Prez Duck is being mocked by his mention of the "terrorist attacks in Sweden, last night". Read the progressive/liberal media, and you'll find plenty of mocking, and explanations - because that's what these media do, they "explain", so that we don't have to exert our tiny little brains thinking - that will do their best to get "racism" and "white privilege" into the story.
Funnily enough, too, none of those media geniuses mentions this.
Now, obviously, this is not what Prez Duck was talking about, and I have no doubt he doesn't even know this is happening. And I can believe that these "non-fake-news" progressive/liberal media also don't know this is happening (yes, they should, but I've lowered my expectations of the media a few years ago).
I'm a little more surprised when I see people living in Sweden, some of them public officials, mocking Mr. Duck and not giving these grenade attacks (which went from 3 in 2013 to 34 in 2016) any mention.
Some a**hole with a knife in London gets a 24/7 news cycle treatment. Dozens of attacks with grenades in Sweden, and we barely hear about it. I had no idea about this, until I heard an analyst talking about it. A Portuguese analyst who is, in fact, one of the few here who doesn't hold a one-sided view.
Now, like I said, this is not related to Prez Duck's "alternative fact" on terrorist attacks in any way, shape, or form. My point is quite different.
This is an example of why it's so easy for Prez Duck to hit the media credibility and drag it through the mud. When talking about attacks in Sweden, not one single news media mentioned these past attacks. The analyst I mentioned above did it, stating clearly that it was totally unrelated to what Mr. Duck said, and saying that this was the only recurring incident he was aware of that was serious enough to be classified as "terrorism", although the Swedish authorities hadn't done that. See, dear media? You can be informative, accurate, and unbiased, all at the same time.
No one else mentioned this. Not now, and I don't remember having ever heard about it. As I looked for articles on it, I only found one attack extensively reported, and it included an 8-year-old British victim. It was the only time I found an article from the Guardian. Vox? Nowhere to be found. Slate? Out to lunch. Huff Post? MIA. NYT? Well, you get the picture.
However, as soon as the Clown-In-Chief commits a blunder, all these "non-fake-news" media suddenly become "experts on Sveeden". And they did take some action on the subject, by tearing down the so-called "documentary" from some bloke called Ami Horowitz. A few years ago, I would've said "Good job". However, because of their biased reporting, these days I give as much credibility to this Horowitz fellow as I do to the media. E.g., the Guardian, on an article called "Donald Trump's Sweden comment referred to 'rising crime', White House says" (my emphasis), talks about crime in Sweden (not terrorism), and has no mention of the grenade attacks. I could understand not talking about it in the context of terrorism; not talking about it in the context of violent crime is omission, pure and simple. As usual, when this happens, you're either incompetent or acting with malice. Your call, Guardian.
Trump is an idiot, but that's all he needs to be to beat these biased brain-dead media, until they realize that if they keep reporting just one side of the issues, they'll never regain their lost credibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment