Things That Piss Us Off About This Morning's NYT Article (1) - Murder of Nun is a "Protest"
In the NYT's world, this is perfectly acceptable journalism:
On Sunday, meanwhile, protest continued around the Muslim world. In Iran, several hundred theological students were given the day off to protest in Qum, the nation’s center for religious study, as the Vatican envoy in Tehran was summoned for an official complaint about the remarks. Several radical Iraqi groups posted threats on the Internet against the Vatican and Christians in general. In Mogadishu, the capital of the former Italian colony of Somalia, the Italian nun died after being shot several times in an ambush in a hospital in which a Somali bodyguard was also killed. It was unclear if the attack was retribution for the pope’s remarks, though the Vatican issued a response.
We don't really have anything significant to add to the self-evident sliminess that's already so obvious. Theoretically we could point out the phrasing "though the Vatican issued a response" is designed to make the Vatican look defensive about it, but that's a stretch. The line "it was unclear if the attack was retribution for the pope's remarks" is obviously idiotic and irrelevent, and there's something to be said about the motive of people who suggest things that they know are wrong and just kind of leave them hanging. The only possible reason to do that would be to introduce a genuine question and present facts on both sides of an issue to allow readers to figure it out for themselves. In which case you'd think that he'd mention that a prominent Somali cleric had within the previous 24 hours called upon Muslims to go on murderous rampages - because that's the kind of thing that could help you figure out for yourself if the attack was retribution for what Benedict said. Since he doesn't do that, we're not really sure why he'd include that sentence except to raise doubt in readers' minds as to the nature of extremist Islam and then withhold the facts that would clear up that doubt.
UPDATE: Our bad. We forgot to point out that in all the un-clarity of the shooting, our intrepid reporter neglected to tell us anything about the gunmen. Maybe they were Episcopalian. You never know - it's totally "unclear"! Honestly, we didn't really mention it because we just can't imagine that journalists aren't including that because they honestly think that maybe if they don't mention it, people won't know... we think it's probably just a habit they picked up writing stories about domestic terror attacks on Jewish centers where the motives and religion of the attackers are always apparently 'unclear' (except the attackers are always 'mentally disturbed' - that's news that gets reported immediately! Every time!)
On Sunday, meanwhile, protest continued around the Muslim world. In Iran, several hundred theological students were given the day off to protest in Qum, the nation’s center for religious study, as the Vatican envoy in Tehran was summoned for an official complaint about the remarks. Several radical Iraqi groups posted threats on the Internet against the Vatican and Christians in general. In Mogadishu, the capital of the former Italian colony of Somalia, the Italian nun died after being shot several times in an ambush in a hospital in which a Somali bodyguard was also killed. It was unclear if the attack was retribution for the pope’s remarks, though the Vatican issued a response.
We don't really have anything significant to add to the self-evident sliminess that's already so obvious. Theoretically we could point out the phrasing "though the Vatican issued a response" is designed to make the Vatican look defensive about it, but that's a stretch. The line "it was unclear if the attack was retribution for the pope's remarks" is obviously idiotic and irrelevent, and there's something to be said about the motive of people who suggest things that they know are wrong and just kind of leave them hanging. The only possible reason to do that would be to introduce a genuine question and present facts on both sides of an issue to allow readers to figure it out for themselves. In which case you'd think that he'd mention that a prominent Somali cleric had within the previous 24 hours called upon Muslims to go on murderous rampages - because that's the kind of thing that could help you figure out for yourself if the attack was retribution for what Benedict said. Since he doesn't do that, we're not really sure why he'd include that sentence except to raise doubt in readers' minds as to the nature of extremist Islam and then withhold the facts that would clear up that doubt.
UPDATE: Our bad. We forgot to point out that in all the un-clarity of the shooting, our intrepid reporter neglected to tell us anything about the gunmen. Maybe they were Episcopalian. You never know - it's totally "unclear"! Honestly, we didn't really mention it because we just can't imagine that journalists aren't including that because they honestly think that maybe if they don't mention it, people won't know... we think it's probably just a habit they picked up writing stories about domestic terror attacks on Jewish centers where the motives and religion of the attackers are always apparently 'unclear' (except the attackers are always 'mentally disturbed' - that's news that gets reported immediately! Every time!)
