WE'VE MOVED! IsraPundit has relocated to Click here to go there now.
News and views on Israel, Zionism and the war on terrorism.

February 03, 2003

Big media are terrorists in law and in fact

Emanuel A. Winston takes dead aim at big media in his article 'Militant’ or ‘Terrorist’?
Surely, it is more than just journalistic semantics to use words like "militants" or "extremists" to describe hideous crimes. What it is can only be defined as an effort to both protect terrorists and, through word play, excuse their actions. I submit that both the killers and their protectors are de facto co-conspirators who deserve equal treatment. The offending members of the media have chosen to make themselves party to crimes against humanity, using the cover of ‘just being professional observers’ when, in fact, they are participants. They are no longer objective observers when they take up the causes of terrorists and assist their causes through the persuasion of the media. They persuade the public that the killing and the maiming was done for a good cause - that the terrorists are not to be faulted, but rather understood, even pitied. They create a barrier of defense so the governments of nations will not go against the prevailing sense of their citizens, who have been persuaded by the media. Thus, of their own choice, they have become a propaganda mechanism for violent political movements who use terror to obtain power and control. More

I believe that journalists and their corporations, who set the informational policy are de facto and de jure terrorists when they defend terrorism. When they use words like ‘militant’ or ‘extremist’ in lieu of the word ‘terrorists’, they have chosen to become part of that terrorist organization. Should they be treated as ‘terrorist provocateurs’, either in the field or in their headquarters by their victims, it would not be surprising.