Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
To me, this is where the distinction lies (not that bombing equals homicide). I agree that saying "suicide bombing" resonates as a PR matter, but I'm not sure whose PR agenda is fulfilled. For me, hearing "suicide bomber" drives home the fact that *certain* groups of people (usually Muslims) are pathetic enough to strap bombs on kids in order to blow up as many adults and kids as possible. It also makes me think about who is funding these escapades (or paying for the suicide bomber's funeral). Hearing "suicide bomber" doesn't evoke any sympathy. I don't mind the term at all.

But if Fox news wants to use homicide bomber to focus the crime on the homicide victims, why should I care? When you hear about Israeli parents sifting through a streetful of body parts trying to put back together their toddlers, why does anyone care that Fox is using "homicide bomber"? Because folks might (gasp) side with the victims? I don't see anything unfair about the term and don't see any unfair stuff that's being "whipped up" among supposedly stupid red-staters. (Yes, this is a reply to Sebby's post too. I'm lazy like that).

Fox is trying to emphasize the deaths of the victims, rather than that of the bomber, and while I understand the reason for it, as a policy matter the death of the bomber matters quite a bit. Why should you care? Because it's harder to stop people who are planning to kill themselves. Because it suggests a level of desperation in our enemy that has implications for how we fight the war. Not necessarily because you should sympathize with the plight of the bomber, though I think that's what Fox and Hank are worried about.

eta: I'm not bothered that Fox would call them "homicide bombers," but I am bothered that people who are so profoundly unserious about these things would have any influence on the intellectual or political climate in this country.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Look, in this simple context, bombing is synonymous with homicide.

do I write in some form of english that is different from you use, because I think maybe I do.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
eta: I'm not bothered that Fox would call them "homicide bombers," but I am bothered that people who are so profoundly unserious about these things would have any influence on the intellectual or political climate in this country.

IMHO, the distinction occurs when the news service in question totals the bombers in the number of victims.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do I write in some form of english that is different from you use, because I think maybe I do.

Did Sebby already respond to this question?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
IMHO, the distinction occurs when the news service in question totals the bombers in the number of victims.

You object to them reporting (accurately) that "x are dead" where x is a number including the suicide bomber?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did Sebby already respond to this question?

first you said Fox calls them that to hide the real problem, then you said it was a redundant term. your second post echoed what I had said about 10 AM this morning.

Should I start correcting you by taking random sentences from the middle of your posts and replying with them?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
You object to them reporting (accurately) that "x are dead" where x is a number including the suicide bomber?

Yes. Because - contrary to your point, and you know this - they dont just say "X are dead"

Reuters will have a headline "26 Victims in Suicide Attack" - and then buried in the article you will learn that 25 children were killed when some thug blew himself up.

The murderer is not a "victim"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
first you said Fox calls them that to hide the real problem, then you said it was a redundant term. your second post echoed what I had said about 10 AM this morning.

Should I start correcting you by taking random sentences from the middle of your posts and replying with them?

(a) Fox is not "hiding" the real problem. Fox is more concerned with striking a pose of sympathy with the victims than it is with giving viewers useful information about the world.

(b) My ("my") post repeated a sentence from Sebby's post. Had you perceived this, you probably would not have bothered to respond, and fairly so.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes. Because - contrary to your point, and you know this - they dont just say "X are dead"

Reuters will have a headline "26 Victims in Suicide Attack" - and then buried in the article you will learn that 25 children were killed when some thug blew himself up.

The murderer is not a "victim"

Fortunately, this can be easily solved through a "excepting the bomber, of course, who killed himself. The fucking coward" macro.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes. Because - contrary to your point, and you know this - they dont just say "X are dead"

Reuters will have a headline "26 Victims in Suicide Attack" - and then buried in the article you will learn that 25 children were killed when some thug blew himself up.

The murderer is not a "victim"

I agree that the murdered is not a victim and that the hypothetical headline you describe here is inaccurate. We can agree to disagree about how often Reuters and other media say the inaccurate things you describe here.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Fox is more concerned with striking a pose of sympathy with the victims than it is with giving viewers useful information about the world.

"Striking a pose of sympathy with the victims"? You talk like they are faking sympathy with victims of a bombing for some political purpose. I don't think that's true and I think media actually distances us from the victims and makes some people into bit of an armchair commentator -- one who doesn't give enough regard to the fact of the deaths or the victims. Have you wiped off bloody bits of once alive but now instantly dead people from your clothing? I have. And so whereas you may look at the news and see a "political crisis erupting this afternoon in downtown X" or other kind of intellectualization, I think of it differently. I remember the faces of the kids who were blown up getting a slice of Sbarro pizza. So I don't mind a news story that focuses on the victim. In my view, a little more "sympathy for the victims" would be a good idea and wouldn't be "striking a pose" at all. In fact, I think we are all so used to hearing about this or that victim or bombing, we're desensitized to it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
"Striking a pose of sympathy with the victims"? You talk like they are faking sympathy with victims of a bombing for some political purpose. I don't think that's true and I think media actually distances us from the victims and makes some people into bit of an armchair commentator -- one who doesn't give enough regard to the fact of the deaths or the victims. Have you wiped off bloody bits of once alive but now instantly dead people from your clothing? I have. And so whereas you may look at the news and see a "political crisis erupting this afternoon in downtown X" or other kind of intellectualization, I think of it differently. I remember the faces of the kids who were blown up getting a slice of Sbarro pizza. So I don't mind a news story that focuses on the victim. In my view, a little more "sympathy for the victims" would be a good idea and wouldn't be "striking a pose" at all. In fact, I think we are all so used to hearing about this or that victim or bombing, we're desensitized to it.

I think that Fox coverage of such events involves striking a pose and desensitizing people, and that what you just said does not. I don't mind focusing on the victims at all. I just think it's idiotic to call suicide bombers "homicide bombers" out of an impulse to avoid mentioning that the attacker ended up dead as well.

[LessinSF]

Where can I get a job that will pay me not to work for lying?

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=105&sid=1304817

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think that Fox coverage of such events involves striking a pose and desensitizing people,

Okay. Tell us how Fox desensitizes people concerning violence/bombings. Please don't say it's because they use the word "homicide bomber". Because if that's the case, you are pretty easily desensitized.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Okay. Tell us how Fox desensitizes people concerning violence/bombings.

TV news, and Fox in particular, is superficial. Fox -- and I don't think they're unique in this -- sensationalizes violence, particularly violence committed by strangers, without providing context. (Local TV news often does this too, with local crime stories.) Context concerning causes helps to understand why these things occur. Context concerning their impact -- like who the victims are -- helps explain their impact. The superficiality of the coverage has the effect of desensitizing people to what the story means. It just becomes a number of inexplicable, random deaths.

The exception to this general phenomenom is when a story breaks through to saturation coverage. Natalie Holloway (or whatever her name was), 9/11, the OJ case -- these stories are overreported, not underreported, leading to a whole different set of issues.