here we have journalists not speaking up for
him
---
because we all know what he was doing there

and it wasn't for journalism or for the USA

On May 23, 7:29 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
> But he was a journalist and here we have journalists not speaking up for
> him.  They are totally beneath contempt for that alone.
>
>
>
>
>
> plainolamerican wrote:
> > Perl was killed because he was a jew - not because he was journalist
>
> > some don't forget
>
> > On May 22, 8:31 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> 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-cover...>
>
> >> 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-...>
> >> 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_i...>,
> >> 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+...>
> >> 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/ALeqM5glN6l4afLkwukZGjvR...>
> >> 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-pres...>.
> >> /
>
> >> /http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/05/22/establishment-press-largely-cover...
> >> /
>
> >> --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >>  DanielPearlInIslamistCaptorsVid2002.jpg
> >> 28KViewDownload
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ 
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to