In her latest Times op-ed entitled "Lost in Space" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/opinion/dowd-lost-in-space.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd would have us know with regard to media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings:
"The best reporting in Boston last week was not in cyberspace. It was in the two great daily newspapers that were on the scene, The Boston Globe and The Times."
Well, I don't read The Boston Globe, but with respect to The Times, did we indeed witness such "marvelous" coverage, as Dowd would have us believe? First, Fearless Leader and his media disciples couldn't decide whether the bombings constituted a "terror" attack until the following day. Hmm, three dead and more than 200 wounded from bombs constructed from pressure cookers packed with BBs, nails and pellets, yet no one had the guts to say explicitly that this was an "act of terrorism" or to question the president's timorousness.
When the perpetrators were caught, we learned that they were Chechans, but efforts were taken to avoid mentioning that they were radical Muslims, and needless to say, insipid questions concerning their possible "motives" made for the next series of headlines.
Discussion by the op-ed columnists of The Times? An embarrassment.
There was Thomas Friedman's saccharine opinion piece entitled "Bring on the Next Marathon" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/thomas-freidman-bring-on-next-marathon.html), in which he didn't bother to ask who actually perpetrated this horror.
And then there was Charles Blow's inane opinion piece entitled "The Mind of a Terror Suspect" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/charles-blow-mind-of-terror-suspect.html), in which he provided us with tweets written by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and explained to us that the whole matter was "complicated."
Okay, Jeffrey, you're one heck of an arrogant smart-ass. Could you have done any better? In fact, I tried my best.
On Monday, April 15, one day after the Boston Marathon, I wrote (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/david-brooks-what-youll-do-next-data.html):
"Two bombs have killed at least three people at the Boston Marathon. A small part of my life has been devoted to the war against terror, and I again recoil at this latest travesty, but I am confident that those responsible will be swiftly identified. Voluminous quantities of physical evidence will be collected, videos from every angle will be reviewed, and the data will be sifted. The murderers have left a trail and will not get away.
And in case you were wondering, Mr. President, this was a terror attack, and you need not hesitate to label it as such. In this instance, there is no cause for political correctness or ambiguity."
On Tuesday, April 16, two days after the bombings, I wrote (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/maureen-dowd-cias-angry-birds-after.html):
"Well, allow me once again to be politically incorrect and 'theorize' . . . that this horror was the work of radical Islamists. I know: the design of the device is available on the Internet, and there is no way of being 100% sure, but in this instance do we really wish to play parlor games in an effort not to offend anyone?"
And on Saturday, April 20, I wrote (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/maureen-dowd-no-bully-in-pulpit.html):
"'Radical Islamic terror'? You don't see these words in the headlines of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Rather, you see idle talk about discovering the motive for this latest travesty. The motive? It's as clear as day: radical Islamists hate the U.S. and will do all they can to destroy America's infrastructure, culture and way of life. You don't believe me? Type the words 'Islam death to America' into Google, and spend the rest of the day educating yourself. Travel from Iran to Egypt, to Yemen, to Indonesia.
Radical Islam opposes women's rights. It opposes gay rights. It opposes religious freedom. It opposes freedom of speech.
It's time to wake up."
The "best reporting" came from The New York Times? The coverage that I saw, particularly from their op-ed staff, amounted to efforts to obfuscate and paper over their posteriors.
No comments:
Post a Comment