Tee-Vee and the UK Terror Bust; CAIR-Bears

Every so often a story comes down the pike that grabs my attention, almost to the exclusion of everything else. Yesterday’s UK terror bust was one such story. I was glued to the TV, and to a lesser extent, the ‘net, from 0100 until 0400 Thursday morning and again for most of yesterday (once I awoke). I was struck by the fact we (Americans) had a wide variety of news sources on this story to consult and consume. As with most everything in life, there were both good and bad points where the news coverage was concerned.

First, the Good. PBS’ The News Hour had the best US coverage. To steal a line from Roger Ailes, PBS’ coverage seemed to be Fair and Balanced, as well as comprehensive. Last night’s program began with borrowed, and quite good, coverage from the UK’s Independent Television News (ITN), segued to an extensive interview (ten minutes or more) with Michael Chertoff, and followed that with a methods and procedures sort of discussion with two experts, one Danish, and one American. All of the foregoing segments were informative and factual, with minimum (if any) spin.

The US and UK governments’ press conferences were also quite good. Chertoff performed quite well on the News Hour, answering all questions put to him with a minimum of tap dancing. I was impressed. I found myself switching to C-SPAN off and on during the day and caught the entire DHS presser there, with Secretary Chertoff, AG Gonzales, and FBI Director Mueller. The briefings were short and to the point; the Q&A sessions were handled effectively, openly, and (in my opinion) honestly. Likewise, UK Home Secretary John Reid’s press conference (also carried by C-SPAN) was informative, direct, and to the point.

C-SPAN also carried last night’s edition of BBC Newsnight, which had its good and bad points. The best bits were the “man in the street” interviews in the High Wycombe neighborhood where several terrorists were arrested. One segment simply seethed with tension between two groups of neighbors, one group of 30-ish moms and a group of young Islamic men. There was considerable interplay between the two groups, with the men coming off as both aggressive and defensive. One wondered if a mini-riot was set to begin right then and there. Newsnight devoted a significant portion of the program to the undercurrent of hostility among British Muslims. The UK definitely has an integration issue, as in a failure of British Muslims to integrate into British society. The lack of Muslim assimilation in the UK is something that’s been written about extensively, but it’s something we Americans don’t often get to see first-hand.

A little bit of the Bad. Boy, did I ever have issues with Newsnight. Kirsty Wark, the Newsnight presenter, seemed completely ate up with the semantics of yesterday’s events, rather than the substance. There were multiple occurrences of the multi-culti, politically correct, and Lefty points of view throughout the program. One such example was an exchange Ms. Wark had during her interview with Christopher Shays, a Republican member of the house from Connecticut. Ms. Wark asked what Rep. Shays thought about “…critics who would say (terrorism) is partially a result of US foreign policy, specifically Iraq.” Shays, to his everlasting credit characterized that POV as “silly” and further stated “Gimmee a break. How do “critics” get away with that kind of garbage?” Wark then went on to ask Shays “Bush talks about ‘Islamic Fascists.’ Do you think that kind of language is helpful in all this?” Once again, Shays rose to the occasion, telling Wark she was “straining out gnats and swallowing camels” when it came to semantics. Offending the Muslim community, real or imagined, was high on Wark’s/BBC’s agenda last evening and the exchange with Shays was but one example. You can see the entire Newsnight broadcast on a 34Kbps Real Video stream at the BBC Newsnight link above.

While we’re on the subject of offending Muslims, CAIR released a statement last night about Mr. Bush’s use of the term Islamic Fascists.

"Unfortunately, your statement this morning that America 'is at war with Islamic fascists' contributes to a rising level of hostility to Islam and the American-Muslim community. Just today, Gallup released a poll indicating that four out of ten Americans feel 'prejudice' toward Muslims.

[…]

"The use of ill-defined hot button terms such as 'Islamic fascists,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism,' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire,' harms our nation's image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world. It feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam ...

Say WHAT? So, what exactly are we supposed to call Muslim terrorists? Note that the President never said just plain old “Muslims,” he characterized the terrorist for what they are: Fascists. A spade is a spade. If CAIR doesn’t like the fact that Islamic Fascists are waging war on the United States and the West, in general, then I suggest CAIR get directly involved in combating Islamic Fascism and worry less about the terms used to describe the enemy.

Reuters has an article on this issue, as well. Here’s a laughable excerpt from that article:

Awad (ed: The CAIR-Bear) said U.S. officials should take the lead from their British counterparts who had steered clear of using what he considered inflammatory terms when they announced the arrest of more than 20 suspects in the reported plot.

Right. Let’s be more like the multi-culti sensitive Brits. Then we can have our own assimilation problem. That’ll work.

And finally, one last “bad”…Anderson Cooper, on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, referring to “the alleged war on terror.” Alleged? How the F*! can a war be “alleged?” I have issues with this sort of crap, big-time. It’s a small, subtle, sort of thing, but language counts, words actually mean something. The use of terms like “alleged war on terror” implies the war is illegitimate, and that directly undermines the war effort. But then again, that’s probably the intent, isn’t it?