Three Jeers for Al Jazeera

vcialis 40mg times;”>By Phil Erwin

medications times;”>In a peculiarly cynical move, the American wing of terrorist-tolerant Al Jazeera has officially banned from its English writings these terror-related terms:

Islamist, jihad, terrorist/terrorism, radicals, extremist, militants.

In directing this jihad on jihadist-centric verbiage, Carlos Van Meek, an executive at Al Jazeera English, explained his directive this way: “One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.”

We might ask Mr. Van Meek, as regards to the Taliban bombing of a Pakistani school that killed 132 children, whether “freedom fighter” was his preferred  terminology.

Al Jazeera is a Qatar-based, Arab-centric news organization encompassing television, Internet and print media in both Arabic and English languages.* One might assume they have a distinctly Arabic worldview coloring their reporting and opinions, though their English website proclaims “…impartial, fact-based reporting.” But a slant toward anti-American sentiment kind of stands to reason, does it not?   (And recall: It was Al Jazeera that Osama bin Laden used as the release-point for his propagandistic videos sent from hidey-holes in Afghanistan and Pakistan.) It has been called the “Pravda” of the Islamic world, a reference to the former Soviet propaganda machine. And various observers who speak both languages have reported that the offerings in English are decidedly less, shall we say, bellicose than are those presented to the Arabic-speaking world.

I won’t say they’re a terrorist rag; but you gotta wonder whose side they’re on. And with this latest censor-ific pronouncement pending, we really must ask: Just what is their agenda?

Of course, as a “news” organization, they shouldn’t be on any side. They’re supposed to be reporting the events of the day as cleanly, clearly and unambiguously as they possibly can, and letting you decide which side of things makes the more sense to you.

Then again, it’s become so common for “news” organizations to adopt a political stance, it’s almost impossible to get real “news” anymore. When it comes to bias, it’s hard to say which is the current Crown Prince of Propaganda –Al Jazeera or MSNBC. (And what do you know, MSNBC now sports a commentator plucked directly from Al Jazeera) If it weren’t for the fiery logo emblazoning the Al Jazeera backgrounds, it’d be tough to tell the difference.

Greg Gutfield

Greg Gutfeld, an oft-sarcastic contributor on FOX, wondered aloud whether “freedom fighters” made a habit of killing children for watching soccer – as happened just days ago in northern Iraq – Oh, pardon me, in the so-called “Islamic State.” Speaking on “The Five” (1/28/2015), Gutfeld offered a few alternatives that the Al Jazeera newsies might use, in place of the now-disallowed “terrorists”: “How about savages?” he posited. “Maniacs? Future Executives at Al Jazeera?”

Gutfeld lamented the inability of the Left to call terrorism what it is. “For them, it’s easier to fight language than [to fight] terror; it’s why the media focus on mean words, rather than mean deeds. As men are being thrown from buildings for being gay, and women are murdered for adultery – where’s the Left?!? They’re busy dissecting Bobby Jindal’s speech for Islamo-hatred!… It’s a Fifth Column defending Evil while chasing phantom phrases.”

Juan Williams – a Democrat among the FOXes who worked for the hyper-Liberal NPR until he was fired for committing the cardinal sin of being reasonable – noted the difficulty in avoiding the banned phrases while reporting current events: “I don’t see how they can avoid using the language,” he said. “When you come to telling people the truth about what’s going on… These are Islamic terrorists who are cutting people’s heads off!”

To which Gutfeld observed, “Yeah… They’re not Methodists.”

What the crew at Al Jazeera, and their philosophical compatriots at the White House, need is an actual working definition of the real and growing threat we all face. Here’s my “radical” offering:

Those who strive for political gain or societal change by perpetrating violence, or by other means terrorizing others, and do so in the name of Islam and with the professed purpose of accomplishing jihad as directed in the Quran, are inherently, deliberately, indubitably, undeniably: Radical Islamist Jihadi Terrorists.

As a “news” organization, Al Jazeera should be striving for just such linguistic clarity. And one might remind them, as they try to carve out a place in American journalism, that in this country we frown on censorship. We do not like it; we do not abide it. In fact, we outlaw it. Our first Constitutional Amendment specifically proscribes it.

Oh, wait…   I forget myself.   It turns out, our own government has similarly forbidden anti-terror language. We’re not supposed to say, “Islamic terrorist”! We’re to avoid using the terms, radical, Islamic or jihadist in conjunction with, terrorist or terrorism.

At least, our White House crew has been so censored. As has our Military. They’ve even been directed to remove such “offensive” language from their publications. And of course, the nation’s “Press Corp” has been similarly “instructed” to observe these proprieties. Never mind that the Press works for us (via our news corporations) – not for the Administration. Never mind that telling Americans what they can or can not say is about as un-American as it gets. Never mind that the President himself, all kingly delusions to the contrary, is not our king, but is in fact our employee. And as our employee, he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes the First Amendment guarantees of Freedom of Speech and of the Press.

Never mind all that legal clap-trap. Just remember: What the President and Al Jazeera say, goes.

So shut your yap, and get down on your knees.

Five times a day.

Else a Radical Islamist Jihadi Terrorist (otherwise known, perhaps, to the PC-crazed denizens of the White House as an “Earnest Non-Traditional Religious Conflictant”) is likely to show up on your doorstep, carrying a big knife – certified non-terrorist, of course – and the next thing you know, you’ll be looking up at said knife from a distinctly lower point of view.

And if you think that’s a rhetorical stretch, just remember: It happened in Oklahoma mere months ago.

 *          *          *          *          *

* Al Jazeera got its foothold in the American press pantheon by purchasing Al Gore’s failed “Current TV” network. Reportedly, for $70 million. Lessee… “Al” Gore; “Al” Jazeera… Hmmm.

======================================================

Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He notes that you can watch Al Jazeera if you wish; or you can watch MSNBC, same thing. But he reminds you: If you don’t watch FOX, you don’t know sh*t.

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE