Questions asked by a journalist of other journalists about the terror attack in New Orleans.:
First, yes, enough is known by now to call it “terror.”
My first question is why almost every news report identified the attacker as a U.S. Army veteran.
He was. That is true. How relevant is that?
In the AP story I read Thursday morning, he was not identified by name, Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar, until the ninth paragraph, after naming two witnesses, President Joe Biden, and the New Orleans’ police chief.
Isn’t the Who one of the first of the journalistic 5 Ws?
The answer may be, well, his name doesn’t mean much. I ask, and his service record does?
Why did news agencies find his military service to be more relevant than his failed real estate business, his money problems, or his status as a divorced dad, all of which might have contributed to his mental state.
Not to mention his religion, which was fastidiously not mentioned.
I had to hunt for any reportage on that, and finally found it not in the New York Post, but in The New York Times:”
“Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar appeared to be living a quiet but dutiful life of work and faith amid Houston’s sprawling diversity: a veteran of the U.S. Army who studied information technology, converted to Islam and recently held a six-figure job.”
The AP story I mentioned did not have a word about his faith.
Is that less relevant than his military service?
Yes, yes, I know — the fear that reporting his religion might somehow fan islamophobia.
It might. Does that provide justification for withholding a salient fact? And, yes, given his proven infatuation with ISIS, it is a salient fact.
For the past generation, a woke wind has been blowing through newsrooms. Another example is the failure of most news outlets to refer to illegal immigrants as illegal. That is an announced policy, saying use of the word somehow stigmatizes migrants. No, it stigmatizes illegal migrants, who earned the stigma.
Right now, many big city, which is to say Democrat-run, newspapers have banned running the photos of criminal suspects except in rare circumstances.
Why? Because in big cities the perpetrators of violent crime are usually Black. Running the photos could lead to racist thoughts, the journalists believe.
It might.
But their job isn’t to imagine readers’ reactions. It is to present relevant facts.
Is race relevant? Often yes.
Here’s a relevant reason why suppressing the photos is a mistake.
In this social media age, the pictures get out anyway, and many readers will feel their newspaper is manipulating the news, which leads to further disrespect of the print media.
The closest parallel I can think of is Bernie Madoff, the millionaire convicted of embezzling more millions, from fellow Jews.
Madoff’s name is identifiably Jewish, and the media was not shy about reporting that most of his victims were Jewish.
His prosecution, and conviction, played into the anti-Semitic trope that Jews are unscrupulous money grubbers.
Should the story have been suppressed?
No.
And I took great delight in eviscerating Madoff in a column condemning him as a shanda (a disgrace) on Jews.
Trying to protect evil-doers is short-sighted. It is counterproductive. Put all the cards on the table.
I love Jason Kelce. Jason Kelce with his former and future self I don’t know…
So the ball has dropped, the hugs are given, the kisses are taken, and the…
His book, “War,” says Bob Woodward, “presents the efforts and decisions to try to prevent…
I was watching an MSNBC discussion show Friday morning, with all four panelists agreeing, vociferously,…
President Joe Biden seems determined to torch his legacy as the grains of sand run…
Continuing with a conversation with God going back a quarter of a century. Your Favorite…
View Comments
Hey Stu - thank you for routing out more info on this mass killer. We knew there would be more - and I'm sure more to come. But why you could find the info to reproduce here, and the other news outlets couldn't - and wouldn't, well, you've done a great explanation of same. Keep up the great investigative work - because I have a feeling that you are about our only informed, and informing, source on this subject matter. And probably will be for some time.
I Just try to call balls and strikes honestly.
I agree that it is not the journalists responsibility to anticipate the reaction of its consumers. You are absolutely correct in pointing that out. But is it also the responsibility of politicians to simply express remorse for a heinous act and not influence thoughts until investigations are complete? I'd read (though haven't yet confirmed the veracity) that President Elect Donald Trump used the attack to fan the flames of immigration on his social media post. Note to Donald, you won the presidency; now it's time to start acting presidential, if you're capable.
Mark - regarding your last sentence about tRUMP...all I can say is - surely you jest! (And I know - don't call you surely!)
Yes, Trump stupidly assumed the killer was an illegal who came across the border. No surprise he shoots from the hip.
"Shoots from the hip?" Does that equate to "says stupid shit before he has any facts to back it up?"
It's worse than that, Freeze. It more closely falls under, "Please engage brain before opening mouth." Maybe they are both the same, in slightly different words.
You and freeze are both right Randy. But you are assuming there is a brain to be engaged.
He suffers from a cranium-rectum inversion💩
Pretty much.
The earliest official reports said that the truck had come across the border at Eagle Pass.
He was a Muslim? His name sure didn't give it away.
As to illegal immigrants, lets just call them "wetbacks."
Take the guess work out of interpreting what the news
news media means.
Not sure if this is serious, sardonic, or satire.
(Wetbacks not appropriate as more take the land route in, or overstay visas.)
I don't believe the so-called PC culture should ever have any effect on how the news is reported. As Stu points out, it's who, what, when, where, and why. And that's the way it should ALWAYS be with news. Leave the freaking opinions on the editorial pages, please. This goes for both right AND left.
It should not have an effect, but it does. Often by design.
Stu, you can call balls & strikes as you see them because of where you are in your career. You've earned your IDGAF attitude. Young journalists are probably more interested in sensationalism and click-bait articles then writing a boring, albeit factual, story. Thats why I follow your website, to get fair reporting. Keep up the good work....
Thanks very much. I fear young journalists (and some older ones) don’t even know they are biased. They have lived in a silo so long , they don’t even know that they are half blind.
If you wonder why blogs and on-line news-and-info sites (and Stu's columns) are having such an astounding impact on informing us what is REALLY going on, the manipulative, empty reporting on this (and the related) terror attack by the old-line newspapers and radio/tv networks should give you a clue. And what the hell ever became of the FBI? I wouldn't trust those bozos as crossing guards.
You are so right on this Stu. I have gotten to where I trust the major news outlets less and less. And I am sick of the woke. Who is there to trust? Fox is pure propaganda; NYT and WAPO pick and choose what they want us to read; WSJ, with exception of Peggy Noonan, is often biased and poorly thought out; Reuters is the only one I remotely "trust." I also hate to say it, but Al Jazeera is pretty good as well. It's amazes me that there was a big investigative report by the WSJ about Biden's enablers on his staff, his family, and senior Democrats and cabinet members hiding the extent of his cognitive impairment from us for years. This is a huge scandal, and as Noonan wrote that it constitutes not just a scandal, but elder abuse. Why haven't the Times and WAPO reported on this more in depth? Rachel Maddow and MSNBC where are you? CNN is dying if not dead, as are network and cable TV news. BBC is a bumbling shadow of its former self. I suspected that this was the case with Biden years ago. It was obvious to anyone who paid attention. The Times tried in vain to get him to sit for an interview only to be stonewalled by his staff. The Times had to have known why they were being stonewalled. And yet, it took the WSJ to break the news and The Times has been pretty quiet about what is obvious to everyone now.
🎯 I read that WSJ article Wanda, and I'm just as shocked as you are that most so-called major media organizations ignored this.
You are so right on this Stu. I have gotten to where I trust the major news outlets less and less. And I am sick of the woke. Who is there to trust? Fox is pure propaganda; NYT and WAPO pick and choose what they want us to read; WSJ, with exception of Peggy Noonan, is often biased and poorly thought out; Reuters is the only one I remotely "trust." I also hate to say it, but Al Jazeera is pretty good as well. It's amazes me that there was a big investigative report by the WSJ about Biden's enablers on his staff, his family, and senior Democrats and cabinet members hiding the extent of his cognitive impairment from us for years. This is a huge scandal, and as Noonan wrote that it constitutes not just a scandal, but elder abuse. Why haven't the Times and WAPO reported on this more in depth? Rachel Maddow and MSNBC where are you? CNN is dying if not dead, as are network and cable TV news. BBC is a bumbling shadow of its former self. I suspected that this was the case with Biden years ago. It was obvious to anyone who paid attention. The Times tried in vain to get him to sit for an interview only to be stonewalled by his staff. The Times had to have known why they were being stonewalled. And yet, it took the WSJ to break the news and The Times has been pretty quiet about what is obvious to everyone now.
You are so right on this Stu. I have gotten to where I trust the major news outlets less and less. And I am sick of the woke. Who is there to trust? Fox is pure propaganda; NYT and WAPO pick and choose what they want us to read; WSJ, with exception of Peggy Noonan, is often biased and poorly thought out; Reuters is the only one I remotely "trust." I also hate to say it, but Al Jazeera is pretty good as well. It's amazes me that there was a big investigative report by the WSJ about Biden's enablers on his staff, his family, and senior Democrats and cabinet members hiding the extent of his cognitive impairment from us for years. This is a huge scandal, and as Noonan wrote that it constitutes not just a scandal, but elder abuse. Why haven't the Times and WAPO reported on this more in depth? Rachel Maddow and MSNBC where are you? CNN is dying if not dead, as are network and cable TV news. BBC is a bumbling shadow of its former self. I suspected that this was the case with Biden years ago. It was obvious to anyone who paid attention. The Times tried in vain to get him to sit for an interview only to be stonewalled by his staff. The Times had to have known why they were being stonewalled. And yet, it took the WSJ to break the news and The Times has been pretty quiet about what is obvious to everyone now.
In brief, read Left and Right. That means Fox. Sorry, Wanda, the NEWS SHOWS are fine. It’s the 8-11 pm opinion shows that are trash. Per WSJ, Fox covered it. I will be MSNBC did not.
The bias doesn’t usually come from what they print, or broadcast, but from what they don’t.
Yo, Wanda, you made some excellent points. But are they worth doing over 3 times? LoL
You must have had a nervous thumb on the Enter Key.
And yes, your reply to me above was right on - one must have a brain before attempting to engage same.
Probably a system glitch, not Wanda.