• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's one for certain journalists to ponder, courtesy of Greg Gutfeld

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,480
Reaction score
17,287
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Boy did he nail this one...


"We know with rape that you never, ever blame the victim. but with terror, you can. They had it coming. They dressed the part. That's right, just like a woman who dressed suggestively."


Greg Gutfeld, The Five
1/14/2015


You can watch the clip here.
 
Boy did he nail this one...


"We know with rape that you never, ever blame the victim. but with terror, you can. They had it coming. They dressed the part. That's right, just like a woman who dressed suggestively."


Greg Gutfeld, The Five
1/14/2015




You can watch the clip here.

I assume (without watching) that he's referring to Charlie.

Who in the press is "blaming the victim"? The coverage I've seen has been overwhelmingly pro-free expression.
 
Boy did he nail this one...


"We know with rape that you never, ever blame the victim. but with terror, you can. They had it coming. They dressed the part. That's right, just like a woman who dressed suggestively."


Greg Gutfeld, The Five
1/14/2015


You can watch the clip here.


It comes from the top.
The NYT & WAPO seem to be especially focused on soft-peddling the Islamic connection.
Whether they're doing it because they perceive it's the WH approach, which it still unashamedly is, or they're doing it because of their own agenda is an unknown.
Certain media approaches like theirs don't exactly support what Gutfeld said but the intent is the same.

For instance, I've just read about how the NYT reported a piece of the Paris radical Islamist terrorist attacks ...

"Before “sanitized” by the NYT, she told French news media, the man said,
“I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.
After:
“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.” "
Read more at NY Times sanitizes radical Islam narrative | The Black Sphere | TheBlackSphere.net | The Black Sphere | TheBlackSphere.net

David Ignatius of WAPO is another one who appears to be similarly opinionated ...
"Sorry, but this war-on-terror mobilization is the wrong response to the Charlie Hebdo tragedy. It would repeat mistakes the United States made in its reaction to Sept. 11, 2001.
Watching the jihadist fire raging on the Internet and in lone-wolf attacks in Paris and other cities, frightened citizens (and opportunistic politicians) want a top-down command response. It’s tempting to imagine a 21st-century version of a “mighty Wurlitzer,” as the CIA dubbed its covert anti-communist messaging in the late 1940s and ’50s. Such propaganda strategies are understandable, but they’re also wrong. "


And then he goes on to minimize the influence of Islam in terrorism.
David Ignatius: The wrong response to Charlie Hebdo - The Washington Post
 
It comes from the top.
The NYT & WAPO seem to be especially focused on soft-peddling the Islamic connection.
Whether they're doing it because they perceive it's the WH approach, which it still unashamedly is, or they're doing it because of their own agenda is an unknown.
Certain media approaches like theirs don't exactly support what Gutfeld said but the intent is the same.

For instance, I've just read about how the NYT reported a piece of the Paris radical Islamist terrorist attacks ...

"Before “sanitized” by the NYT, she told French news media, the man said,
“I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.
After:
“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.” "
Read more at NY Times sanitizes radical Islam narrative | The Black Sphere | TheBlackSphere.net | The Black Sphere | TheBlackSphere.net

David Ignatius of WAPO is another one who appears to be similarly opinionated ...
"Sorry, but this war-on-terror mobilization is the wrong response to the Charlie Hebdo tragedy. It would repeat mistakes the United States made in its reaction to Sept. 11, 2001.
Watching the jihadist fire raging on the Internet and in lone-wolf attacks in Paris and other cities, frightened citizens (and opportunistic politicians) want a top-down command response. It’s tempting to imagine a 21st-century version of a “mighty Wurlitzer,” as the CIA dubbed its covert anti-communist messaging in the late 1940s and ’50s. Such propaganda strategies are understandable, but they’re also wrong. "


And then he goes on to minimize the influence of Islam in terrorism.
David Ignatius: The wrong response to Charlie Hebdo - The Washington Post

If right wing blogs and opinion pieces say it is so, it must be! I find it hilarious that the same people who complain the loudest about partisan media, use the most partisan media they can as their sources...
 
If right wing blogs and opinion pieces say it is so, it must be! I find it hilarious that the same people who complain the loudest about partisan media, use the most partisan media they can as their sources...

Attacking the messenger? Even so, is it not a valid point for consideration / discussion?

Frankly, yes, it seems that the media, Obama and his administration are downplaying Islamic fundamentalist's terrorist activities by not connecting the two as it would seem reasonable to do so. After all, who exactly is committing these act of terrorism?
 
Attacking the messenger? Even so, is it not a valid point for consideration / discussion?

Frankly, yes, it seems that the media, Obama and his administration are downplaying Islamic fundamentalist's terrorist activities by not connecting the two as it would seem reasonable to do so. After all, who exactly is committing these act of terrorism?

Well, no, that is pure partisan nonsense. The impresion comes from blogs and opinion pieces taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting events to try and create a false image. Since people like to have their beliefs confirmed, they buy into this false narrative and don't bother to fact check.

Every single news story on the French attack I have read or seen has mentioned the connection with Islam. That is hardly downplaying it.
 
For instance, I've just read about how the NYT reported a piece of the Paris radical Islamist terrorist attacks ...

"Before “sanitized” by the NYT, she told French news media, the man said,
“I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.
After:
“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.” "

Did you read the "sanitized" version of the NYT article in question?

If so, did you notice the part where Sigolène Vinson claims that the initial RFI article misquoted her by including all that stuff about the gunman telling she should convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover herself?

Here's the pertinent part of that article, the part that relates to the issue under discussion:

NYT said:
Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed. Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman.

She disputed a quotation attributed to her and carried on the website of the French radio service RFI stating that the gunman had told her she should convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover herself. Instead, she told The New York Times in an interview, the gunman told her: “Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you.” He spoke in a steady voice, she said, with a calm look in his eyes, saying: " ‘You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.’ ” Then she said he turned to his partner, who was still shooting, and shouted: “We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women!”

Ultimately, the NYT didn't "sanitize" anything.

It included a direct quote from the woman.

I suppose it's possible that in the initial interview with RFI Ms. Vinson said one thing, and then later told the NYT something else, but it wasn't a case of the NYT creatively interpreting something in order to water it down and strip out references to Islam.
 
Well, no, that is pure partisan nonsense. The impresion comes from blogs and opinion pieces taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting events to try and create a false image. Since people like to have their beliefs confirmed, they buy into this false narrative and don't bother to fact check.

Every single news story on the French attack I have read or seen has mentioned the connection with Islam. That is hardly downplaying it.

Well, OK. If that's the case, then I'd agree.

However, what's your take on Obama and his admin? Seems like they've been avoiding making that connection in favor of just calling them extremists, or is that a misperception? What do you think? What's your impression?
 
Seems like they've been avoiding making that connection in favor of just calling them extremists, or is that a misperception? What do you think? What's your impression?

That's better than what a certain, very well known CNN reporter and former host of "This Week" on ABC called the terrorists who murdered those people in France:



Activists? Are you fricking kidding me?
 
Well, OK. If that's the case, then I'd agree.

However, what's your take on Obama and his admin? Seems like they've been avoiding making that connection in favor of just calling them extremists, or is that a misperception? What do you think? What's your impression?

The best word to describe the Obama administration is "meh". Not great, but certainly not nearly as bad as some try and portray. Of course, this thread is not actually about Obama....
 
The best word to describe the Obama administration is "meh". Not great, but certainly not nearly as bad as some try and portray. Of course, this thread is not actually about Obama....

True. It's not about Obama. Per Grim's post above, yeah, there apparently are some journalists who can't bring themselves to call a duck a duck, in this case Militant Islamic Fundamentalists would seem to be the most accurate term to use.
 
Did you read the "sanitized" version of the NYT article in question?

If so, did you notice the part where Sigolène Vinson claims that the initial RFI article misquoted her by including all that stuff about the gunman telling she should convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover herself?

Here's the pertinent part of that article, the part that relates to the issue under discussion:



Ultimately, the NYT didn't "sanitize" anything.

It included a direct quote from the woman.

I suppose it's possible that in the initial interview with RFI Ms. Vinson said one thing, and then later told the NYT something else, but it wasn't a case of the NYT creatively interpreting something in order to water it down and strip out references to Islam.

Good on you ... thanks for the info.
 
If right wing blogs and opinion pieces say it is so, it must be! I find it hilarious that the same people who complain the loudest about partisan media, use the most partisan media they can as their sources...
Ignatius in the Washington Post is as pretty much Left as anyone can get outside the White House.
 
Lol, so the harbinger of defeating media bias uses hot air lol.

Glad you're not pretending anymore grim! Lol

Are you questioning the credibility of the clip they presented?

If not, then how about you do something really off the wall and comment on it?
 
That's better than what a certain, very well known CNN reporter and former host of "This Week" on ABC called the terrorists who murdered those people in France:



Activists? Are you fricking kidding me?


Enjoyed viewing Gutfeld putting it out there point blank, calling them activists is crazy!
 
Lol, so the harbinger of defeating media bias uses hot air lol.

Glad you're not pretending anymore grim! Lol


Are you questioning the credibility of the clip they presented?

If not, then how about you do something really off the wall and comment on it?

Since it's been 5 days and you haven't responded, I think it's safe to say your post was nothing but an attempt to create a distraction so people like yourself could avoid having to address the truth.

Liberal is, as liberal does.
 
If right wing blogs and opinion pieces say it is so, it must be! I find it hilarious that the same people who complain the loudest about partisan media, use the most partisan media they can as their sources...

David Ignatius is anything BUT right wing. He makes Nancy Pelosi look like Bob Blaylock.
 
Since it's been 5 days and you haven't responded, I think it's safe to say your post was nothing but an attempt to create a distraction so people like yourself could avoid having to address the truth.

Liberal is, as liberal does.

Have you ever not responded to a post where a question was asked of you?

That's what I thought.

Conservative is, as conservative does?
 
Have you ever not responded to a post where a question was asked of you?

That's what I thought.

Conservative is, as conservative does?

You know he's nothing but a hit-and-run artist Pete. That's what he does 80% of the time he quotes me. He makes a smart ass comment and has no intention of addressing the topic.
 
You know he's nothing but a hit-and-run artist Pete. That's what he does 80% of the time he quotes me. He makes a smart ass comment and has no intention of addressing the topic.
So what? That has happened to me numerous times. "Media Matters","TPM" I can't speak for him, but imagine he saw "Hot Air" and made his comment. I am pretty sure he was at work and could not view the video.

I really don't want to get into it, but my inclination is the religion editor wasn't off base as much you think he was.
 
Back
Top Bottom