MSM carry water for terrorists | the case of Flydubai Flight 1073

Rich Lowry being spot-on, yet again.

When I first heard of the Flydubai news — that is, the failed terrorist hijack mass-murder attempt —  I thought it was an “altercation”, because that’s what the news said.

Then I delved into it and it was clear that one pilot, an Omani Muslim, had attacked the other pilot, an Indian national, and tried to crash the plane. That was news from onboard the plane. From all the videos onboard. From all the passengers and crew onboard. From every sentient being with an operating brain. 

And yet:

I went back to check with CNN. Not just its main site, but its “ breaking news” site, hours after we all knew the terrorist part of the story. “All” but CNN. Which still carried the  “altercation” angle! No hint that it was an attempted mass-murder-suicide event. Sigh….

The satirical Babylon Bee has a take on it. How the New York Times might have covered previous mass-murder events. 

• 911: “Planes diverted to Twin Towers after passengers quarrel”. 
• Custer’s Last Stand: “American Servicemen Engage in Spirited Debate With Locals”. 
• Pearl Harbour: “Japanese Tourists Visit Hawaii”. 

Rich Lowry gives three reasons the mainstream media (MSM) is incapable of calling out Islamic terrorism.

Summary courtesy Grok:

In the National Review video “CNN and The New York Times Can’t Bring Themselves To Be Honest About Islamic Terrorism,” Rich Lowry ends with three reasons the mainstream media is hesitant to call an incident Islamic terrorism (here, the Flydubai Flight 1073 cockpit attack):

1.  Multiculturalist sympathy. The media shares the multiculturalist attitudes of the left, so it tends to treat the West and the United States as in the wrong, and Islamists as deserving some sympathy and as portrayed too harshly. It does not want to blame Islam if it can avoid it.

2.  Fear of feeding “bigots.” It treats people who focus on Islamic terrorism as irrational and bigoted, and does not want to give them “any oxygen.”

3.  Bias against Israel. On the Middle East dispute itself, Lowry says the media is deeply biased against Israel, which produces unusual and indefensible standards for what is fit to print when the subject is Islamic terrorism.

Seems to me these reasons are broadly correct (though not exhaustive). They are powerful mind-viruses that do great harm to societies — vide: U.K., France, Germany — while Leftish governments refuse to take any steps to stop the causes of the harm, because it would violate one or all of these three mindsets

Look at recent history. Wide swathes of voters, around 70-80%, want control over mass immigration. It is often the top concern of voters. Result: nothing. Explanation: see above. 

Remember my example of David Sedaris. I’m a big fan of his. I love his writing. But I commented on one of his essays. Where his worry about the 2020 nationwide riots, of widespread looting, of massive property destruction, all in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd, was not the huge damage ($300+ Billion which largely affected minority businesses), nor the deaths (20+), but that “they will give Trump talking points” in the presidential election battle. 

Sedaris’ concern, iow, was the “fear of feeding the bigots”. Not addressing the issue itself, no matter how deadly serious, but the fear it might help your political opponents. 

I’m going to call that: warped values. No matter how much I like and admire his writings.