NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
When news of a potential terrorist attack breaks, the first draft can sound like an attempt to maintain political correctness. The New York Times came under attack on Wednesday for tweeting, “A plane flying from Dubai to Israel was diverted after an altercation between the pilot and co-pilot, Israeli officials said.”
After people mocked the “altercation” lingo, the Times PR team counter-attacked: “Our headlines and live coverage contain all the facts we’re able to confirm as we confirm them. Unlike activists and partisans, we don’t publish speculation or unverified information.”
Anyone who thinks The Times doesn’t give off partisan activist vibes isn’t reading it.
NEW YORK TIMES ISSUES CORRECTION, DELETES LINE QUESTIONING IF ISRAELIS WERE VICTIMS OF OCT 7 TERROR ATTACK
The British Broadcasting Corporation posted a similarly bland breaking-news headline: “Israel-bound flight diverted after fight between pilots.” This sounded a little like a verbal spat. At least the brief report underneath relayed, “Two Israeli officials said the co-pilot is believed to have stabbed the captain and tried to crash the plane.”
The American broadcast networks didn’t perform this way on Wednesday morning. On “Today,” NBC reporter Matt Bradley was more straightforward: “There was some sort of violent incident on board that flight. The plane sent out a hijacking alert.” A passenger on the plane correctly relayed the pilot had been stabbed.
FLYDUBAI PILOT SHOWED WORLD ‘THE HIGHEST FORM OF COURAGE,’ INDIA’S PM SAYS
ABC’s Ian Pannell used the T-word: “This is a rapidly developing story, but it is looking increasingly like a terrorist incident.”
But the usual instinct for elitist media is to move very slowly to guess about the motive – even if it might seem obvious. An attempted hijacking of a plane full of Israelis headed for Tel Aviv suggests a hostility to Israel. The Israelis clearly suspected a new version of the 9/11 hijacking, as the networks reported they scrambled jets to intercept the Boeing 737 Max before standing down.
HERO FLYDUBAI PILOT SAYS HE WAS ‘FIGHTING FOR MY LIFE’ AS PLANE PLUNGED AFTER COPILOT ATTACK
But some networks had to smell politics in their hunt for a motive. “PBS News Hour” anchor Geoff Bennett talked to former Clinton and Obama official Juliette Kayyem. He began: “Israel’s prime minister says the co-pilot underwent what he called Islamist radical indoctrination. President [Donald] Trump has pointed to Iran. Neither has provided evidence. … What can we responsibly say, if anything, about the motive at this point?”
Kayyem replied: “Right. So, and I’m glad you say that about responsibly say. After every crisis, terror incident, disaster, there’s a narrative that forms very early that is often pushed for political reasons. I think we should just put those to the side aside right now, that that just happens. There are elections.”
CBC TELLS JOURNALISTS NOT TO CALL 9/11 ‘TERRORIST ATTACKS’ IN INTERNAL GUIDANCE
Then Kayyem acknowledged that it seems obvious that the “leading theory” would be a co-pilot trying to crash a plane of Israelis in Israel suggests terrorism. “What we don’t know and the suspicion or allegations that this is related to a terrorist organization or even Iran is what that radicalization process was like.” It could be self-radicalization, or “If it’s state-sponsored terrorism, like Iran, a country that Israel and the United States have started a war against, that is a very different consequence.”
But she suggested it could just be “mental-health” issues. An expert on CNN suggested it might just be “workplace violence.” Well, the cockpit is a workplace, but the desperation here is obvious.
NPR’s “Morning Edition” turned to Democrat-leaning former CNN analyst Philip Mudd, asking him if the political motivations of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu are going to cloud the investigation.
The British Broadcasting Corporation posted a similarly bland breaking-news headline: “Israel-bound flight diverted after fight between pilots.” This sounded a little like a verbal spat.
Terrorism incidents during election season might remind Americans of Sept. 11, 2012 – when a pack of terrorists broke into the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, leading to the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
All the networks turned on Republican nominee Mitt Romney for questioning President Barack Obama’s handling of Libya. A Media Research Center analysis of the first night of Benghazi coverage found the Romney-is-rude angle received nine minutes and 28 seconds of coverage on ABC, CBS, and NBC, while only 25 seconds focused on Obama’s Middle East policies.
Obama turned to CBS reporter Steve Kroft, his reliable “60 Minutes” softball pitcher, and said, “Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later” when you have to “make sure that the statements you make are backed up by the facts.” Kroft nudged: “Do you think it was irresponsible?” Obama said, “I’ll let the American people judge that.” Sure, after the networks pounded home the Romney attacks.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
A few days later, Team Obama bizarrely claimed the Benghazi attack could be blamed on a YouTube video that spurred spontaneous protests, so there was no “pre-planned attack.” Right before the election, CBS posted more of Kroft’s Obama interview in September where Obama said it was an attack on Americans, not a protest. But that didn’t air on television until the election was over.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The broadcast networks are the last people who should suggest you can’t trust conservatives because they might spin terrorism incidents in a partisan way in election season.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM TIM GRAHAM
Read the full article here
