There were plenty of places to get news about Wednesday’s mass shooting in San Bernadino. The old-line news networks were wall-to-wall and buzzing with coverage as soon as word went out that there was yet another shooting at a workplace, this time in California. I rarely consider CBS, NBC, or ABC—save for perhaps my early-morning weather forecast for the day.
Newspapers once practiced who, what, and why journalism, but now, they’re more than likely to be peddling politicized sentiments dressed up as fact. Plenty of media sources, but which one to consider?
I don’t know why, but I kind of like the Wall Street Journal. I know—it’s a Murdoch product these days and anti-business types hate that they take the side of the owners and bosses. There is a certain style and consistency inherent in how the WSJ covers stories, though. As to the matter of “truth,” well there are few places to shop for that particular commodity, at least if we’re comparing the mainstream models.
For the purposes of this blog post, let me focus on how the Journal covered what they were calling, a “Deadly California Rampage.” Granted, the print story I read was probably “put to bed” late in the evening on Wednesday in order to get out Thursday’s paper. I don’t know what their cut-off is for news stories to be filed.
As of Thursday morning, the names of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik were being offered as the suspected killers. Both had been shot and killed in a gun battle with law enforcement after a car chase ensued after the multiple shootings at the Inland Regional Center. (this information came from the Los Angeles Times, not the WSJ)
But back to the Journal.
Something jumped out at me in reading the 750 word story. Near the middle of the article, there is this.
The White House said President Barack Obama was monitoring the situation. And in what has become a ritual in the aftermath of a mass shooting, he repeated his call for stricter gun control laws.
“We have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world,” Mr. Obama told CBS News in an interview taped Wednesday.
The four guns used by Farook and Malik were purchased legally, so I’m not sure what gun control would have done to prevent the carnage. This is comforting to progressives and anyone with a fear of guns, but a red herring in this case.
The Washington Times (consulted later in the day on Thursday) indicated that the president of the United States was quoted as saying that “authorities aren’t sure whether the mass shootings in San Bernadino, California were related to terrorism.” Say what?
Even though there was another major terrorist incident slightly more than two weeks ago in Paris, France, you and your terrorist-monitoring agencies—the FBI, the CIA, Homeland Security—can’t definitively know whether Farook and Malik (the 21st century’s Bonnie and Clyde) were carrying out a terrorist attack? Unbelievable!
Then later, Mr. Obama offered an amendment to his earlier lack of surety.
Speaking from the Oval Office on Thursday, flanked by his national security team, Mr Obama said it was possible that the attack was “terrorist-related” and vowed to “get to the bottom of this”.
This presents you with a choice, dear reader. The selection at the moment is this; are these agencies and our commander in chief incompetent? Or is there obfuscation taking place? Pick your poison.
Michael Savage said during his Thursday broadcast, “if the U.S. were a company, we’d be a penny stock,” because our CEO is “incompetent” (or lying). I can’t say I disagree with the analogy.
If you haven’t been frightened away from Savage by your progressive friends, you might also believe there is a third way to go on the matter of the mass shooting.
Why were most news outlets reticent to mention that the shooters were Muslims? They kept working the “disgruntled worker” angle, time and time again. And why was the “t-word” so slow in being connected to Farook and Malik? Lord knows that no one on the left had any issues uttering “terrorism” when Robert Dear was involved. In fact, ThinkProgress, a notorious left-wing site posted that his actions may have been inspired not only by politics, but also a warped understanding of the Christian faith.
Actually, it was Savage who “picked up the suspect’s name (Farook) from a Twitter account that was monitoring a police scanner” and announced it on the air on Wednesday, more than 5 hours before police publicly identified him? Other driveby media outlets seemed fearful to do the same hours later. Has the New York Times even made that connection 36 hours later?
I can’t count the number of Facebook update from left-leaning “friends” about the Planned Parenthood shooting and the terrorism angle. Will they do the same with Farook and Talik and the San Bernadino killings?
Also, a number of radio commentators were curious why CAIR was so quick to jump out and get in front by holding a press conference (Wednesday evening) after the San Bernadino events unfolded, especially once the killers were identified as Muslims. Were they tipped off by a “friend” inside our own government?
Predictably, we have this from good ole’ Media Matters, a site that never misses a beat in bashing talk radio pundits like Rush LImbaugh,
And oh; what about that “third shooter” that I heard mentioned immediately after the major networks broke away from programming Wednesday afternoon. Nary a mention of him/her on Thursday.
I was thinking of Orwell again as I tried to make heads or tails about the news coming from mainstream media (while seeking alternative channels searching for truth) on Thursday. The word that kept coming to mind was “doublespeak.”
Some Americans are getting fed up with a steady diet of it.