Here is the story:
As distrust of the press grows, news articles are relentlessly scrutinized for bias, but almost no one is focusing on stories that are simply ignored. For instance, a May 18 report in the Afghan newspaper Kabul Weekly said the riots that killed 17 people were not about disrespect for the Koran in American detainment camps--they were a show of force by the Taliban and another fundamentalist group, Hezb-e Eslami. "These demonstrations were organized by the Taliban and their supporters, and only some naive people joined the protesters," the newspaper said. The BBC picked up the story on May 22, but so far as I can see, it was completely ignored in American news media. If you edited, let us say, a large newspaper in Washington or New York, or a prominent newsmagazine accused of causing these famous riots, wouldn't you want to check this one out?
No, you wouldn't because at this point the MSM will take any story that talks about their influence, even if it is negative, to pump up their garbage egos. They want to think it is all about Watergate and the glory days when the world jumped at what Dan Blather or Tom Brokaw said, not the New Media of today where Drudge, or Instapundit, or Hugh Hewitt can bring the bubble crashing down on their heads.
Here is some more from the article:
Foley sent a letter to the White House calling on it to pursue the "worldwide speculation that the U.S. military targets journalists and the media." In other words, she doesn't have to back up her charge, but the White House should start trying to prove that what she said is false.
John, you should know this one. You don't have to prove something real. Just say it and then force someone else to prove it fake. In the MSM, when dealing with the US, it is guilty until proven innocent, and even when documents are fake, then they are still held up as being accurate.
And there is this outrage, that the MSm failed to report about AI, as usual, because it shows the international community for what it is:
Rule 18. A different omission marred the reporting of Amnesty International's report charging torture in U.S. detainment camps. The group didn't just call Guantanamo a "gulag," an over-the-top remark that was universally reported. In a press release that most reporters ignored, the group also invited foreign governments to snatch certain visiting American officials off the streets and bring them to trial for crimes against humanity. The suggested snatchees, should they travel abroad, were President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA Director George Tenet, and other unnamed civilian and military officials. Amnesty International said that "all states have a responsibility to investigate and prosecute people responsible for these crimes," just as the British pounced on Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998. The snatching recommendation wasn't new, but the Amnesty press release is a useful reminder of the dangers of signing on to the International Criminal Court.
Just try and screw with Rummy or our President....The Belgians tried it with Rice, and they got smacked down. Gee, then I guess we should have kidnapped Saddam, we should kidnap Kim Jong Il, and I wonder if AI would think that would be OK? And lastly, there is this, for PK, who thinks I made up the training manuals for Al Queda....READ IT, PK, AND APOLOGIZE:
Mainstream media have been reluctant, in all the coverage of treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, to mention that the al Qaeda training manual specifically instructs all of its agents to make false claims of torture. The New York Times seems to have mentioned the manual's torture reference only once, in a short report from Australia. Several other papers mentioned it as a one-line quote from a military spokesman who pointed it out. But until the Washington Times ran a front-page piece last week, a Nexis search could find no clear and pointed article in the U.S. press like the one by Alasdair Palmer in the London Sunday Telegraph, with the headline "This is al Qaeda Rule 18: 'You must claim you were tortured.' " He wrote that the manual doesn't prove "that the Britons were not tortured in Guantanamo. But it ought to encourage some doubts about uncritically accepting that they were--which seems to be the attitude adopted by most of the media." Amen to both points in that last sentence.
As Glenn Reynolds would say, Indeed....
