Some Terrorism Scares Are More Useful Than Other Terrorism Scares
Particularly at those increasingly frequent times when our country experiences political violence and terrorism, it’s important to read David Neiwert, not least because his running list of domestic terror attacks demonstrates clearly that these are not isolated incidences.
— July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how “liberals” are “destroying America,” walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.
— October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.
— December 2008: A pair of “Patriot” movement radicals — the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted “to attack the political infrastructure” — threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.
— December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear “dirty bomb” in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb.
— January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.
— February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.
— April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.
— April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama’s purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.
— May 2009: A “sovereign citizen” named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.
— June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.
— February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one “domestic terrorism” too.)
— March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.
— March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.
— May 2010: A “sovereign citizen” from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.
— May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.
— May 2010: Two “sovereign citizens” named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.
— July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.
— September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year–old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the “Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.
Yesterday, he linked to an important Will Bunch piece, wondering whether the agenda setters in this country haven’t reported on the Spokane bomb attempt because of the right wing backlash to the coverage of the Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt.
In other words, [the Spokane bomb attempt is] what Joe Biden might call a BFD. But you wouldn’t know that if, for example, you visited the two websites that — in my own 30 years of experience as a journalist, for better or worse — do more than any other to set the agenda on national coverage in newsrooms across the country.
One of those (note I said “for better or worse”) is The Drudge Report, which ultimate Beltway insider Mark Halperin has said “rules our world.” In the 16 or so hours since the FBI went public with the “domestic terrorism” angle, Matt Drudge has spotlighted articles about things like a man arrested for taking photos at Miami airport, a blogger who may lose his firearms permit for a post related to the Tucson massacre, and laser incidents against airplanes — but nothing about the thwarted Spokane bombing.
OK, so that’s Matt Drudge — but the silence of the leading mainstream news website — that of the New York Times — is a little harder to explain. I’ve checked their home page at least a half-dozen times since last night, and I have yet to see a featured story on the FBI investigating “domestic terrorism” in Washington State. The lack of Times coverage may explain while for the most part, the coverage of this story on cable TV — the people who routinely hyped run of the mill car chases and blown-tire airplane landings — has been very minimal. I say for the most part because there have been a couple of exceptions. “The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC featured the Spokane story as major breaking news at the top of its broadcast last night, and for a time it was the lead story on the Huffington Post. Major news outlets — but with a liberal orientation.
Which is why I can’t help but wonder if there’s a backstory here related to the past weeks coverage of the assassination attempt on Rep. Giffords, and the right-wing critique of some of that coverage.
[snip]
The former GOP veep nominee was savaged for using that charged term, but you have to wonder now if the pushback from Palin [about her crosshairs ad] is actually a case of “mission accomplished.”
That’s because with this new episode in Spokane, not only have the pillars of the mainstream media not raced to any conclusions, but they seem to be in a competition as to who can most ignore the story altogether.
As important as Bunch’s point is–that there’s an eerie silence surrounding this terrorist attempt–given Neiwert’s list of under-reported domestic terror events going back several years, I actually don’t think the non-coverage of the Spokane incident is a response to the Giffords assassination attempt and the ensuing media frenzy. Rather, it’s a reversion to the status quo, less than two weeks after that assassination attempt.
Because the press almost never covers these domestic terrorism incidents. And, just as importantly, our government doesn’t often (the biggest exception was the Hutaree bust) hold big press conferences to report on such events, partly is because most press conferences are about arrests, not unsolved crimes. Moreover, in spite of Neiwert’s and Bunch’s work, there is not one bogeyman, like al Qaeda, which the press can blame.
And without an easy and convenient bogeyman, terrorism scares don’t serve the same purpose for the press, or the government.
IMO, those events all have the names of Beck and Limbaugh written all over them.
I’ve been trying for a week now, with no success, to get a response from my local Fox News and Clear Channel affiliates regarding their policies about broadcasting hate speech and eliminationist rhetoric. Crickets.
“… most press conferences are about arrests, not unsolved crimes. ”
Colleen Rowley tells us* that performance at FBI is gauged by a “front-end loading system of “statistical achievements” using “an elaborate grading system that only checks the initial projection of work in a quantitative, not qualitative, way….”:
So maybe the FBI just doesn’t want to publicize an instance of real terrorism that they didn’t instigate themselves, and failed to control, because no one gets brownie points for it.
*http://www.truth-out.org/coleen-rowley-reversing-erosion-civil-liberties66944
You know, those things need to be discussed too. The incitement of violence by the FBI is just plain crazy.
Don’t forget Sister Grifter,it has her odor also.
Wow, that’s a lot of crazed lone gunmen. Maybe the fact that none of them are swarthy brown foreigners explains the lack of press coverage.
Guess it’s just serendipitous coincidence that this list is pretty much all disaffected white men, often white supremicists with “grave concerns” about their so-called Second Amend. “rights” being taken away by an AA POTUS. And yeah, Glenn Beck’s very weird maniacal ravings and calls for civil war, along with those of some politicians, like Bring-on-the-Crazee Bachmann, or Palin’s very very incendiary language (brought to you by flacks hired by Rupert Murdoch), or Rush’s ongoing incendiary raging against ??? whatever leftie he figures “deserves it” today… have absolutley nada/zip/bupkiss to do with these incidents.
Move along now, children, nothing to see here, and for heaven’s sake, don’t look at that obscenely wealthy Oligarch behind the curtain.
And sure: no dusky males on this list, so, eh? no domestic terrorism happening. The end.
I find it hard to disagree with Emptywheel’s take on the Seattle terror attack. (And it was an attack on the MLK March, albeit an unsuccessful one.) White terror does not play well for news organizations in the United States. The Tucson Massacre was an exception. It immediately became a spectacle because of the bloodshed, the public position of one of the victims and the political context in which it occurred, a context which included threats directed at the intended target. The Seattle attack, on the other hand, lacks the bloodshed and famous victims that made the Tucson Massacre a media spectacle. But the Seattle Attack has a political context which was akin to but also modified by the Tucson Massacre. Both probably were instances of white terror. Consequently, the Seattle Attack, because of the timing and nature of the attack, should have generated as much as if not more attention than the Tucson Massacre. This point gains in importance because of the warranted hypothesis that the Attack was the work of an organization. Moreover, it is safe to say that the Attack was an act of defiance by those who committed it. For one thing, they defied the collective calls for civility which followed the Tucson Massacre and, for another, they defied a legal order which forbids these kinds of actions. As someone who attended a protest march that included a massive police and military presence, sound cannons, what likely was a directed energy device and, of course, local and national media condemnation, I find it hard to believe that sound judgments made by honest journalists accounts for this lack of attention. It is, I suspect, a fear of a future rightwing backlash along that drives this complicity by silence.
Um, Spokane (pronounced by the locals as “Spo-can” with emphasis on the first syllable), not Seattle.
Thanks. Just another morning brain seizure. Nothing to worry about, even though their frequency increases as I age.
I sorry about that. I think everyone in this country should receive the same quality of medical attention and care as Gabrielle Giffords. As I have previously expressed here at FDL (citations provided and accessible here at FDL), if the US can dole out medical torture then it sure as heck can invert that and instead give medical healing.
My medical care seems to be OK. What I need to do is to join a gym, eat right, spend less time in front of a computer screen, etc.!
That and the fact that the news agenda is also driven by advertisers, whose market consists largely in the white lumpenproletariat, whom they can hardly afford to offend.
You are right about that! There are multiple causes or motives at work in this complicity by silence.
I don’t understand this: “fear of a future rightwing backlash”
Why would the ‘libruhl’ media fear a backlash? How do you define this backlash? Sponsor boycott? Denunciations that the media don’t have to report on? Rants by Limbaugh, et. al.? Don’t they already rant against the ‘libruhl’ media? I see this as circular reasoning.
If I misinterpreted the implied backlash, then towards what institution or population sector is this backlash forecast to be directed, and how would it differ from that long list of white terror incidents?
Backlash includes assassinations, terror events (Anthrax mail and the like), being fired for covering unpopular topics, covering topics that make the GOP look like abettors of terrorism and assassination, etc. I fail to see how my claim is circular. I could restate the claim like this:
Journalists and news organizations practice self-censorship in order to avoid confronting unpleasant and even dangerous consequences.
David Neiwert’s running list of domestic terror attacks is a good one.
here is another list that will scare the crap out of you also
Insurrectionism Timeline
On 26 June 2008, the US Supreme Court embraced the National Rifle Association’s contention that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to take violent action against our government should it become “tyrannical.” The following timeline catalogues incidents of insurrectionist violence (or the promotion of such violence) that have occurred since that decision was issued:
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline
http://www.csgv.org/
Silly people, no white person can be a terrorist! Unless they convert to Islam, of course. The conversion kit apparently includes a dye packet.
Black on black crime is the big problem.
I am giving you too many question and responses (obviously). But statistics show that a) more whites than blacks die in the U.S. from firearms, and b) more deaths by firearms are suicides than homicides. From WashingtonCeaseFire.org
So in an ironic way, the biggest problems are white-on-white, self-inflicted gun deaths.
The coverage here in the Tri-Cities (WA), about 120 miles south of Spokane, was subdued. Tuesday evening, I went to a “Drinking Liberally” get-together at 7:00 pm, and only one person had heard of the attempted bombing, and he read of it online (as did I). Although the AP had the story Monday night, it wasn’t in our local Tri-City Herald until Wednesday morning (since AP only reported a “suspicious package” at first).
North of Spokane, and much of Eastern Washington, is just as “wingy” as the Montana and Michigan militias.
Being a member of a militia, how are we wingy.
Is peace your first priority?
Peace being folks getting along and not being the kind of peace one gets when one puts every enemy into the cemetery.
I take the position of Bishop Desmond Tutu on Ubuntu and advocate the process as conducted by Tutu and Nelson Mandela. However, I am not the focus of the question. I’m waiting for stevepatriquin’ detailed response to it.
I knew you were not the focus of the question. I just added an anti-militia snarky clarification to the question.
If peace was not our first priority, we would not be at peace. Nothing illegal going on. All weapons are legal. All range work is legal. We even saved two hunters this year. Go on the commie usa website. You will see why we exist. We are a just in case type organization. We want you to enjoy the freedoms given to you by whoever you think created you. The govt can not take them away. Freedom of speech is our biggest concern. We want you to say anything you want. Taking our guns will never happen, so we are not worried about that. We have plenty. And, they are legal.
Are you referring to http://www.cpusa.org as the website you mention? I am also interested to see your response to PascoBill @ 20.
P.S. Labels don’t really carry much meaning in this country. I’m interested in what folks say in their own words about what they believe and the processes by which they think they should go about to achieve the results they say they desire.
Read my reply. Freedom of speech is our main concern. if the govt were to take this away, we would be opposed. We would like the fed mandates that bankrupt states be repealed. The ninth and tenth amendments are the law of the land. As are the other amendments. Voting is the best way in America. Making us buy off insurance companies does not help our mood. We will buy what we choose. That is freedom. If the govt tried to make you buy a gun, we would protest that also.
Montana or Michigan? It only takes a little reading of their websites and calls to action to understand what I mean.
And to be clear – I didn’t mean constitutional militias, I meant the very well-known civilian organizations which call themselves militias, and often state they are prepared to overthrow the tyrannical government. Which type of militia do you belong to?
szielinski @ 12
Thanks for the explanation. Why doesn’t the FBI pursue these elite terrorists who commit crimes against democracy?
Clear and precise communication is even more challenging in a text-only environment for comments. Some folks use the convention of a “/s” (snark tag) with their snark comments. I have my own format and delimit sections of commentary as needed. Here’s an example:
{ Silliness on }
*(pronounced “lim’rick” to preserve meter)
{ Silliness off }
;)
Thanks Mz. Wheeler for clearly identifying the forces at work here regardig your di8ary.
All your points were things I intuited, but had not taken time to sort out and ‘label’ so to speak.
Greta read and all spot on . . . bookmarked for future use because of YOUR points and Niewert’s list and those two linky’s above in comments . . . .
93.7 of Blacks murdered in this country are murdered by fellow blacks. You mention white people. We are not the enemy of the blacks. Other blacks are. We have shot zero human beings.
Taking money to nation build and securing other countries borders and leaving ours porous is another issue we have.
What do you mean by “nation build” (examples help clarify)? Is that material and financial assistance to other nation-states supposedly in the service of their efforts at types of development (e.g. safe potable water, sustained system of basic education for the population)?
Keep our money here. Govt can rely on charity from the people to help other nations. We have our own poor, who need our money. Nation building is blowing the hell out of a country, and rebuilding it. Constitution says declared wars. WW2 was the last declared war. All other wars have been illegal.
1. You wrote: “Keep our money here.”
Response: I don’t have a problem with that although the present distribution looks very dysfunctional to me.
Should the US accept foreign aid?
2. You wrote: “Govt can rely on charity from the people to help other nations.”
Response: I’m not so sure it’s that simple given the creepy stuff US citizens were doing or attempting to do in Haiti. I don’t have a good solution at the moment although many folks at present trust OxFam to do actual humanitarian aid over the US government.
3. You wrote: “We have our own poor, who need our money.”
Response: I’d go further and turn off our foreign aid to countries that turn right around and conduct war with it. As an example, I’d go grab that $3 Billion back from Israel.
4. You wrote: “Nation building is blowing the hell out of a country, and rebuilding it.”
Response: I call that “war” and it’s a rich person’s game. I am definitely not in favor of that. In practice, what I am seeing is corporate welfare at the expense of the people in more than one country simultaneously.
5. You wrote: “Constitution says declared wars. WW2 was the last declared war. All other wars have been illegal.”
Response: Hmmm … The more and the closer I look at history, although WWII was the last legally declared war, the evidence is that the US was simultaneously pursuing an undeclared and illegal war in Guatemala. Go back further and the US was running covert operations since before it was even independent from Britain. I’d say the US would do far better by eschewing all war activities declared or otherwise.
David Swanson does a great job on all these topics over at WarIsALie and he writes here periodically.
We agree on much. George Washington said it best, when asked to attack France, he replied, ” We are neutral”. You bring up Israel. Fine, as long as NATO and all other countries are not exempt. The deficit is gonna kill this country as we know it. We are concerned what will rise out of the ashes, that is all. We will protect your rights. Nothing more, nothing less.
1. You wrote: “You bring up Israel. Fine, as long as NATO and all other countries are not exempt.”
Response: Israel is only one example. As US citizens really have no true idea as to whom and what on the collected tax revenues are spent, I’m sure there are more examples than just that. I say open all books, have 100% transparency, send in Bill Black and *then* we’ll know.
2. You wrote: “The deficit is gonna kill this country as we know it.”
Response: I prefer to delay the deficient discussion in this national emergency although we can chew gum and walk at the same time. Also see my Response to 1.
This my take on why this double standard.
http://my.firedoglake.com/ironcomments/2011/01/12/why-are-we-afraid-to-call-jared-loughner-a-terrorist/
The bomb in Spokane (MLK parade) apparently was capable of more extensive, severe destruction than first thought.
Former Quantico Commander Objects to Treatment of Bradley Manning, the Alleged WikiLeaks Whistleblower LINK.
While the New York Times is usually silent about domestic terrorism as listed above, they don’t have a problem reporting on those incidents involving people born outside of the United States. Example:
F.B.I. Says Oregon Suspect Planned ‘Grand’ Attack
Too bad they are losing credibility by the day through “selective” reporting.
What you cite is strongly suspected to be a domestic false flag operation. You can start here and read through Teddy’s excellent coverage:
“FBI Thwarts “Bomb Plot” at Xmas Tree Ceremony in Portland, Oregon” (by Teddy Partridge, Friday November 26, 2010 11:16 pm)
That is another reason why I used that article from the New York Times as an example of their “selective” reporting. They highlighted an action which puts “fear” into people about those born on foreign soil. However, did they follow-up with articles on it being a false flag operation or did they instead leave the “fear” of the original article in the minds of their readers?
I’m saying the New York Times (NYT) didn’t even bother to do honest reporting in the first place. Instead folks like Teddy did especially as a prophylatic (i.e. preventative medication) to the stuff the NYT was clearly intent upon putting out in the public sphere. I mostly ignore the NYT as they are lying liars attempting to play head games– especially after what the world saw *proven* in the I. Libby trial.
The silence that matters most: the Tunisian Revolution
Talking about “eerie silence” while not mentioning the Tunisian Revolution is a world-historic irony. Physician, heal thyself! Not that I would underestimate the importance of the Spokane incident or the other incidents you cite, but there is no excuse for not giving Tunisia top billing over everything else right now. The head of the Arab League just warned Arab heads of state that they’d better clean up their acts or else:
Experts on North Africa are warning that similar revolutions, in even more extreme form, could easily happen in other North African and Arab countries, especially Egypt (but possibly even including Saudi Arabia!):
And the Tunisian revolution is not over; opposition leader Moncef Marzouki has returned from exile, and is denouncing the interim government and saying it must step down:
Why am I having to tell you this? Why aren’t you telling us this?
Aside from scattered comments in posts primarily on other topics, the only coverage of the Tunisian Revolution that I can recall seeing on FDL was a user diary, OhioGringo’s “Is America’s Elite Afraid of the Tunisian Revolution?”. At one point it was at the top of the “kennel” – the Recommended Diaries list – but it was never front-paged, as (in the absence of any other, arguably superior coverage of Tunisia that could have been front-paged instead) it most certainly should have been.
I’ve admired your work on a number of topics, Marcy. But talking about “eerie silence” on a domestic-terrorism incident in the USA while ignoring a fundamental transformation of the world political scene is just too much – it’s over the top and around the bend.
When FDL is giving Tunisia the attention it deserves, then you can lecture others about “eerie silence”.
Totally correct, Americans have to go to the BBC or other world news outlets to find out what is really going on in the world. Events are occurring that can have not only a major impact in an entire region of the world but American foreign policy as well. An actual toppling of a government from within and barely a peep here.
One does have to be very careful to learn and understand the BBC’s filters. This is true for any media.
True; I wouldn’t expect, for example, that the BBC would report honestly on events in Ireland. I would also like to know what Al Jazeera’s filters are.
You can only answer that by reading them … a lot and cross-comparing other sources. Very time-consuming but very valuable.
Surely – as for every other human endeavor involving reasoning – the knowledge of others can offer a shortcut, so that personal experience cannot in fact be the only way. Do you have any knowledge of the biases of the BBC or Al Jazeera that you would be willing to share with the rest of us?
Marcy (EmptyWheel @ 56) has a point. It makes for a higher quality of commenting and, hence, interaction if one:
1. Checks to see what’s been said previously and by what source (e.g. use of search engines, textual analysis)
2. Analyze, formulate, draft, check the assertions, facts, relationships.
3. Assume very little as “common knowledge”
4. Consider the possibility of a huge variation in communication skills among those commenting here whether by education, understanding of “new media” or by virtue of translating from another language.
EmptyWheel is quite adept at this from my perspective as she constructs her posts and arguments so they can be followed and cross-checked by others. And she does it at rapid speed and high quaity which is very impressive. It’s a kind of rolling intellectual transparency so others can verify the facts and observations as well as have a basis for participating in conversation.
As this is her thread, maybe you could ask her what she suggests, thinks. I go case by case. When see evidence my CheckSum is failed, I spot and assess.
As I said in my response directly to Marcy, in this particular case something she said last week doesn’t fundamentally affect the validity of the point I was making. And your supercilious lecture on Commenting 101 – as relevant as it might be in other, very different contexts – is not a constructive contribution to this discussion.
I have discovered that all kinds of people (e.g. age, race, socio-economic background, education, language) *really* do come here and from other parts of the world. When I write a comment I am really trying to be sensitive to that as much as possible.
Also, recall the structure of FDL versus a McClatchy (DC) or a Reuters (out of India).
For instance there is a mother and son duo that come here and comment. I personally think that is really cool. There are teenagers and college age folks I have invited to come here, read and participate– especially during the JustSayNow campaign. I know foreign exchange students. Why not have their participation? For the Americans, I *want* them to think engagement, and civic engagement, is neat. So, I am looking at interaction here as process plus content. De facto mainstream media lacks the process part relatively speaking as it is content “push” and is not interactive.
Of course no one expects FDL to provide comprehensive general news coverage of the kind provided by McClatchy or Reuters. The fundamental point, which I have stressed repeatedly and which you have yet to address directly, is that the Tunisian Revolution is not just one more topic to be squeezed into limited space; it is a development of fundamental importance, and treating it as just one topic out of many shows a serious derangement of one’s priorities. That is why Marcy’s reference to “eerie silence” is so ironic, and why something she wrote last week doesn’t get her (or FDL) off the hook.
If you disagree with my judgment on the question of priorities, stating your reasons for disagreement would be a better way to attempt a constructive contribution to this aspect of the discussion than attempting to drop back into an extended meta-level discussion of how blogs and news organizations are supposed to work, or how comments should be written.
If you’re merely skeptical about the level of importance, without necessarily disagreeing, I suggest strongly that you read the articles and blog posts about Tunisia that I cited earlier, and especially also the following:
You should also seriously consider checking out Al Jazeera’s “Spotlight on Tunisia” summary page:
Events in North Africa are likely to have extensive repercussions in the rest of the world.
Actually, I think Tunisia is important but it seems there’s even more to complete the picture. Sounds like you might have some insights on that. Maybe you could start writing here about these things?
I’ve been assembling material with exactly the intention of writing a diary – or more than one – on Tunisia. The references I’ve cited here were assembled for that purpose.
Tentative title for one such possible diary:
“Underreporting of the Tunisian Revolution: Et tu, Keith? Et tu, Rachel?”
But just as nothing that requires a search to find it can get FDL (or Keith or Rachel) off the hook for failure to report adequately on the Tunisian Revolution, likewise nothing I write or don’t write can get them off the hook either.
OK , I’ll be looking for the post …
I’ll be interested to see your comments. But don’t wait for me to finish. Try also writing your own diary on the Tunisian Revolution in the meantime:
1. Quite likely you’ll notice something I didn’t.
2. The more user diaries on the Tunisian Revolution the “wheels” at FDL see, the more likely they will be to cover this topic with the depth and breadth it deserves.
3. It shouldn’t take much research to resolve any remaining doubts you may have about the supreme significance of the revolution.
The problem, however, is that the U.S. media is starting to look as though it hardly consists of anything but filters. I’m sure the BBC and Al Jazeera have their biases, but the U.S. media – mainstream, right-wing, and even left-wing – is starting to look as though it filters out anything really important. I’m beyond disappointed in Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow for their failure to cover the Tunisian Revolution. And last night Rachel was guilty of calling out others for “silence” over Spokane, while herself remaining silent on Tunisia – just like Marcy.
Damn, that never occurred to me. /s
Anyone with critical thinking skills knows that biases are unavoidable in art,religions, science, writing and in particular the news. Any human attempt at communicating will have some bias. Thus we all must get our info from a myriad of sources.
However the bias of the American media is such that it encapsulates the people from knowing what is going on with the rest of the world.
I wouldn’t let anyone encapsulate you if I were you. :)
Folks from outside our culture look at us, look at how we spend our time, look at our media, and look at our demonstrated values. They spare no effort to look beyond themselves for the facts and to construct a more accurate world view so that they can find solutions to challenges. We all have to do this IMO.
Let’s see. I wrote virtually this same post, but on Tunisia.
Maybe you should use a search function before you start lecturing others about what they may or may not speak of.
I do regret that I overlooked that piece. But for something of this magnitude of importance, a single post six days ago doesn’t cut it. All of the articles I referenced are more recent than that, as are many of the most significant events they describe. What I said was (emphasis in the original):
For this fundamental transformation of world politics, something is seriously wrong if anyone reading FDL needs to look anywhere but on the front page to find coverage.
But now that you mention it: I just looked back through FDL’s front page, going back continuously from the present all the way to last year. The only thing I found was Scarecrow’s post Tunisians Help “Expand Our Moral Imaginations”, also from January 15th, five days ago; it references your piece. I also looked back over the same time period through your Emptywheel blog; the only thing I found was the piece from January 14th that you’ve cited. A search on the tag “TUNISIA” turns up only one more piece: a tangential mention in Attaturk’s “Miss America and Qaddafi Agree”. On the FDL News Desk – which doesn’t even have a tab on the front page, only on MyFDL – I finally found something recent: DDay’s “Tunisia Remains in Crisis as Key Ministers Resign from Unity Government After One Day”, from yesterday, January 19th. I looked back through the News Desk, likewise, continuously all the way to last year, and found only one other News Desk article on Tunisia, also by DDay: “What’s Happening in Tunisia?”, from January 14th, six days ago. This year so far, there has been more News Desk coverage of the civil war in the Ivory Coast – which does not have anything remotely like the same potential for repercussions on world politics – as of the Tunisian Revolution, which has been going on since last year, and is still underway.
For events of the significance of those unfolding in Tunisia, coverage this sparse is almost as bad as no coverage at all – and does not undercut the irony of complaining about “eerie silence” on an issue orders of magnitude lower in importance. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have said nothing about Tunisia this week so far – I’ve been watching their shows. Maybe, like you, they mentioned it last week. If so, that doesn’t get them off the hook, either. Where the hell are your priorities, people?
Keith and Rachel have done it again. I just finished watching their shows; nothing about Tunisia, again, just like every other day this week so far. Instead, Rachel covered Spokane again, in depth – and complained, again, about lack of adequate press coverage. This time, she specifically said that although there was some press coverage, it was “sporadic”. And she made it clear that “sporadic” wasn’t good enough for the Spokane incident and its backstory. But – her actions imply – sporadic is good enough for the Tunisian Revolution.
Talk about being unclear on the concept. Apparently it doesn’t matter enough what governments have fallen, or may well yet fall, in North Africa and the Middle East.
Rachel should be covering the Tunisian Revolution the way she covered the BP oil spill or the effort to repeal DADT. And FDL should be covering it the way the Catfood Commission was covered. If you seriously doubt that, in view of the references I’ve cited, I would like to know why. Even if the Spokane backstory led to something of the magnitude of the Oklahoma City plot – and it may – it would still pale by comparison to the Tunisian Revolution and its potential repercussions.
sebastos, i’ve been reading marcy wheeler from she was at the next hurrah along with sarah and bmaz and i’ve never had the impression that she lectures anybody – au contraire, she informs, dissects, and analyses issues untouched in the msm
prof juan cole has been covering the events in tunisia with a contextual historical background – so why accuse marcy of lecturing? she covers issues that she can provide a narrative structure to and does it extremely well
in a way i fail to see what your gripe is – you are perfectly welcome to publish your own analysis on what is happening in tunisia
revolutions are unpredictable just as the french revolution was and it takes a while for the chaotic energy of a popular revolution to be harnessed constructively – it took the french a while but the cromewellian attempt in britain to assert parliamentary authority overriding royal prerogative lost its way
yes, the muslim middle east is very worried about what is happening in tunisia and what a surprise that the ex president and the first family find refuge in saudi arabia as did idi amin and countless others who amassed power to abuse it for personal gain at the expense of the ‘people’
there is also another salient fact here – tunisia has a dispossessed middle class who were denied their pre ben ali elite status and access to privileges and an organised labour movement and these features are not replicated in the neighbouring islamic countries in the region
if the perpetrator is not muslim or foreign, he/ she doesn’t count. period
Why did we kill McViegh then?
Send in Ron Paul. The fed is where the money is spent. I agree. Where is the money going. Both parties are to blame.
I differ as I am not sold on the trustworthiness of Ron Paul.
I really don’t know what you mean by that.
I looks like you are addressing EmptyWheel right now as your comment is at the top level of the two level nesting available in this thread.
Ron Paul has said the same thing his whole career. he is gonna audit the fed. We shall see, however.
Back in college during the early 1980s, after having lived in Europe, I was surprised that the United States was relatively a safe place, with no reported incidents of terrorism. That is, I was surprised until I learned that domestic terrorism was not a category that was tracked because there were few if any classifications of “terrorism” in U.S. law.