Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Recent posts

about

And the Media Circus goes on… (Sujatha)

Now, of course, the headlines are solidly focussed on the Norway shootings, and every article is accompanied by the photo with movie-star good looks of accused shooter Anders Behring Breivik.

The initial reaction to the news seems to have been "Goody, another bad event that we can use as an excuse to talk about Islamist jihadi conspiracies."

(Read more on this at "Media Reacts to News that Norwegian Terror Suspect isn't a Muslim" )

Howevr, the truth never gets in the way of agenda-pushing. Vide this paragraph by Jennifer Rubin, who happily pounced on the shootings as evidence of jihadism in her Washington Post op-ed:

"This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists. I spoke to Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute, who has been critical of proposed cuts in defense and of President Obama’s Afghanistan withdrawal plan. “There has been a lot of talk over the past few months on how we’ve got al-Qaeda on the run and, compared with what it once was, it’s become a rump organization. But as the attack in Oslo reminds us, there are plenty of al-Qaeda allies still operating. No doubt cutting the head off a snake is important; the problem is, we’re dealing with global nest of snakes.”

Once proven wrong, however spectacularly, she came up with this soggy offering:

"That the suspect here is a blond Norwegian does not support the proposition that we can rest easy with regard to the panoply of threats we face or that homeland security, intelligence and traditional military can be pruned back. To the contrary, the world remains very dangerous because very bad people will do horrendous things. There are many more jihadists than blond Norwegians out to kill Americans, and we should keep our eye on the systemic and far more potent threats that stem from an ideological war with the West.

And so it continues, all over the media. From the recent rushes to judgment in several highly publicized cases, one would think that they would have learned lessons about jumping to conclusions. Whatever happened to journalistic integrity and fair shakes?

Posted in ,

11 responses to “And the Media Circus goes on… (Sujatha)”

  1. Norman Costa

    Person 1: Car bomb in Oslo. Innocent people killed.
    Op Ed: Jihadis. More money for military.
    Person 1: Mass shooting, mass murder.
    Op Ed: Jihadis everywhere. More money for military.
    Person 1: No Jihadis. Disturbed, obsessive, local neo-Nazi crackpot.
    Op Ed: Same thing. Need even more military money.
    Person 1: Beautiful, blonde, boy next door. No associates.
    Op Ed: Exactly. MORE SOLDIERS, BOMBS, AND GUNS!
    Person 1: I’m missing something.
    Op Ed: That’s why I’m here.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Zachary Latif

    Their stock is fearmongering and their trading it.

    Like

    Reply
  3. omar

    my take is a bit different.
    1. I think the initial suspicion of jihadist terrorism was not unreasonable. It would be nice to wait for confirmation before writing op-eds, but it was not an unexpected or unfair suspicion to have (especially with regards to the bombing…the cruel shooting episode with one shooter was not typical of jihadist terrorism).
    2. Whether war and invasion was the best response to jihadist terrorism is definitely debatable, but that such a threat exists is not at all “imaginary”. Some responses in left wing circles seem to indicate that the threat itself is being imagined and is not real. That does not seem correct to me. The threat to the US would be much less if the US was not a supporter of Israeli occupation, but given current policy preferences (many of which actually have liberal support) the threat is not imaginary.
    3. Personally, I do think that occupation and even a lot of “security theater” are not the best responses to the jihadi threat. But I think it is overly simplistic to think all the op-ed writers are just there to create fear so the populace can be kept in line for the next imperialist plot. I think most of them are mistaken in many assumptions but are fully sincere.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Sujatha

    Omar, the pattern of single shooter, as you say, isn’t typical of jihadi terrorism. Yet, they were eager to pile the blame on Al-Qaeda or some variant thereof.
    While it is indeed practical to consider that threats exist from jihadi terrorists, and plan for some means of dealing with it, when the media indulges in over-the-board scaremongering rather than reasoned discussion after some more facts of the case emerge, it becomes very obvious that other agendas than informing the public (market manipulation, for instance) are part of the mix.

    Like

    Reply
  5. omar

    I am not convinced that “market manipulation” is a factor here. Or if it is, maybe I dont understand what you mean by “market manipulation”? Can you explain it a little bit?

    Like

    Reply
  6. Ruchira

    I guess what Sujatha means is cheer leading for more spending for defense, homeland security and longer wars of occupation. But I will let Sujatha explain what she means.

    Like

    Reply
  7. M

    the media is now just an extension of the terrorism it reports on; they’re both vile, feed on one another. they play parasite and host to one another.
    loathesome, all of it.
    anderson cooper has great hair, though, i guess that’s something.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Sujatha

    The ‘market manipulation’ I was referring to is a little more subtle than the usual triumvirate of defense, homeland security and war spending, though those do constitute one of the major agendas behind fearmongering. I was alluding to smaller fluctuations in the stock of companies like say GE, Lockheed Martin, and those who profit from massive trades in those stocks. Even a slight uptick in the fear factor could make for handsome profits even if the share prices only went up by a few cents, just because of the volumes involved. And also, the futures markets, especially for commodities like oil.

    Like

    Reply
  9. omar

    In that case, I am not convinced. I dont know how much experience you have with actual news organizations and how they work, but I find it implausible that MOST of their efforts could in any conceivable way be aimed at moving particular stocks up or down. I can imagine an occasional such action by occasional individuals. Can you give us a picture of how that works? any concrete (even imaginary, but detailed) example?

    Like

    Reply
  10. Sujatha

    It does seem rather far-fetched, doesn’t it? But, as self-anointed Queen of Conspiracy Theories, where would we be if I didn’t have one to suit the endless need for fearmongering that afflicts the media. What I list above is just one of the many sub-agendas involved, and flows from some recent financial investigations that I had been reading about and watching. But wait, there is still the media involved in propagating those stories as well. So your mileage may vary, as it did.
    As for a single media individual driving some market, we have an excellent example in Glenn Beck and his Goldline nexus.

    Like

    Reply
  11. omar

    As i said, an individual case is possible. But it is my impression that most news organizations are driven by a desire for ratings and most biases are society wide, unconscious biases (some are more direct, as in the Murdoch empire). I dont think most news coverage has any connection to moving stocks up or down. Stocks may move, but that is not the primary motivation.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Norman Costa Cancel reply