Context-Free Coverage of Terror Helps Perpetuate Its Causes.
And HOW. Reminds me of msm coverage of Iran w/o ever mentioning Mossadegh. Not to mention coverage of the entire Cold War w/o mentioning the invasion of the Soviet Union by the British and Americans after the revolution.
From FAIR.
http://fair.org/home/context-free-coverage-of-terror-helps-perpetuate-its-causes/
>>>>At the time of the attacks in Paris, FAIRs website led with a piece by Ben Norton (11/13/15) about US reporting on the ISIS bombing in Beirutnoting references to the civilian neighborhood targeted by the bombing as a Hezbollah stronghold (MSNBC, 11/13/15), bastion (Reuters, 11/12/15) or area (NPR, 11/12/15). Given this framingand the generally limited amount of coverage granted to the Lebanese victimsits unsurprising that the Beirut terror failed to provoke the same sorrow, horror and identification among US audiences that the Paris massacres did.
It feels callous to question the allocation of outrage; empathy is in such short supply in this world that one hesitates to question it when it emerges. But as a long-time citizen of New York City, Im all too aware of the weaponization of grief. The outpouring of no-context, ahistorical sympathy after 9/11 helped pave the way for a violent reaction that killed in Iraq alone roughly 150 times as many people as died in Lower Manhattan that dayan opportunistic catastrophe that did more to mock than avenge those deaths.
Just as the question of Al-Qaedas motives in 2001 provoked more self-congratulation than serious inquiry (Extra! Update, 10/01), coverage of Paris in 2015 tends to skirt over political realities. Thus the New York Times (11/13/15) could report: A stunned and confused French capital was again left to wonder: Why us? Once again? The obvious answer was alluded to obliquely by a soccer stadium spectator: With all the strikes in Syria, were not safe anymore.>>>>>
The rest at link.