Selective sensitivity

Submitted by Paul M. (United States), Sep 7, 2004 at 20:15

Looking at www.newssafety.com, web site of the International New Safety Insititute—whose members seem to include most of the world's major news organizations—I see that the media do not reject the word "terrorist" completely. On the travel advisory page for the West Bank and Gaza, http://www.newssafety.com/hotspots/wbank-gaza.htm, they are quite plainspoken about the threat of terror, and they call it by name.

Apparently, when the stakes are sufficiently grave—that is, when the lives of reporters are on the line—the danger of terrorism is spelled out. It is only when it is merely a matter of reporting to the rest of us that being "non-judgmental" becomes more important than truth.

To set aside the sarcasm, this is even more hypocritical than I had thought the media coverage of the Middle East to be.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".