A new study indicates that coverage of terroristic acts has some influence on the instances of terroristic acts. It’s a sort of self-feeding ecosystem where coverage of an attack makes the attackers feel effective, and thus initiate another attack.
So what is the response of conservatives? The media should stop covering terrorist attacks. That’s right, the same people who brought you “the liberal media” and “Saddam will greet us as liberators” have decided that the way to stop terror attacks is not by killing terrorists (bloggers like Jeff Goldstein have all but given up on getting Bin Laden because to note that would hurt Bush)… but instead, newspapers and other media should simply pretend terror attacks don’t happen. Can you believe these dumbasses? Here’s a clue - for free - Osama Bin Laden is a bigger threat to us all than the New York Times not bending your way on every single issue (just every other).
Those conservative bloggers who want the media to stop paying attention to terrorist attacks? Google them for mentions of 9/11. Dean Esmay, for example, gets 11,300 hits.
These are the guys who flag every occurance of a news outlet not-showing beheading videos as shameless appeasement.
What’s your attitude towards praising the positive news from Iraq?
Tell the truth.
Frank, it seems your sole mission in life is to prove that all liberals are self-inflated surrender monkeys, but most of us want good news to come out of Iraq even if we may not have supported the mission. In my case, that’s partially because I have several family members rotating in and out of the Middle East, including Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq. This might explain why the best news for me and mine would be simply to redeploy our troops.
Well duh. Cutting terrorist off from the media would be like cutting them off from oxygen. Ain’t gonna happen in a free society, so it was a stupid suggestion.
Oliver…
Your representation of the link you yourself posted is grossly innacurate. You either misunderstood it badly–an amusing possibility considering you came from an angle of how stupid conservatives are–or you deliberately LIED about the contents of the article.
“The results [of a statistical study], they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage — a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.
One partial solution: Deny groups publicity by not publicly naming the attackers, Frey said.”
Emphasis is my own. Please tell me how this suggestion can be described as “pretending terror attacks don’t happen.”
Anybody?
Good post Scratch.
Dugger
Frank, it seems your sole mission in life is to prove that all liberals are self-inflated surrender monkeys, but most of us want good news to come out of Iraq
May I make a change or two?
My mission in life is to demonstrate the truth of the notion that all liberals are self-inflated surrender monkeys, and you seem not to applaud any good news that comes out of Iraq. To the contrary, you routinely minimize it.