Rudy Giuliani on F&F said “We are lucky he (Obama) did not call it workplace violence.” but I had thought Doocy also said that after the segment.
I don’t believe in the 48 hours after 9/11/01 MSNBC or CNN was blaming bush the same way FNC was going after Obama for a terror attack in Paris.
So now we’ve move the goalposts to compare what happened 13 years ago?
Terrorist attack! The biggest tell is the fact that Obama will NOT use radical Islam or Islamists or Muslim in his description of who did this!
Who else says “We have avenged the prophet” or “allah hu akbar!!
Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Hindus, Unitarians? He just won’t call a spade a spade!
Well golly, Pam, it might be good if France actually catches the guys before world leaders start throwing around religious terms for them. But I know, Fox trotted that stupid talking point out all day yesterday, and you have your orders. Only in Righty Media World does a terror attack on another country become a story about how the US president sucks. Amazing.
^^LOL! That’s Steve Doocy/Donald Trump stupid. Where does FNC find these guys?
I’m sure that article mentions how he accused “other networks” of not covering the first officer’s funeral, when Fox was on tape and CNN was wall-to-wall funeral. Starnes is of the “just say stuff’ the audience likes to hear” variety, and assume that they’re too dumb to ever catch on. It’s not without basis.
Well… the only problem with the Starnes piece is that there are plenty of people saying they saw the cartoons on FNC either after Mediaite posted their initial story, and certainly before.
And knowing how Evan McMurray is today’s “Tommy Christopher” (Liberal political advocate, pretending to be a journalist), one should take his “reporting” with a grain of salt.
Ofh for God’s sake fritz. Every media source has said that survivors have said that is what these guys said when they were in the office. That poor woman who was hiding under her desk after having let them in the office was one of the first people to say this. The police have their names and one of them was in jail for 18 months already. They know they both spent time in Yemen.
So…..you need to apprehend them to say they are Muslim radicals?
What world do you live in? A liberal fantasy world or just the one where you are repeating the new liberal talking points? What color was the kool-aid you drank?
The Mediaite guy is FOS. Fox showed the cartoons on Special Report last night.
CNN and MSNBC still have not shown the cartoons. Free speech my as*! Media these days are chickensh*t when it comes to Muslims. Did you notice when most media showed one cartoon they only pixelated the Muslim but not the hook nosed Jew? That shows their willingness to coddle one religion at the expense of others! Thank goodness the AP has shown they are not biased anymore since they took down their picture of “The Piss Christ”.
“Ofh for God’s sake fritz. Every media source has said that survivors have said that is what these guys said when they were in the office.”
^^I think your fight here is with joe and not me But I understand your confusion as we liberals do all look and sound alike.😉
I was watching Special Report yesterday and unless if I blinked or missed it some other way, which is possible, they didn’t show the offending cartoon/s. I’ve seen the most offensive ones on Twitter and I don’t recall seeing them on SR.
Oh yeah, the WSJ and HuffPost have images on their websites too. So the idea of Fox is the only one brave enough from the cultists is complete nonsense.
“Oh yeah, the WSJ and HuffPost have images on their websites too.”
^^So does Vox. I expect as more media outlets publish the cartoons many of those who didn’t will change their minds and join the party. Safety in numbers I suppose.
The thing is there are real reasons for not publishing the cartoons. Many people and groups (Catholics, Jews etc.), and not just Muslims, legitimately find them offensive. They shouldn’t be pressured into publishing the cartoons just to show solidarity with Charlie Hebdo.
This is a sad state of affairs, when tv news outlets use tragedies to make points against opposing views. People were killed. They will never live again. Their families will be forever scarred. Read Benjamin Barber’s prophetic “Jihad vs. McWorld” and you will be terrified.
My apologies fritz. You are right, I should have called out that goofball joe.
Outsider: they showed them during the Ed Henry report if I am remembering correctly.
That goofball Joe thinks demanding that POTUS use the term “Islam” is ludicrous. Turning a French terror attack into a complaint about Obama is a political tactic, which is all you care about, Pam.
Speaking of narratives, it amuses me that Fox has bought into the idea that Muslims would kill over a blasphemous depiction of Mohammed after 2 years of insisting there’s no way a video set off people in Benghazi. Apparently this contradiction hasn’t occurred to them yet..
But since you brought it up, here’s a completely logical reason for not indentifying the religion of a couple of murderous lunatics in France: The phrase “Islamist terror” implies that the entire religion – and everyone who practices it – is the state sponsor of the attack. Which is ridiculous. Everybody knows we have a problem with Muslims who want to kill people, and they are rightfully called “terrorists”. President Obama is smart enough to know you don’t turn down the heat of terrorism by indicting an entire religion every time one of its adherents flips out.
I realize this is difficult for Obama haters to understand, but he has made a deliberate decision to separate the crazies from common Muslims, and assure the sane ones that he respects their right to practice their religion. It’s simple foreign policy which may make no difference in France, but it’s working here.
Fox News creates its own news; Fox News covers it:
Today Howard Kurtz did a ‘media coverage of Paris’ segment on Special Report, which included a “debate” about the fact that POTUS said “terror”, but not “Islam”. This “debate” was established by Howard’s network yesterday. He’s covering his employer’s own creation.
It’s important that we only give the public enough information to barely know the details of any story.
Instead of “radical Islamic terrorists,” it’s just “terrorists.”
Instead of “3 Arab men” it’s “a few people.”
Instead of “shouted Islamic jihadist phrases” it’s “made comments that experts are investigating.”
This is the new PC. Only tell people enough information that the get a hint of what happened. People can’t be trusted with too much information.
This is Democracy and freedom.
If you’re counting on an American president to give you all the details of a French terrorist attack, you have a weird idea of where news comes from.
“It’s important that we only give the public enough information to barely know the details of any story.”
Or as it’s known in the non FNC media. Just the facts.
“Instead of “radical Islamic terrorists,” it’s just “terrorists.”
^^We know they are ‘terrorists’ and we assume they are “radical Islamist terrorists”. But, because the ‘terrorists’ have yet to be caught (let alone convicted of a crime) we don’t know they aren’t far-righters angry about the anti-Christian cartoons in the paper.
“Instead of “3 Arab men” it’s “a few people.””
^^Same argument as in the first case. The police say they are French citizens of Algerian descent. Arab here is shorthand for Muslim or Islamic. and that assumes the police are correct in their identification of the assailants.
“Instead of “shouted Islamic jihadist phrases” it’s “made comments that experts are investigating.”
^^Hearsay comments from a supposed witness. Maybe true; maybe not.
“This is the new PC. Only tell people enough information that the get a hint of what happened. People can’t be trusted with too much information.”
^^It’s reporting the facts. For example the story that two ‘terrorist were killed and one was in custody’ was totally wrong.
Another example; people are surprised the third ‘terrorist’ turned himself in to police. I’ve heard on TV today this was the terrorist plan all along. I’ve also read this ‘terrorist’ was an innocent student in school at the time of the attack and he turned himself in to clear his name.
This story is no different than any other story where the media is making it up as it goes along; often with a domestic political agenda in mind (see FNC coverage of Obama’s comments on the attack).
The entire “story” about POTUS not saying “Islam” or “Muslim” is a political-attack-ad creation of rightwing media. There’s no ‘there’ there. It’s made-up “news” which these outlets create for themselves, then say “it’s in the news”. It’s literally nothing.
*’I don’t know what media hasn’t reported…’
One can disagree with Islam but to treat all Muslims as guilty is downright immoral. Many Muslims follow sects/denominations that are equivalent to those of liberal mainline Protestantism or Reform Judaism. I know Muslims who drink booze, don’t wear hijabs, and have even eaten bacon.
Out of curiosity, has anyone pointed out one of the police officers killed was a Muslim? The one in the video that everyone has seen where he was injured, lying on the pavement before being shot in the head.
Dearest fritz: a story about the supposed witnesses: (includes a video) because you know, a video can make crap up.
You’ve chosen what to believe and what not to believe. Heck… by your logic, perhaps nobody was killed and the attack never happened! It’s just hearsay from “some” witnesses.
Just as a reminder here is Luke’s tweet: “Boehner wins Speakership for 3rd term in light of 25 #GOP defections. Never in doubt but the Kamikaze Caucus is alive & barking”
“It’s just hearsay from “some” witnesses.”
^^Well that was your argument in the Ferguson and Staten Island incidents. Now, when the perpetrators are supposed “radical Muslim terrorists” and not police and the victims are not unarmed young black men suddenly the witnesses are always correct.
Look at this madness. Somehow the people in the halls of Fox News have convinced themselves that a terror attack in France is an Obama Failure. They started pushing this agenda Wednesday morning, and now it permeates every corner of that ridiculous channel. It’s nothing but pure hate. They detest the president, and it oozes from their pores. It’s so ugly and sad.
What the heck are you talking about? I don’t recall ever giving my opinion on those cases. But more importantly, there were so many conflicting stories in Ferguson, it would have been irresponsible to assume one was more correct than the other, without first having all the details. In Staten Island, witnesses didn’t play a big role… especially since the event was recorded.
Moreover, doesn’t this point out YOUR hypocrisy? You went along with the witnesses (and continue to do so) that told stories that fit your preconceived notions. But now, when there really isn’t anyone disputing the radical Islam connection, you’re “waiting?” Who are you trying to fool?
Not using terminology such as “radical Islamic terrorists” is fine provided that other terms such as “Chistian fundamentalists” are also off-limits.
Having said that, the killings took place in France and it is for their leadership to investigate and decide what terminology to use. While each of us are free to call them whatever we want, it would be bad form for a POTUS to upstage his counterpart with such a label, especially at this early stage.
Big development. Live footage of emergency vehicles from a car following them down a highway. Started at approx. 3:50 ET.