After all Daniel Pearl was one of their own. Does the death of one of their own really mean so little to the media?

 Establishment Press Largely Covers Obama's Tracks on Disgraceful
 Daniel Pearl Remark
 
<http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/05/22/establishment-press-largely-covers-obamas-tracks-on-disgraceful-daniel-pearl-remarks/>

Filed under: MSM Biz/Other Bias <http://www.bizzyblog.com/category/msm-biz-bias/>, MSM Biz/Other Ignorance <http://www.bizzyblog.com/category/msm-biz-ignorance/>, Taxes & Government <http://www.bizzyblog.com/category/taxes-government/> --- TBlumer @ 10:33 am

DanielPearlInIslamistCaptorsVid2002President Barack Obama's statement just before he signed the Freedom of the Press Act on Monday painfully avoided reality to the point of giving offense. If it became widely known, it would likely become very problematic.

Here is what the President said <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-signing-freedom-press-act> that was particularly offensive (bolds are mine):

   And obviously *the loss* of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments
   that *captured the world's imagination* because it reminded us of
   how valuable a free press is, and it reminded us that there are
   those who would go to any length in order to silence journalists
   around the world.

Two key administration-protecting original news disseminators picked up on the need to keep the bolded words out of their news coverage of the event. The Associated Press, which usually (i.e., almost always) quotes the president in related stories, provided no quotes in its terse five-paragraph report <http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h3WHtDXRETxBP2JN2_iI_jtZcPMgD9FOMC883>, the first four of which follow (for fair use and discussion purposes, of course):

   *Obama signs Freedom of Press Act*

   President Barack Obama has signed a law intended to provide more
   protections for a free press around the world.

   The law, the Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act, expands efforts to
   identify countries where press freedom is being violated. The law is
   named after Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded
   by militants in Pakistan in 2002.

   The law expands an annual report on human rights practices to
   include information about media treatment, and identify countries
   where the media is being repressed.

   Obama said the law would be a signal to governments around the world
   that their actions, including treatment of the media, are being watched.

The New York Times's five-paragraph story <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world/18press.html?scp=2&sq=daniel+pearl&st=nyt> quoted other portions of Obama's statement:

   *U.S. to Promote Press Freedom*

   President Obama signed legislation on Monday intended to promote a
   free press around the world, a bipartisan measure inspired by the
   murder in Pakistan of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal
   reporter, shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

   ... The new law "puts us clearly on the side of journalistic
   freedom," Mr. Obama said, praising Mr. Pearl's family for being
   "outspoken and so courageous" in pursuing the cause. With the law,
   the president added, "his legacy lives on."

The less influential wire service AFP must not have gotten the memo, as carried it the statement quoted above. Its 10-paragraph story <http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5glN6l4afLkwukZGjvRH7Vd7hZfDA> also provided historical context AP and the Times avoided, as well as a clearly superior headline:

   *Obama signs law honoring slain reporter Daniel Pearl*

   ..."The loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured
   the world's imagination because it reminded us how valuable a free
   press is," Obama said.

   ... Pearl, 38, was the South Asia bureau chief for The Wall Street
   Journal when he was abducted in Karachi on January 23, 2002 while
   researching a story about Islamist militants.

   A graphic video showing his decapitation was delivered to the US
   consulate in the city nearly a month later.

   Mariane Pearl was pregnant with their son when her husband was murdered.

   In 2007, she filed a lawsuit Wednesday against 23 individuals and
   organizations over the abduction and murder of Pearl, naming
   Al-Qaeda, the group's alleged mastermind kingpin Khalid Sheikh
   Mohammed --- who claimed responsibility for beheading Pearl and is
   now in US custody --- and Pakistan's Habib Bank among the defendants.

In his column <http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/pearl-249812-daniel-obama.html> today, Mark Steyn finishes the job AFP only began. As usual with Steyn, read the whole thing. Here are selected paragraphs:

   ... its clumsiness and insipidness is most revealing. First of all,
   note the passivity: "The loss of Daniel Pearl." He wasn't "lost." He
   was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was
   specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And
   the circumstances of his "loss" merit some vigor in the prose. Yet
   Obama can muster none.

   Even if Americans don't get the message, the rest of the world does.
   This week's pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping
   hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.

   But what did the "loss" of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the
   president, it was "one of those moments that captured the world's
   imagination." Really? Evidently it never captured Obama's
   imagination because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything
   so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl's fate, and
   so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides
   of therapeutic sedation: "one of those moments" -- you know, like
   Princess Di's wedding, Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction,
   whatever -- "that captured the world's imagination."

   Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism:
   Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single
   imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the
   opposite -- that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some
   of them don't even need an "imagination." Across the planet, the
   video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business
   in the bazaars and madrassahs and Internet downloads. Excited young
   men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from
   Karachi to Jakarta to Khartoum to London to Toronto to Falls Church,
   Virginia. In the old days, you needed an "imagination" to conjure
   the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an
   age of high-tech barbarism the sight of Pearl's severed head is a
   mere click away.

   And the rest of "the world"? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And
   far too many found the reality of Pearl's death too uncomfortable,
   and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Obama.

I daresay that if a Republican or conservative president had suggested that the "loss" of Dr. Martin Luther King had "captured the world's imagination," the AP and the Times would not have so deliberately avoided such a statement, and would instead have eagerly sought out others to criticize it.

/Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2010/05/22/establishment-press-largely-covers-obamas-tracks-disgraceful-daniel-pear>.
/

/
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/05/22/establishment-press-largely-covers-obamas-tracks-on-disgraceful-daniel-pearl-remarks/
/


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

<<inline: DanielPearlInIslamistCaptorsVid2002.jpg>>

Reply via email to