how the fossil media wages war against the civilised world - the auroran sunset , abelards news and comment
site map Energy - beyond fossil fuelsLoud music and hearing damageWhat is memory, and intelligence? Incautious claims of IQ genes economics and money zone at abelard.org - government swindles and how to transfer money on the net   technology zone at abelard.org: how to survive and thrive on the web France zone at abelard.org - another France visit abelard's gallery
link to document abstracts link to short briefings documents link to news zone        news resources at abelard.org interesting site links at abelard's news and comment zone orientation at abelard's news and comment zone
back to abelard's front page

news & archives

how the fossil media wages war against the civilised world
- the auroran sunset

article archives at abelard's news and comment zone for other news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button to the left)
deconstruction 1 23 4 5 6 7 8
Custom Search

This is the sixth in a series of documents that analyse manipulative writing techniques used by reporters, and others, in order to promote their own political agendas.to article start

islamic authoritarianism

statistics

how the fossil media wages war against the civilised world - the auroran sunset

Over the weekend, Canadian police arrested 17 Islamists who had ordered sufficient fertiliser to make three times the bang McVeigh managed in Oklahoma City. They were apparently caught with a list of various parliament and security buildings. There were at least 18 related arrests [1] in various other countries, including Britain. The fossil media immediately set about shaping the story. Here is the New York Times ‘report’ for Sunday 4th of June 2006. On the 827 word first page, two words you won't find are “Islam” and “Muslim”. Nor will you find any variant that might give the game away.

Mention of “Al Qaeda” appears at the end of the 5th paragraph, when we are told that the arrests have nothing to do with that group.

The first terrorist is named in the article, coming in the 8th paragraph, was arrested seven years ago in America.

The 5th paragraph helpfully tells us that

“The 17 men were mainly of South Asian descent and most were in their teens or early 20's.”

The 6th paragraph tells us that

“"They represent the broad strata of our society," Mr. McDonell said. "Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed."”

Ah, now we know that they are normal everyday folk. Nothing to worry about.

For the few that manage to read through the 827 word first page, there is a second page, in which Islam and the Muslims do eventually appear.

...But first we must first read another denial of Al Qaeda involvement: that comes in the article’s 18th paragraph. Then the NYT mention “limited contact” with two Georgians in the 21st paragraph:

Those two were Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, 19, an American of Bangladeshi descent, and Syed Haris Ahmed, 21, a Pakistani-born American.

Still no Muslims. Still nothing to do with Islam. Then we come to the 22nd paragraph, after reading almost 1100 words. Our first mention of Islam.. It is in scare-quotes: “like-minded Islamic extremists”.

The elect few who reach the 25th paragraph (more than 1200 words read) are graced with the first mention of names for these arrested Muslims. Of course their being Muslims is not mentioned. We’ve read over 1200 words so far.. There has been one mention of Islamic extremists in scare-quotes and two claims that the arrests are nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

Continuing to the 27th paragraph, we find a mosque. Of course, that’s a good thing:

"The people that were arrested are good people. They go to the mosque. They go to school, go to college."

In the 31st paragraph we meet the obligatory “communications director of the Muslim Canadian Congress”. The oldest arrestee is described as “a well-known and fiery figure in the Toronto area’s South Asian community”. To you and me that is “tolerated hate-spewing fundie in the Toronto Muslim community”.

In the 32nd paragraph we are finally told about the preaching of hatred in the mosque. Of course this was “an otherwise peaceful mosque” that was taken over by this “well-known and fiery figure”. Now we need some balance after that attack on Muslim honour, so in the next paragraph we are reminded that the Muslims are the victims:

“Many Islamacists are preying on the Islamic community.”

In the 34th paragraph we see the first sensible thing in the whole article:

"Law enforcement agencies have done a great service to the Muslim community by busting this terrorist cell," he added.

That's the “communications director” mentioned above. As ever we need balance, so the next paragraph again - for the third time - tries to make out that this is nothing to do with Al Qaeda, despite what the government security director says:

Luc Portelance, the assistant director of operations at the Canadian intelligence agency, said the group's members "appear to have become adherents of a violent ideology inspired by Al Qaeda." The police official, however, said that there was no evidence of links between the two groups.

In the 37th paragraph we find out that Bin Laden designated Canada as a target in a 2002 tape. I’m not sure why we care when these arrests obviously have nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

There follows five more Islam/Muslim free paragraphs to round off the New York Time’s 1916 words exercise in damage-control on behalf of the enemies of the civilised world.

marker at abelard.org

Meanwhile, in another New York Times article on the same day... First paragraph:

The apparent cold-blooded killing last November of 24 Iraqi civilians by United States marines at Haditha will be hard to dispose of with another Washington damage control operation. The Iraqi government has made clear that it will not sit still for one, and neither should the American people. This affair cannot simply be dismissed as the spontaneous cruelty of a few bad men.

No such reluctance to name names when it comes to discussing a possible American screw-up, still under investigation.

  • We know immediately that the enemy are “United States marines” who are “apparent[ly] cold-blooded”.
     
  • We know that America is trying to cover it up, as they have done before, “with another Washington damage control operation”.. The New York Times are clearly just making up this part: those responsible for Abu Ghraib were investigated and sentenced to jail or hard-labour.

    But don’t worry, the readers won’t know or remember, especially when the helpful ‘reporters’ keep mentioning the made-up cover-ups. Nor will they notice that it is the New York Times that is in reality engaging in a “damage control operation” on behalf of the terrorists.
     
  • We know that this is not the work of a small minority that are unrepresentative of the peaceful and civilised community at large because this “cannot simply be dismissed as the spontaneous cruelty of a few bad men”.

I see no point in reading further. The dishonesty is as predictable as it is poisonous.

marker at abelard.org

We now move onto another fossil media “Times”. The Times of London did a ‘report’ on Haditha with a nicely balanced titled: “Massacre Marines blinded by hate”. It came with a gratuitous photograph of civilian Iraqis killed in Haditha with the caption “Victims in al-Haditha. The US is carrying out two inquiries (AP).”

The same photo, cropped slightly differently, had also been used six months before the alleged marine massacre was supposed to have taken place. The caption then was “Insurgents in Haditha executed 19 Shiite fishermen and National Guardsmen in a sports stadium.”

When the Times realised that they had been caught, the photo disappeared and a mealy-mouthed apology took it's place:

The image was in fact from a separate incident in the area in which Iraqi insurgents are believed to have massacred local fishermen.

Notice the words “insurgents are believed”, rather than say “Massacre Muslims blinded by hate”. Remember also that the regular readers will have read the Times article while it was on the front page and uncorrected. Most of the people reading it now will be those checking, having been pointed to the article by explanations like ours.

Michelle Malkin has the photo [both versions], screenshots from the un-corrected Times page, articles about the real incident, various letters to the Times and an impressively dishonest response from the US editor of the fossil Times of London.

The Times article was a clear, deliberate attempt to deceive the readers into believing that the gruesome scene was the result of pre-meditated actions by those execrable Americans. The London Times carried out the deception with words and a picture designed to enflame the emotions, designed to incite hatred of Americans.

These ‘reporters’ are not “against the war”, they are on the other side.

The fossil media are working consistently and diligently for the defeat of the civilised world. Defeat at the hands of the very same “insurgents” who consider it reasonable to round up 19 fishermen, tie their hands behind their back, murder them, then leave their bodies in a ditch for the vultures and conveniently available AP photographers.

For these “insurgents”, fossil media ‘reporters’ bend over backwards to cover, minimalise and misdirect. Even the Romans regarded as barbarians those who killed civilians, mutilated their dead, failed to dispose respectfully of battlefield corpses, or paraded enemy dead. Conveniently for the jihadis and the ‘reporters’ - adhering to these enemies, giving them aid and comfort [2] - the end justifies the means. Life becomes so much simpler when you decide to be amoral.

endnotes

1. This National Post article is also playing the same hide-the-Muslims game as the New York Times article reviewed above: 727 words before the first mention of Muslims in the National Post article.

2. The definition of treason given by the US Constitution, Article 3 Section 3, is:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.” [my emphasis]

And from Title 18 of the US (Legal) Code, Part 1, Chapter 115, Section 2381:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. [my emphasis]

related material
deconstructions at www.abelard.org

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/politics0606.php#on_the_other_side_060606

 


advertising
disclaimer

 

 


advertising
disclaimer


advertising
disclaimer

Google
 
Web abelard.org

email abelard at abelard.org

©6 june 2006 the auroran sunset, with additional words by abelard


all rights reserved

the address for this document is http://www.abelard.org/news/deconstruction6.php

4543 words (plus 6214 words of quoted text)
prints as 16 A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)

navigation bar ( eight equal segments) on 'voodoo economics by the 'independent'- the sky is falling said chicken licken: a deconstruction , abelards news and comment' page, linking to abstracts, mechanics of inflation,logic has made me hated among men,Abelard of Le Pallet - an introduction,feedback and crowding, orientation, multiple uses for this glittering entity, e-mail abelard short descriptions of documents on www.abelard.org the mechanics of inflation - abelard welcome to outer mongolia - how to get around this ger multiple uses for this glittering entity e-mail abelard at abelard@abelard.org t“Logic has made me hated among men”: Abelard of Le Pallet on theology-abelard Abelard of Le Pallet: Introduction - abelard feedback and crowding - abelard