winterbadger (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterbadger) wrote2010-05-04 01:37 pm
winterbadger) wrote2010-05-04 01:37 pm
(no subject)
this is the sort of article that IMO causes people to hate politics and to distrust the media
The thrust of this article seems to be to highlight "the politics of terrorism" and the "complicated -- and politically treacherous -- issues" President Obama's administration faces in reacting to last weekend's attempt to set off a bomb in NYC.
But the Post itself seems to be one one creating controversy out of thin air.
Of course, it immediately raises "the controversial issue of whether Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- the avowed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- should stand trial in a federal courtroom in Manhattan". Where is this controversial? Only in partisan political circles. Republicans were happy to have 9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui tried in federal court in Virginia, across the Potomac River form Washington DC and down the street from the Pentagon. They had no problem with Richard Reid being tried in Boston. They gladly held their national political convention (surely a prime terrorist target) in NYC (with all of the questionable law enforcement suppression of free speech that was involved in that). But all of a sudden it's an issue to have a criminal trial of a terrorist who attacked New York in NYC? So, partisan political statement #1.
The writer goes on to say "Shahzad is set to appear in federal court Tuesday, raising concerns about a circus-like scene that could fuel the arguments of critics who say a 9/11 trial would paralyze parts of the city for months." Who is raising those concerns? A quote? a citation? any third party who says this? no, just the reporter.
"And the notion that New York barely averted a massive fireball in the heart of Times Square could bolster those who fear that putting Mohammed on trial in the heart of the city would inspire other terror attacks." Yes, and given the fact that the decision to hold the trial in NYC hasn't been finalised, it could also bolster the argument that NYC is going to be a target of terrorist attacks in any case.
But then the reporter turns to his rather blatant attempts to create new controversy where no real controversy exists. He says "But even before the campaign season begins, the White House is also sure to face questions about its early -- and often changing -- characterization of Saturday's attempted bombing."
So what is this "often changing" characterisation?
1. The head of DHS characterises the attack as a one-off terrorist attack.
2. The president promised full federal support to the investigation without explicitly calling the attack terrorism.
3. The next day, the AG says it's clearly an attempt at terrorism but declines to confirm the attempt was part of a plot.
4. Later in the day, the president's press secretary calls the bomb attempt an act of terrorism, but says that they are still investigating who is responsible.
The writer concludes that "The changing statements likely reflect the rapidly evolving dynamics of the investigation, which moved from initial reports to an arrest in just about 72 hours."
I have to ask: WHAT changing statements? This appears to be to be an attempt to create an impression of back and forth where no such record exists.
But the graph that follows is the kicker: "But they may also reflect an early reticence by the administration to jump to any public conclusions, especially when it relates to the issue of Islamic terrorism. Obama has made outreach to the Islamic world a key part of his presidency, saying repeatedly that the United States is not at war with a religion, but rather with specific terrorist groups."
Bwuh? There's a non-issue of whether or not the attack is a terrorist attack (everyone agrees it is terrorism). And somehow this non-issue is indicative of the administration's unwillingness to ... what? I can't find any logic to follow in this stream of supposed connections. The administration has been trying to reach out to the Islamic world, yes. So, for the matter of that, did the previous administration. Has President Obama shown any reticence to discuss terrorism, to condemn it, or to hold those responsible to account for it? No. Is there any logical reason that a desire not to offend Muslims would lead to the administration failing to identify an act of terrorism as such (not that they have failed to do so)? No. Even if, as it appears now, a Muslim was responsible for the attack, would saying so somehow tar all Muslims with the same brush? Not even President Bush suggested that; in fact, he explicitly discounted it, as President Obama has.
The writer then goes on to draw analogies to the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the preposterously misrepresented statement by the DHS Secretary that "the system worked" (which it did--she was talking about what happened *after* the bomber was identified--how the perp was subdued, how the aircraft was handled, the lack of panic). But he doesn't have a single voice, a solitary person, whom he can quote as lodging similar complaints in this instance.
And here it becomes crystal clear; the reporter is trying to report on something that hasn't happened; he's writing a non-story and trying to make it sound like a story. He's saying, in effect, "past incidents where there was confusion in message have resulted in partisan attacks, so here, let me invent some nonexistent confusion in message and predict partisan attacks". Let me ask: outside the barefaced misrepresentation (the "often changing characterization" that never changed), what is the substance of his story? Reporters should report; given material, they can, of course, analyse, but that sort of article is usually labelled as such (or even as opinion) and not treated as news.
So why has Mr Shear become a mouthpiece for Republican conservatives? Perhaps a clue may be found here in an earlier story he filed on the "rare visit" of the president to chat with "grumbling" reporters (among them Mr Shear) on Air Force One who feel he hasn't spent enough face time with them. Who knew that the president's job was spending quality time with the WH press corps? I thought his job was running the country. And theirs was reporting on what *other people* (not they themselves) do, say, and think.
The thrust of this article seems to be to highlight "the politics of terrorism" and the "complicated -- and politically treacherous -- issues" President Obama's administration faces in reacting to last weekend's attempt to set off a bomb in NYC.
But the Post itself seems to be one one creating controversy out of thin air.
Of course, it immediately raises "the controversial issue of whether Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- the avowed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- should stand trial in a federal courtroom in Manhattan". Where is this controversial? Only in partisan political circles. Republicans were happy to have 9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui tried in federal court in Virginia, across the Potomac River form Washington DC and down the street from the Pentagon. They had no problem with Richard Reid being tried in Boston. They gladly held their national political convention (surely a prime terrorist target) in NYC (with all of the questionable law enforcement suppression of free speech that was involved in that). But all of a sudden it's an issue to have a criminal trial of a terrorist who attacked New York in NYC? So, partisan political statement #1.
The writer goes on to say "Shahzad is set to appear in federal court Tuesday, raising concerns about a circus-like scene that could fuel the arguments of critics who say a 9/11 trial would paralyze parts of the city for months." Who is raising those concerns? A quote? a citation? any third party who says this? no, just the reporter.
"And the notion that New York barely averted a massive fireball in the heart of Times Square could bolster those who fear that putting Mohammed on trial in the heart of the city would inspire other terror attacks." Yes, and given the fact that the decision to hold the trial in NYC hasn't been finalised, it could also bolster the argument that NYC is going to be a target of terrorist attacks in any case.
But then the reporter turns to his rather blatant attempts to create new controversy where no real controversy exists. He says "But even before the campaign season begins, the White House is also sure to face questions about its early -- and often changing -- characterization of Saturday's attempted bombing."
So what is this "often changing" characterisation?
1. The head of DHS characterises the attack as a one-off terrorist attack.
2. The president promised full federal support to the investigation without explicitly calling the attack terrorism.
3. The next day, the AG says it's clearly an attempt at terrorism but declines to confirm the attempt was part of a plot.
4. Later in the day, the president's press secretary calls the bomb attempt an act of terrorism, but says that they are still investigating who is responsible.
The writer concludes that "The changing statements likely reflect the rapidly evolving dynamics of the investigation, which moved from initial reports to an arrest in just about 72 hours."
I have to ask: WHAT changing statements? This appears to be to be an attempt to create an impression of back and forth where no such record exists.
But the graph that follows is the kicker: "But they may also reflect an early reticence by the administration to jump to any public conclusions, especially when it relates to the issue of Islamic terrorism. Obama has made outreach to the Islamic world a key part of his presidency, saying repeatedly that the United States is not at war with a religion, but rather with specific terrorist groups."
Bwuh? There's a non-issue of whether or not the attack is a terrorist attack (everyone agrees it is terrorism). And somehow this non-issue is indicative of the administration's unwillingness to ... what? I can't find any logic to follow in this stream of supposed connections. The administration has been trying to reach out to the Islamic world, yes. So, for the matter of that, did the previous administration. Has President Obama shown any reticence to discuss terrorism, to condemn it, or to hold those responsible to account for it? No. Is there any logical reason that a desire not to offend Muslims would lead to the administration failing to identify an act of terrorism as such (not that they have failed to do so)? No. Even if, as it appears now, a Muslim was responsible for the attack, would saying so somehow tar all Muslims with the same brush? Not even President Bush suggested that; in fact, he explicitly discounted it, as President Obama has.
The writer then goes on to draw analogies to the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the preposterously misrepresented statement by the DHS Secretary that "the system worked" (which it did--she was talking about what happened *after* the bomber was identified--how the perp was subdued, how the aircraft was handled, the lack of panic). But he doesn't have a single voice, a solitary person, whom he can quote as lodging similar complaints in this instance.
And here it becomes crystal clear; the reporter is trying to report on something that hasn't happened; he's writing a non-story and trying to make it sound like a story. He's saying, in effect, "past incidents where there was confusion in message have resulted in partisan attacks, so here, let me invent some nonexistent confusion in message and predict partisan attacks". Let me ask: outside the barefaced misrepresentation (the "often changing characterization" that never changed), what is the substance of his story? Reporters should report; given material, they can, of course, analyse, but that sort of article is usually labelled as such (or even as opinion) and not treated as news.
So why has Mr Shear become a mouthpiece for Republican conservatives? Perhaps a clue may be found here in an earlier story he filed on the "rare visit" of the president to chat with "grumbling" reporters (among them Mr Shear) on Air Force One who feel he hasn't spent enough face time with them. Who knew that the president's job was spending quality time with the WH press corps? I thought his job was running the country. And theirs was reporting on what *other people* (not they themselves) do, say, and think.