How CNN reacted to the Jihadi attack in NYC

Submitted by Prashant, Nov 4, 2017 at 09:10

Dear Dr Pipes,

Media's bias in reporting the terrorist attacks and Jihadi terror politics is much talked about. Analyzing how CNN reported on the truck attack in NYC will be instructive in this respect. Here is what I noticed about the CNN's reporting:

-- Almost every day since Donald Trump's election as the president of the US, CNN published one or more articles maligning his character or policies.

-- On Oct 31 after the truck attack CNN reported about the attack in a manner as if they were reporting about an earthquake about which no one can do anything. They completely ignored the fact that media's consistent pattern of explaining away the violence in the name of Islam may be playing some part in encouraging this kind of attacks.

-- On Nov 2 CNN declared in bold face and large fonts that 'New Yorkers were defiant' in the aftermath of the attack.

-- On November 3, CNN returned to the regularly scheduled programming which included a report about how Trump recklessly endangers the prosecution of a terrorism case and how Trump is encouraging democratic women to run in elections and three or four anti-Trump articles.

-- On November 4, there are about 6 articles on cnn.com criticizing Trump. One article about the Jihadi attack. And no article criticizing Islamists violence. I am pretty sure in the next two weeks some profound academic scholar will write an article on CNN criticizing Israel and explaining away the Palestinian and Islamic violence.

Media, the world over, must criticize the Islamists' violence in no uncertain terms and without any if and/or buts. Or else they are complicit in this kind of violence.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".