Another example of this MSM non-reporting was just exposed by the NY Daily News. It seems that the Empire State Building attack in 1997 was terrorism, according to the suicide attackers' wife. She says now that she was told to deny his terrorist motive afterward by the Palestinian Authority, so that the "peace process" would not be threatened (2 BobG).
Now there's the cab driver, who got into an argument with his passengers "over religion," and ended up trying to run them over (3 Malkin). Could they have been arguing about Islam? Is this not terrorism based on fanatical Islamic faith? What sect(s) of Islam promote this hideous ideology?
The Wahabbis, and the Khomenists are the leading purveyors of this type of terrorism, though there are many smaller groups that are spreading the "kill Americans and Jews" line. The problem is that our media refuse to acknowledge that we are being attacked by Islamic terrorists on a different scale; a much smaller one than 9/11.
Does anyone remember the 1994 shooting of a Hebrew School mini-bus, on the Brooklyn bridge? I remember it NOT getting alot of MSM attention (4 NY Times). A school van with 4 Jewish kids was shot up by a terrorist, killing Ari Halberstam. I know Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) remembers this. He said so in a press release letter he wrote to the FBI on Jul. 23, '02.
If you didn't read the link, Rep. Weiner urges the FBI to investigate the El Al shooting at LAX as a terrorist attck. Yes, this was another attack against innocent civillians on U.S. soil. He reminds them not to make the same mistakes they made in 1994, initially calling the B'klyn bridge attack "road rage."
Here's an excerpt from the PBS Newshour on the EL AL shooting (5 PBS.org):
In a press conference, Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn said there was no
indication that the shooting was connected to terrorism and that it appeared to
be an isolated incident.
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said Thursday that Israel would help
the U.S. find those responsible for what Israeli officials were quick to call a
"terrorist attack."
There is more: The college kid who ran down a bunch of students; the Jihaddist-influenced D.C. snipers, and many others. There are US citizens that hate this country as much as our worst enemies, and they are working with them, in many areas. The AP is a great example. These idiots pick up press reports that are packaged by Al Queda, Hamas, or other terrorist groups on an almost daily basis (6 Bookworm).
How does that contrast with their lacking complete coverage of domestic Islamic terrorism? Someone, or group of people is behind the "soft-pedaling" of the terrorist intentions behind these "small" attacks by "lone wolf" individuals in the MSM, and the federal government. It could be as simple as the fact that they don't want to be called "Islamophobic."
When will the MSM wake up? After the people do. The good news is that more are waking up, and not watching or reading the liberal MSM these days. Terrorists are called terrorists in the new media, because some media voice had to say it. It's the truth.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 19
Thanks for commenting, Don. Great to hear from you.
PS - the reason circulation is increasing at the straight talking papers and viewership is increasing at Fox and on shows like Glenn Beck is because we conservatives are too stupid to think for ourselves so we watch to learn the talking points. And besides, the MSM is all conservative, per Gatherites, which is perfectly corroborated by Olbermann's new commentator duties on NBC news.
I suspect his commentator duties came about from President Fords death. It seems Keith played his cards right and really studied up on Ford. When he died, Keith was ready to go, and I must admit that I was impressed. He's not a stupid guy, but his constant pot shots at Fox are so unprofessional. I just don't see how anyone can take him seriously.
Listen - I only catch a few minutes of radio a day... I tune to NPR and the talkies. Anyways, I caught a minute of Rush today and he calls MSNBC "PMSNBC". I nearly choked. Sometimes he comes up with some good lines.
You forgot, it's Clinton's fault!
Christopher,
I've pointed out several times that talk radio is just that, talk. It is not news, it is not education and it is not politics, it is entertainment! Those who host have found a ready audience in the ultra right wing fringe and have assembled a choir to which they sing. The hosts, all of them that I've heard, are very good at the entertainment thing which gives them someone to whom they can hawk their wares such as books or gold and sell advertising to pay for the show.
I can't knock these guys as they are making a good living in the process. But if one uses them as the source for their current events information it would be like reading a newspaper for current events and never seeing anything except the comics!
There is no unbiased news. None! Nada! Zilch! You've got to get your information from many sources with some being liberal and some being conservative, if you're seeking the truth. Then find the balance that your judgment holds to be reasonable!
If you really want agreement with your opinions instead of truth, then by all means seek out the media which agrees with you and ignore all others. Just don't kid yourself into thinking you're getting the full picture.
I do seek my news from both sides of the spectrum. It just gets confusing sometimes to figure out how much bias to account for in reconciling the stories because sometimes they get it right.
The fact that major news sources don't report violent crimes by Muslims as possible terrorism is a real problem. National defense depends on an informed public, and millions of our citizens are ill informed about the threat of domestic terrorism. I believe that both the major media and the federal government are not interested in informing the public about what is really happening for different reasons.
I don't believe there is a media conspiracy, but I do believe that the media is in denial about the continuing threat of Islamic terrorists, because if they recognize the threat, they have to deal with the response. The major media are in denial because they do not want to discuss what we have to do to defend ourselves against terrorism. They would rather discuss those in the Congress who bemoan our the expenditures for defense and our "rights" that are being affected by an alleged war on terror.
The government's role (this is a bipartisan comment) is more sinister. The government is interested to convincing us that they have the threat of domestic terrorism contained so that we won't demand action to really defend the homeland. Why? Because the defense would require action by the government that might be politically unpopular (provide real security at airports like the Israelis)and offend campaign donors (seal th borders). The government's attitude is" to hell with the citizens that will be killed in the next attack".
Both the major media and the government will be "tried and found wanting" after the next terrorist attack on a US city, but that will be too late for those of us that die in that attack.
I agree! I listen to them a lot when I'm in the car as there is little else available. When they come up with something interesting or new I check it out from other sources and usually find there is a lot more to the story. But I do find them entertaining and once in a while the'll get something I've not heard elsewhere!
My son is in Iraq!!! Let's do the job completely or let the liberals get us out of there without splitting our country into confetti
James, I think that was your first comment here, so I guess you mean elsewhere. Talk radio and is often all three of the things you say it is not. I must point out to you that this article is about the liberal MSM's lack of reporting the full story, as well as the fact that the "entertainment" programming can be more informative, and less slanted. The internet, and even blogs, can and do publish more information on some stories, as well as stories that many liberal MSM outlets, like NBC or CNN won't even cover.
Still, thanks for the comments, and thanks to everyone else who "gets it."
It's true that they will occasionally have good information. But if they loose their entertainment value they will be out of business. We don't get Air America here or any of the liberal talk people so all we hear is the one sided opinion. Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Medved, Levine and Laura Ingraham are all admittedly right wing commentators and they are what we get here. You need to balance that with a little extreme left if you want balance and that would be Air America, their left wing counterpoint. I'm not saying that I agree with Air America's extremists either, but that would be balance!
I don't get much CNN but NBC is clearly a right wing organization as they are another big business, but they are somewhere closer to the middle of the road and that makes extremest right wingers class them as "liberal."
Your right, I did mean elsewhere. And sorry about duplicating!
Truthfully, most of these espouse ideas which are definitely not "conservative" but are part of the current administration's talking plan. Goldwater would be mortified to see what is calling itself "conservative" these days!
I appreciate your comments Christopher!