Page 1 of 1

Media coverage of terorist attcks

PostPosted: 21 Apr 2017, 14:19
by cromwell
Strange thing.
Last night I was struck by the bbc and Sky's coverage of the latest Islamist terrorist outrage.
Three police officers had been attacked in one of Europe's major capitals, shot with an assault rifle. One dead, two seriously injured.

The reports were trying to talk up the positives. "Traffic is now flowing freely" "People are now going about their business".

They are trying to talk the matter down, trying to damp down any public anger at yet another murder by Islamists. It's blatant.

Re: Media coverage of terorist attcks

PostPosted: 21 Apr 2017, 15:16
by Suff
The fact that anyone is shot with an assault rifle in a major European city is cause for extreme alarm.

The fact that one of the terrorists was shot at the scene is due to the fact that the French Police are armed. Had this happened in, for instance, Lincoln, the chances are that the terrorists would have made a clean getaway, although, possibly, not evaded capture in the end.

Re: Media coverage of terorist attcks

PostPosted: 21 Apr 2017, 19:08
by Workingman
I am not sure that I am totally against what the media is doing.

I was in the forces at the height of the IRA and the message always was that we had to get back to normal and not to be cowed, otherwise they won. Yes, we had to be careful. Yes, we had to be vigilant and alert, but we also had to get on with life.

However, and I agree with Suff, the fact t hat this murderer had a Kalashnikov is a major worry, but what makes it worse is that he had already been jailed for a previous shooting at police.

Why was he ever allowed out?

Re: Media coverage of terorist attcks

PostPosted: 22 Apr 2017, 07:39
by cromwell
I think he was given 20 years and served 15, WM.

Interesting how "progressive" Politicians are slanting attacks like this. Emmanuel Macron, the French presidential candidate, is saying that people should not "give into fear".
In other words the "brave" thing to do is just to carry on as we are. A very convenient view.

It isn't fear that concerns politicians and the media; it is anger. They do not want the public to become angry.

They also don't want any alternative to multiculturalism, even though Cameron, sarkozy and Merkel have all said that it has failed. Which is why Hungary and the Czech republic are having their arms twisted to take "migrants". But that's another story.

Re: Media coverage of terorist attcks

PostPosted: 22 Apr 2017, 10:24
by Suff
Yes Cromwell, the "dumbing down" of these terrorist events is a significant issue. People need to get angry and vote angry or they will just get more of the same without end.

WM is also right that we do have to just get on with it. However we also need to hold our politicians to account for the consequences of their actions and shutting down the debate does not do that.

Election time is a great time to "get angry".

Re: Media coverage of terorist attcks

PostPosted: 22 Apr 2017, 12:45
by medsec222
It has always been more of the same. The surprise to me was that the majority voted Brexit. We sheeples always seem to go with the status quo. Not this time. Hopefully we will remain on track.