This article appeared a couple of days ago in the Johnstown (PA) Tribune-Democrat, but it just came to my attention today. It's about Republican William T. Russell, the career Army man who is launching a campaign to unseat Rep. Democrat John Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th District in 2008.
What stands out isn't the topic of the article. It's this little paragraph inserted close to the midway point:
Russell and his wife, Kasia, were in the Pentagon when a hijacked jetliner crashed into the building on Sept. 11, 2001. They escaped unharmed.
A hijacked jetliner? Which one would that be? Goodness, there have been so many hijackings in the past decade, it's hard to keep count.
For those of you who may have been on Jupiter on September 11, 2001, that "hijacked airliner" was one of four taken over by Islamist terrorists linked to al Qaeda in the worst assault on American soil to date. It smashed into the Pentagon, killing everyone on board the plane and an additional 125 people. William T. Russert (correction: Russell -- PM) and his wife could have been among the victims, but were instead among the fortunate.
Again, I realize the intent of the article is not to discuss what happened on that fateful day. The focus is Russert's (correction: Russell's -- PM) upcoming campaign against John Murtha. But for the reporter, Mike Faher, to "soften" such a pivotal event not only in American history but (one would assume) in Russert's (correction: Russell's -- PM) life, is beyond puzzling. Indeed, one of the things cited in the article that concerns Russert is the "war against Islamic radicalism," of which 9/11 is a part.
The ostensible treatment of this as a "normal" hijacking (where moustachioed villains clad in black simply want a suitcase full of money and passage to some exotic locale) does Americans no favors. Our media really should know better.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
But I thought......
October 30, 2007 - 11:05 ET by Prester John....it was a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon.
(sarc)
Eh...I wouldn't
October 30, 2007 - 12:02 ET by fosstenEh...
I wouldn't necessarily call this bias. Could the writer have been more descriptive? Sure. Was this omission deliberate? That's a bit of a stretch. Yeah, 'a hijacked jetliner' is a little bit nonspecific, but 'September 11, 2001' does balance it out, doesn't it? Like you said, unless you've been living on Jupiter, you should know exactly which "hijacked jetliner" the author is referring to.
In the process of identifying bias, we run the risk of becoming elitist ourselves, demanding that the news sources write everything the way we want them to, including as many emotional triggers as possible in order to further our agenda. I would say that the line in the article was rather neutral. And isn't that what we want? Neutral reporting? "Just the facts," right?
Now if the author had said "accident at the Pentagon back in 2001" then you'd have a clear case of softening bias.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
Russell and his wife,
October 30, 2007 - 12:40 ET by rimskyRussell and his wife, Kasia, were in the Pentagon when a hijacked jetliner crashed into the building on Sept. 11, 2001. They escaped unharmed.
What would have been wrong with this:
Russell and his wife, Kasia, were in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 when AA Flight 77, which had been hijacked by Islamic Terrorists, crashed into the building.
Does this sound agenda driven, and over emotional?
It didn't "crash"
October 30, 2007 - 13:02 ET by ThisnThatThe airliner was delibertly aimed, and used as a weapon, to destroy the Pentagon. It didn't "crash".
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
ThisnThat
October 30, 2007 - 13:48 ET by fosstenYes, we all know that it was deliberately aimed. But "it didn't crash" is a semantical argument. So what is your point? Are you saying that unless the writer put it exactly the way you want it written, he/she is biased? You are proving my point.
You don't want the article neutral, you want the article to become about 9/11, when it actually isn't. That would be biased because it would be prompting an agenda, albeit one you happen to agree with. The same thing happens everytime an MSM outlet throws Bush into the middle of every negative story, such as miners' deaths or California wildfires.
We're supposed to be against bias. We want neutral, factual reporting instead of agenda-driven emotional appeals, right? Or do you just want the MSM to continue emoting while the right gets their own version of the MSM? That way there'll be agendas on both sides.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
My point?
October 31, 2007 - 07:02 ET by ThisnThatYes, we all know that it was deliberately aimed. But "it didn't crash" is a semantical argument. So what is your point? My point is, the airliner didn't crash. When you hear "crash" you think of one of the following: Pilot error; mechanical problem; fuel problem; atmospheric problem. You don't think "terrorism". The reporter wasn't neutral; instead, the reporter deliberately withheld the most vital piece of this "crash" -- that it was delibertly flown into the Pentagon. It's not a semantical argument.
It's like saying "and the man died" when, actually, he was murdered. Or, "she was pregnent" when, actually, she was raped. Or, "the twin towers were demolished" when, in fact, airliners were driven into them.
It's not a semantical argument. This reporter was referring to an extremely important event in our lives, without providing proper reference. And he did it on purpose to serve an agenda. It's not "unbiased". It's on purpose. That's how I see it, and that's my point.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
"It's like saying "and the
October 31, 2007 - 09:23 ET by fossten"It's like saying "and the man died" when, actually, he was murdered. Or, "she was pregnent" when, actually, she was raped. Or, "the twin towers were demolished" when, in fact, airliners were driven into them."
Those are bad analogies because the author DOES mention that the airliner was hijacked, and DOES mention the date, which is burned into everyone's mind. Mentioning hijacked jetliner and the important date IS a proper reference. Maybe it wasn't enough for you, but it isn't inherent bias either. Sorry, I stand by my statement.
What would you have the author say, "...hijacked jetliner that was hijacked by Islamic terrorists which deliberately flew the plane into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, during the 9/11 attacks." That would be fastidiously redundant. I understood the reference and I'll bet everyone else did too.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
Say it however you want....
October 31, 2007 - 12:28 ET by ThisnThatbut include enough context. Here's an example description of a hijacking in 2006: "Initial reports suggested that two hijackers had wanted to deliver a message to Pope Benedict, angry at his recent comments in a lecture in Germany which appeared to link Islam and violence". Here's another one from 1994: "An Olympic Airways plane was hijacked on a flight from Germany to Greece today. The hijacker was detained after freeing 77 passengers and crew members unharmed in Salonika, the police said". Here's a description of a crash: "A fired USAir employee, David Burke, after leaving a goodbye message to friends, shot both pilots. The aircraft went into a steep dive and crashed killing all 43 people aboard." In all these cases, the context is clear.
The context was deliberately left out of the reporter's description.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
just give the msm time to
October 30, 2007 - 13:50 ET by TruthMongerjust give the msm time to "massage" that out of the public's memory - via a story like this - about a little ol' "plane crash" - pilot error maybe? bad weather? I know - manufacturers defect - due to Bush de-regulation of safety requirements - and Katrina - Bush hates black people - caused by global warming...
Partner with Islam and the NB respect police:)
Rimsky
October 30, 2007 - 13:42 ET by fosstenNothing wrong with that. But I also don't think there was anything wrong with how it was written. I believe the article gave due attention to the attack by mentioning the date. Again, I don't believe this was biased.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
Good points.
October 30, 2007 - 14:02 ET by mvfreemanWhat more is there to say? Everyone knows what happened. And the Pentagon is a huge building. The man could have been on the complete opposite side of the crash site for all we know.
Surely people aren't expected to vote for someone because they were at the scene of a terror attack.
This is making something out of nothing.
Democrats in disarray and bringing out the long knives
October 30, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Lame CherryIt is amusing when the big titan Murtha in his secure home hog trough ground still needs the MSM types to make sure no one is reminded that Russell survived a horrific attack on 9 11.......compared to Murtha who seems now only to survive in pork barrel swill.
Nothing can be better as Affirmative Action Pelosi is finding out the Congress takes talent to run and not pink dresses and smiles. The Democrats are in disarray. Democrats are fed up with Pelosi. Americans know Democrats stink as leaders.....and with a 14% approval rating........well, incumbents like Hog Murtha are about ready in 2008 to end up in the ham shed.
It does not make any difference if Argentina just elected a centerfold babe from a group of males who were about as must in the race as Obama and Edwards...........as Evita Argentina is a hottie.......and Hillary is a nottie.
2008 is going to be fun and I will so enjoy watching the heat coming onto Murtha as this time he will not be hiding behind his intel section in Nam collecting medals like John Kerry.........Murtha will meltdown and all of this from Hillary to Gore will make this election a very good show to watch.
Nothing is more of a show than having boobs like Jimmy Carter's jr in a big butt dress and Pelosi not so pretty in pink blaming "your mother" for their problems in politics.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Read it again.
October 30, 2007 - 13:39 ET by mvfreemanThat's what this whole thread is about. It WAS mentioned that he was there when the plane crashed into the Pentagon.
And I'm going to assume that Mr. Russell has some actual policy positions and campaign issues other than "I was at the Pentagon on 9-11".
At least she didn't say,
October 30, 2007 - 13:14 ET by NetizenCainAt least she didn't say, "Russell and his wife, Kasia, were supposdly in the Pentagon when a alleged hijacked jetliner reportedly crashed into the building in mid-September a few years ago. They, and countless others escaped
unharmed."
Please step away from the
October 30, 2007 - 15:03 ET by Rastus03Please step away from the lance...
That windmill just ain't worth it.