YET ANOTHER REASON NOT TO TRUST THE NEW YORK TIMES (by Michelle Malkin)

michellemalkin.com ^ | 9/4/04 | Michelle Malkin

[dinok]

Take a look at how this front-page New York Times article describes the perpetrators of the siege in Beslan. Notice anything? The killers are called "guerrillas" and "fighters" and "armed captors" but not "terrorists." At one point the article grudgingly refers to these savage murderers as "people that Mr. Putin calls terrorists." In more than 1,750 words, the article includes not one reference to the religion of the Muslim perpetrators. Not one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/04/international/europe/04russia.html?pagewanted=print&position=

[dinok]

"She's yet another conservative woman who is brave and has a brilliant way with words."

Michelle can discuss the immigration and profiling issue in a way that white American borns can not. I can to a point as an immigrant, but I'm from Greece and male. The effect is not the same. Not to mention is alot better looking. For a woman.

[woodyinscc]

What I wanna know is when will the masses stop subscribing to the NY Times? It has become complete yellow sheet propaganda!

Out here in Calif. we put a big dent in the LA Times when they were so openly biased against Arnold in his run for Gov. I even talked my Aunt into cancelling her subscription after 50 years.

[nuconvert]

What's absurd, is that the media think they are doing something PC so as not to offend the vast majority of law abiding muslims in the world. In reality, they are increasing negative images and hostilities toward muslims. By NOT differentiating and labelling these terrorists as such, they give the impression that all muslims are radical, militant murderers.

[Randjuke]

here ya go

[boycottliberalhollywood.com]

I hope all red the Ralph Peters editorial that minces no words in the NY Post: When the Killers Come for the Kids.

The New York Post is the only decent newspaper I've found. I subscribe to the Sunday edition, and I live in Alaska!

It is truly amazing to see the people of NYC, who saw the smoldering ruins of the WTC with their own eyes, and buried their own loved ones; it amazes me to see them suck up to the Religion of Peace, and believe the hallucenogenic lie that the government somehow knew about what would happen.

Fools.

[blackie]

I second the motion!

[muawiyah]

Is it possible that the New York Times actually sponsored the terrorist attack in Russia?

You just know some of their editors are the kind of folks who'd love to shoot some young children in the back.

[Political Junkie Too]

This is just like with the Bali mall bombing. The story got wide international coverage, but got practically none in the USA because it would have supported President Bush's position.

-PJ

[Jim_Curtis]

I'm surprised they didn't call them "ethnic freedom fighters".

[Fire137]

They know if the word terrorists was used it = Bush Help. Simple as that.

[cloud8]

"George H.W. Bush stated that he would not read it (The NY Times) anymore."

LOL

I'd cancel my subscription to it, if I hadn't forbidden that rag to be brought into the house more than ten years ago!

[grey_whiskers]

You wrote:

"Is it possible that the New York Times actually sponsored the terrorist attack in Russia?
You just know some of their editors are the kind of folks who'd love to shoot some young children in the back."

[Anti-DU lurker torpedo ARMED. FIRE!]
Yeah, I believe it's the next step after 'partial birth
abortion'. It's called 'retroactive abortion'.

See also Pete Singer of Princeton (who wants legal
infanticide up to a month, and--I've heard--advocates sex with dogs).

[Revolting cat!]

I wuz just talkin'about it. The Revoilting pardner said the cat shouldn't get so worked up about it. But I started reading two stories in the local rag, one from the Slimes and the other from the Pravda on the Potomac, and I couldn't get past 2 paragraphs in either one before giving up. The Pravda calls them "armed Islamic guerilles", the Slimes "armed militants". My thinking? If I can't trust these characterizations how can I trust anything else in the sentence, in the paragraph, in the story? So the cat chooses to remain uninformed (don't trust the pitchers either, which are chosen and manipulated even more.)

I have a sense that most here would be satisfied if that one word were substituted with "terrorists" or whatever, but let me stress, if you can't trust that key characterization, knowing it is politically motivated, how can you trust anything else in the story? Anything?

[pipecorp]

Let's not forget the ever popular "Insurgents" also.

[mountaineer]

It's not just the NY Times, it's the Associated Press, Reuters and most other wire services that call Islamofascist terrorists "militants" or something even more innocuous. The blogger at LittleGreenFootballs complains about it all the time.

[pointsal]

Is it time to tell the muslim/moslem folks this tent ain't big enough to cover their sorry likes.......

[speedy]

Okay. It is now an established precedent. The Coulter Rule is now the Coulter/Malkin rule. The people have spoken.

[Stellar Dendrite]

"Terrorist" is the word they use to mean "Republican". Unless, of course they are using "Hitler-like", "hate-filled" or "extremist". With words like those in use to demonize people they disagree with there just isn't any adjectives left to describe people who actually are hate-filled extremist terrorists."

This explains it: "Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic .... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind." --Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee 1943

[Cooltouch]

I've noticed something similar. If we're "lucky" we hear the islamofascists being referred to as terrorists. More often than not, they are "insurgents" or "militants" or some such nonsense. I forget who it was I was listening to the other day (talk radio), but the fellow pointed out that "terrorism" is a vehicle. A "terrorist" is one who uses the vehicle of terrorism. But it in no way describes what that person's motives are. What, how dare we impugn a person for his motives? Well, I will.

We should recognise that islamofascists use terrorism as a vehicle to achieve their sick goals. They are still islamofascists, and should be referred to as such. ALWAYS.

Note that I DO NOT capitalize the "I" in islamofascists. They do not deserve the respect that capitalism implies.

[johnny7]

Never terrorists... militants, guerrilla's and finally freedom-fighters!

Once their smart enough to give political titles to their head vermin they will be viewed by the NYTimes as Islamic Nationalist Revolutionaries!