Attack in Nice and media bias

Duck and cover
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Attack in Nice and media bias

Postby Paul Anthony » Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:11 pm

The jihadist attack in Nice was terrible, but according to some news sources, it wasn't a terror attack.

Here was the execrable New York Times’ headline: “Truck Attack on French Crowd: Scores Die.”

But The New York Times wasn’t alone. MSNBC: “Tune in to MSNBC for continued live coverage of the deadly truck crash in Nice, France.”

"Truck crash". They make it sound like a driverless truck accidentally killed a bunch of people. But it wasn't driverless, and it wasn't an accident. We're not supposed to say "Islamic Terrorist", so we have to blame it on an inanimate object. Usually it's a gun. This time it was a truck.

Inanimate objects are a scourge on civilized society. Islam is a religion of peace. NYT and MSNBC say so. It must be true.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Attack in Nice and media bias

Postby Gord » Sun Jul 17, 2016 2:01 am

Are these headlines from before or after it was declared a terrorist attack? If it's from before, I don't see the problem.

The NT Times article seems to be from 2 days ago, but bears yesterday's date. The articles on the front page also say, "There was no immediate claim of responsibility, but the French president called it a terrorist assault" and "in what France’s president called a terrorist assault" and "[h]e said the 'terrorist character' of the assault was undeniable".

MSNBC originally called it a "truck crash" because they didn't have enough information to call it anything else. The link that says:

Tune in to @MSNBC for continued live coverage of the deadly truck crash in Nice, France: https://t.co/FdX3z4hq8V

...now leads to an article titled "Truck Attack in Nice: Live Updates" and includes much more information than was available when they first made the link. Apart from the attacker's name, it also includes the following uses of the words "terror" and/or "terrorist":

  • "In this video, you can see policemen shoot the terrorist and (make) an arrest," Benouaich said.
  • ...no terror group has claimed responsibility for the rampage and a motive remains unclear.
  • The officials include victim identification experts along with terrorism and information specialists who can carry out real-time checks on the agency's databases, according to Interpol.
  • Terror on Wheels: No 'Magic Way' to Stop Nice-Style Attacks
  • "He [U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon] stands firmly by the French government and people as they confront this threat and stresses the need to intensify regional and international efforts to combat terrorism and violent extremism."
  • [London Mayor Sadiq] Khan added: "We are also united in our determination to root out and defeat the sick and evil individuals who have tried to divide us with this cowardly act of terror."

Should news organizations declare something a terrorist attack on their own, or should they wait for someone else to say it and then report on it? I personally would prefer it if they just report on things and not make things up to suit the moment or their own purposes. Your opinion may be different.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: Attack in Nice and media bias

Postby Paul Anthony » Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:59 am

Gord wrote:
Should news organizations declare something a terrorist attack on their own, or should they wait for someone else to say it and then report on it? I personally would prefer it if they just report on things and not make things up to suit the moment or their own purposes. Your opinion may be different.


Point taken, but "truck crash" ? Sounds a lot more like an accident than a driver deliberately running down people, doesn't it?
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Attack in Nice and media bias

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:02 am

Paul Anthony: a fair issue, I wish you had some meat.

Regarding the NYT: you are simpy WRONG. You conflat the ATTACK in the NYT with the CRASH of MSNBC and redefine that as mere accident, which as a generality is fair I think....but not the equating that with the NYT.

See how fuzzy your thinking actually is? Execrable...... indeed.

The BIAS I am noticing is all the Talking Heads equating the attacks in Europe as if on USA itself. There is a nugget of an idea there that I support (Clash of Civilizations) but it does not overcome the SIN OF CONFLATION where any incident anywhere is used to distract the American Public from the incompetency of our elected officials.

but....we each have our own issues.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Attack in Nice and media bias

Postby Gord » Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:50 am

Paul Anthony wrote:
Gord wrote:Should news organizations declare something a terrorist attack on their own, or should they wait for someone else to say it and then report on it? I personally would prefer it if they just report on things and not make things up to suit the moment or their own purposes. Your opinion may be different.

Point taken, but "truck crash" ? Sounds a lot more like an accident than a driver deliberately running down people, doesn't it?

If it's all they had for certain at the time, then it makes perfect sense.

"A truck ploughed into a crowd of people in Nice!"
"Was it deliberate?"
"We're still getting reports, we don't know what's happening except that a crowd has ploughed into a crowd of people in Nice."
"Post it and say we'll update it as new information comes in."

Also, MSNBC is not the only place where the word "crash" was used to describe what the truck did:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/france ... ed-n609681

'Scariest Moment of My Life': Witnesses Relate Horror of Deadly French Crash

http://www.vcstar.com/news/?id=386973861& and http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/386973861.xhtml and http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/bigpict ... story.html all say:

Police researchers inspect the scene where a truck crashed late 14 July 2016 into the crowd during the Bastille Day celebrations in Nice, France, 15 July 2016. (Photo: ALBERTO ESTEVEZ, EPA)

http://www.efe.com/efe/english/portada/ ... 60-2986229 also says "Police researchers inspect the scene where a truck crashed late 14 July 2016 into the crowd during the Bastille Day celebrations in Nice, France, 15 July 2016" and then adds, "French police have identified the suspect in a truck attack in Nice, that left at least 84 people dead and more than 100 injured, by his fingerprints" before finishing with "EPA/ALBERTO ESTEVEZ".

(The Telegraph used to have the same words, "Police researchers inspect the scene of the lorry crash on Friday", but following multiple link to their site take you to pages where there words no longer appear.)

(I'm going to guess that the photographer attached the description to the photo, and the new agencies that used the photo simply put that caption under it "because it was there".)

http://www.express.co.uk/pictures/galle ... hed-150830

Police researchers inspect the cockpit of the truck that crashed [EPA]


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nice-truck ... -1.3680294

A mourner places flowers in front of the memorial set on the Promenade des Anglais where a truck crashed into the crowd during the Bastille Day celebrations in Nice, France. (Ian Langsdon/EPA)


So yeah, lots of sites call it a crash, and I really don't see the problem with the term. Instead, it seems to me like some conspiracy theorist has a bug up their butt about it for some reason. So who's this person I'm alleging to be a conspiracy theorist? Looks like it came from Alex Jones' site: http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-calls-nic ... uck-crash/

If that's the ultimate source of this whole kerfuffle, I feel comfortable dismissing it as nonsense.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Skepticon of Pyrrhonia
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:47 pm

Re: Attack in Nice and media bias

Postby Skepticon of Pyrrhonia » Sun Jul 17, 2016 10:35 am

There is still not enough evidence to rule out an attack by aliens breaking free from their abduction by the French government.

I shouldn't joke, but I guess everyone deals with tragedy in their own way.

I think it smart to wait for more evidence. That is what responsible journalism should be about.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19478
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Attack in Nice and media bias

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jul 17, 2016 1:32 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:The jihadist attack in Nice was terrible, but according to some news sources, it wasn't a terror attack.

Here was the execrable New York Times’ headline: “Truck Attack on French Crowd: Scores Die.”

But The New York Times wasn’t alone. MSNBC: “Tune in to MSNBC for continued live coverage of the deadly truck crash in Nice, France.”

"Truck crash". They make it sound like a driverless truck accidentally killed a bunch of people. But it wasn't driverless, and it wasn't an accident. We're not supposed to say "Islamic Terrorist", so we have to blame it on an inanimate object. Usually it's a gun. This time it was a truck.

Inanimate objects are a scourge on civilized society. Islam is a religion of peace. NYT and MSNBC say so. It must be true.

Took you some work to spin that one. :roll:
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest