rape” to eliminate any difference between those terms. Voila.

      They are currently in the process of attempting a further redefinition so that even if they make up the accusations from scratch, it’s still rape – it just morphs into some kind of generic, gender-wide rape.

      A person in touch with reality would see that this is the same sort of nonsense we’ve seen for decades, in which a woman dreams that her man was unfaithful to her, and then holds him responsible for her own dream.

      • “In particular, “rape” had to be redefined to “anything men do that women don’t like”.”

        That’s only the temporary definition. Soon it will be “Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.” Some of those womyn won’t be happy until radical circumcision is mandatory for all males, of whatever gender.

        • Yes, I read that when it came out. That woman is clinical.

          What radical feminists, including the current crop of campus fabulists, don’t understand is this: men don’t treat them badly because they’re a woman. Men treat them badly because they’re repugnant bitches.

          Unfortunately, their solution to their own problem is to try and turn all women into repugnant bitches. Don’t think that’s gonna work. Evolutionary biology is not on their side.

          • You two! Stop trying to take control of her reproductive powers!

            Like she’s going to get some reproductive use of them without intercourse….oh right…because paleolithic bio labs and in vitro fertilizations!

            Day-um….I didn’t know the Virgin Mary had a blog site up and running!

      • Looking over my update log I see I installed the “rape rape” version, the “workplace violence” version,, the “white hispanic” version, the “all guns = machine guns” version and the base “men are pigs” & “Islam = peace” versions.

        but I admit I had auto update turned off before they released the “white privilege” and “unarmed teenager” versions, so I guess I understand my crime.

        • I see the problem. You need the “blacks /=racist” and “women/=sexist” patches. Though if you’re running on a stable OS, be prepared to encounter serious logic errors.

  • If you can stop lone wolf attacks the authorities would like to here from you since there are at least 10,000,000 potential people in this country and they can get assault rifles!

    • You sound deranged. Here’s an idea – a more armed citizenry = fewer victims. Read the following (it’s long but well worth it). Then we can discuss “assault rifles”.

    • Not supposed to happen if they’re out on bail for rape, or indicted as accessories in killing their wives (as this guy was….)

      Aussies have a much tighter control on weapons than we do there Cap, and the peace loving Islamic dude in question used a shot gun, not an ‘assault rifle’ (whatever you might think those two words mean).

      The police are always about 10 minutes away from coming, putting a chalk outline around you, and notifying your next of kin.
      You follow whatever plan makes you happy, I’ll look out for me and mine.

    • That would certainly be uncomfortable for the 10,000,000 potential mothers. A bit more sporting, though, when the potential people are armed.

    • The “Lone Wolf” looks for defenseless sheep to slaughter, not the Mama and Papa Grizzlies.

      Now, they are something of a problem, but the KNOWN Wolf is our real dilemma. The guy in Australia, Major Hassan, the monsters of Rothingham were ALL KNOWN Wolves, and the pathology of PC bullshit prevented rationally dealing with them.

  • Amazing how this never happens in “Bitter Clinger” country, as Obama calls it, outside of gun-free zones…

    • Amazing how a common factor continues to be the religion of peace.

      I’m coming to the conclusion that the ‘rogues’ here aren’t the people committing these acts, the rogues are followers of Islam who don’t personally do these things, don’t celebrate these things, and don’t silently condone these things.