SOMETHING HAPPENED
MS's reporter on the scene makes clear only that what they don't know swamps what they do know. They don't know what sparked off the firing, they don't know how many hostages there really were, but it now seems as if reports were way lowballed, there may have been over a thousand, there may also have been twice or more as many terrorists as first reported, 40 and not 15, and they think that whatever just happened the Russians were caught off guard -- and therefore had no medical preparation on-site. (What's with those guys? You've got terrorists with suicide belts holding hundreds of children and you don't keep ambulances right there just as a matter of protocol?) There are also apparently some that got away, holed up in a house with some children as hostages.
But I swear to God if Dawna Friesen says "hostage takers" one more time I'm puttin' my friggin' fist right through the damn TV.
It's been the same with MSNBC, the NY Times, and the LA Times. Hostage takers, militants, rebels, fighters - anything but terrorists. Only Fox uses the correct description. Is it any wonder that more people watch Fox?
Posted by: Mike | September 03, 2004 at 09:46 AM
Sorry, I meant CNN.
Posted by: Mike | September 03, 2004 at 09:48 AM
They will continue to do so. They did so when
islamic terrorists killed hundreds at the theater
in Moscow last year.
It's interesting as most articles not only refer to
"hostage takers" instead of terrorists, but the
word "islam" or "muslim" is also conspicuously
absent from these reports.
The "mainstream" media's willingness to hide the facts
is an abomination.
The Internet has changed the information landscape,
and the media are either in denial, or think people
are too dumb to investigate these things from
other information sources.
Posted by: Media Hound | September 03, 2004 at 01:27 PM