Accuracy in Media

Ever since Candidate Obama set foot on the national scene, the “mainstream” media have been eating out of his hand.  And regrettably, today those same news stations still are.  This has been made abundantly clear through their coverage of the recent terror attack on Fort Hood.

Nidal Malik Hasan was an open Islamist.  He went to mosque daily and interacted with other Islamist radicals regularly.  In 2007, he gave a PowerPoint presentation on Islam that described how infidels should be force-fed boiling oil, and suggested, “if Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the “infidels”; ie: enemies of Islam [sic], then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.”  Charmingly, he also added, “We love death more then [sic] you love life!”  And this was all before he screamed “Allahu akbar!” as he shot to death honorable soldiers at Fort Hood.

In fact, you could actually say that Hasan is a card-carrying terrorist-and you would be correct, because his business card actually has the acronym “SoA(SWT)” under his name.  The “SoA” stands for “Soldier of Allah,” and the “(SWT)” stands for the Arabic “Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala,” or “Glory to Him, the Exalted,” a phrase used after references to Allah. 

However, as I noted earlier, most network reporting has been ignoring this part of the story.  The Culture and Media Institute reported that when it came to ABC, CBS, and NBC, “85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word ‘terror.'”  Indeed, the report notes, “ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.”  Only 29 percent of evening news reports from those networks acknowledged Hasan’s Muslim religion, and of those, half the reports “defended the religion [of Islam] or included experts to do so.” 

But there was more to the story: as it turns out, the news networks most reluctant to accuse Hasan of terrorism suddenly became emboldened in light of President Obama’s speech at Fort Hood in memory of those Hasan murdered.  During the speech President Obama remarked, “This much we do know-no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice-in this world, and the next.”

Mainstream reporting changed after this statement, which an ABC blog claimed acknowledged the role of Hasan’s religion in the attack.

According to Carolyn Plocher and Dan Gainor of the Culture and Media Institute, 93 percent of the stories on the Fort Hood massacre prior to President Obama’s speech on November 10 completely ignored Hasan’s extreme Islamist views and connections with terror.  However, Plocher and Gainor write, “after Obama hinted at what ABC called ‘Islamic extremist views,’ all three networks [CBS, ABC, and NBC] mentioned terrorism.”

This ought to be discomfiting, to say the least.  There are only a few explanations as to why this would happen-why the media would ignore Hasan’s terror connections 93 percent of the time, and then suddenly hop on the story once President Obama referenced Hasan’s beliefs.  The first option is that CBS, ABC, and NBC legitimately had no idea that Hasan was an extremely radical Muslim with hopes to personally enforce the punishments alluded to in the Koran.  The second option is that CBS, ABC, and NBC are all three so focused on supporting President Obama, they wouldn’t even consider mentioning Hasan’s terror connections, because discussing all those facts on the air would eventually lead to what President Obama called “jumping to conclusions.” 

Obviously, the first option cannot be true.  CBS, ABC, and NBC may have ignored the terrorist aspects of Hasan 93 percent of the time, but that still leaves a cozy 7 percent of broadcast stories that prove the networks’ awareness of the situation.

This leaves the second option: that the news networks were just waiting for clearance from Dear Leader to acknowledge the truth about Hasan’s underlying motives.  It is hard to deny the connection between President Obama’s views of Hasan, and the views of the “mainstream” news networks.

There is a website out there called The People’s Cube, which has often published cartoons mocking the lapdog status of President Obama’s pet news networks.  Regrettably, the cartoons from November of 2008 are still holding true in November of 2009. 

One can only hope that someday soon NBC, CBS, and ABC will snap out of it, and make the Cube’s cartoons obsolete.



Comments