CBS, NBC Evening News Continue to Gloss Over Terror Attack in Germany
For the second consecutive day, the CBS and NBC evening newscasts failed to devote more than fleeting news briefs to the fatal terror attack against a bus full of US airmen in Germany. ABC, which covered the story in more detail on Wednesday, did not even mention the tragic attack on the Thursday "World News."
Arid Uka, described as a 21-year-old "radical Muslim," opened fire Wednesday on US airmen at Frankfurt Airport, killing two and injuring others, but CBS anchor Katie Couric and NBC anchor Brian Williams spent a scant 30 seconds each on the story during last night's newscasts.
The night of the shooting, neither the CBS "Evening News" nor the NBC "Nightly News" thought the slaying of American servicemen was worthy of more than terse news briefs, although ABC's Diane Sawyer covered the story more thoroughly on "World News."
Katie Couric's brief report, which occurred more than 10 minutes into last night's program, is below:
We have new details about the suspect in the attack yesterday on a group of American airmen in Germany. It appears 20-year-old Arid Uka had a grudge against the US military. Sources tell CBS News that when he was arrested, Uka said "They are at war with us." Uka, a radical Muslim, opened fire on the airmen while they were in a bus at the Frankfurt airport, killing two and wounding two others. Investigators believe he acted alone and is not connected to any terror group.
The following is Brian's Williams's coverage, which was buried more than 12 minutes into Thursday's broadcast:
In Germany tonight, the 21-year-old accused of opening fire on a bus full of American airmen yesterday was taken to court today under heavy security. Two Americans were killed in the attack. German officials say the suspect has confessed. They say he may have been motivated by radical Islam, but he acted alone and is not connected in any way to a terrorism network that they know of. American military officials, however, say they are still investigating.
--Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Alex Fitzsimmons's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
"Connections"
Submitted by BobcatConservative on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 12:53pm.
Both of the anchors mention that Uka "wasn't connected to any terror groups or networks" which seems to devalue the signifgance of this TERRORIST attack.
If he was motivated by radical Islam, and his belief in Allah and the Jihad or WHATEVER in the name of Islam influenced him to kill Americans - it is an act of religious terrorism! That should just be an easy thing to admit, it doesn't matter if he didn't have 'connections' to any terrorist groups. Terrorism is terrorism no matter who commits it.
This is just another example of the liberal media's attempts to delegitimize the threat that Islamic terrorism poses to our country, and it's all done in the name of "tolerance."
Political correctness blinds one from seeing the truth in the world.
You're right.
Submitted by ant on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 3:26pm.
It is some sort of lame excuse for organized terror groups as if it makes any shooter/bomber less dangerous or maybe they feel the public will go into an uncontrolled panic. (Journalists tend to project that everyone acts like Chicken Little because they do.) If some lone entrepenuer gets busted selling large amounts of cocaine, they never feel the need to assure everyone it wasn't related to some organized gang, in fact, quite the contrary most of the time.
In a related note, I was very disappointed with Obama's reference again to "..the sacrifices..of our troops..". That ticks me off, he needs to empower the terrorists to do some "sacrificing", not our guys. Was it Patton who said, "I don't want you to die for your country, make the other poor shmuck die for his."?
This guy was a fundamentalist
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 1:01pm.
This guy was a fundamentalist muslim. Some call it "radical muslim", but it is not, it's fundamental of that religion. In a country with gun control laws that restrict ownership of firearms, esp. handguns. (You cannot buy a handgun in Germany.) The fact that this guy had one, worked at the airport where he, as a matter of course, was in in the presence of US troops almost daily, was a muslim, speaks volumes. This was a planed attack on US troops by a fundamental muslim. This adds up to terrorism. Like it or not.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
The way that the MSM has handled this story...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 2:40pm.
is disgraceful. One of the airmen that was wounded in this attack is from where I live...He was stationed at a base in England, and was on his way to serve in Afghanistan when the attack occurred, and he is married to a woman who is from a town not far from where I live in North Dakota. They just reported this on one of our local TV noon shows a few minutes ago. Apparently he is in critical condition, and it doesn't sound good. His wife's parents have gone to England to stay with their two young children so she can go to Germany to be with him. Prayers for this airman and his family (and in fact for all who were wounded and affected by this) are welcome.
The media is so eager to try to downplay anything that has to do with Islamic terrorism because they know that this is a weak area for Obama. The MSM has their hands full right now running interference for him, between his bungling of his handling of the Libya mess and now with this attack in Germany.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
What? No direct quotes from
Submitted by Cowboy on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 2:58pm.
What? No direct quotes from the terrorist?
What a surprise...
There was a couple
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 3:00pm.
There were two quotes: "Jihad" and "Allahu Akbar!"
Wait, those don't count?
-Jon
Terrorism
Submitted by merrillsr on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 3:09pm.
Although in the strictest sense attacking the military forces of an enemy in a civilian environment while wearing civiilian clothes is considered terrorism, I suggest that it not be applied in any attack on a military target. Reserve the term for attacks on civilian targets that are conducted to terrorize the population. If not, then you might as well use it to describe targeted attacks on terrorists in civilian settings, drone attacks on terrorist occupied compounds, or any engagement where civilians might become casualties.
Merrill-----It is terrorism
Submitted by Miket53 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:45pm.
Your attempt to twist this into showing America as using terrorist tactics is off base. This individual attacked based on his radical beliefs and killed innocent people. Terrorism plain and simple. America does not practice terrorism but does hunt down terrorists wherever they hide.
Miket53 http://mtaricani.blogspot.com/
merrillsr...So then are you saying that the Ft. Hood attack...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 3:35pm.
was not a terrorist attack, despite all the evidence to the contrary?? That loon was clearly intentionally attacking his fellow soldiers (for purely radical Islamist purposes), who were by your suggestion, military targets, and by your reckoning, you don't think that this should be considered terrorism?
The ''who" and the "where" are not what matter as much in terrorism, as does the "why"...It's the motive(s) behind the attack(s). The attack on the Marines in Beirut in the '80's wasn't terrorism? Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
unarmed
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 3:36pm.
What if you said those soldiers who were attacked at Ft. Hood were unarmed? Would that count? They couldn't shoot back even though they wish they could have and killed that son of a bitch.
-Jon
jon...I agree with you...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 3:51pm.
Don't misunderstand...I was responding to merrillsr's post...He apparently believes that only civilians and civilian targets, if attacked, should be considered victims of terrorism...I couldn't disagree more with that contention. I say that it's the motive behind the attack, not strictly the intended targets/victims that matters...Military or civilian, if they are attacked by a terrorist, that is a terrorist attack.
It's strange...When I responded to his post, I hit the reply button, but for some reason, it didn't show up as a reply to his post. Oh well...
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
yeah, me too
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 4:00pm.
I was responding to merrillsr's post as well. Oops.
-Jon
No problem...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 4:05pm.
It looks like we're on the same page.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Hold On Now,,,,
Submitted by Unibrowser on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:13am.
Radical, schmadical, what's the difference between a radical muslim who wants to kill you and a moderate muslim? One does kill you and the other one approves!
There is no difference...
Submitted by BikerHoop on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:18am.
because 'moderate Mulsims' are a figment of everyones' imagination. There's no such thing. There are Muslims who participate in taquia - which is lying to infidels to make nice nice until the right time comes to cut off their heads - but they are just 'radical' Muslims lying in wait. Islam is Islam is Islam. Violence begets violence... praise be to Allah!
from 4th estate...
Submitted by OldJoe on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:36am.
To fifth column...that sums up the MSM nicely.