AP Focuses on Irrelevant Minutiae in U.S.-Iran standoff

As the tensions between the U.S. and Iran continue to escalate, the AP continues to do little but wring their hands over the matter and appeal to "diplomacy." There are several elements of concern in the Iranian-American relationship, including Iran's ties to terrorism (especially Hezbollah, but also al Qaeda); Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (see mastersofdeceit's post and my reply on the latest NIE); Iranian President Ahmadenijad's comment that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map"; the president's holocaust denial; the ongoing killing and maltreatment of women in Iran; the abuse of homosexuals; the funding, training, and equipping of"mujahadeen" in Iraq; the acts of war against the U.S. since 1979 going back to the October 23, 1983 bombing of a marine barracks in Lebanon; the list goes on and on. However, the AP has bigger fish to fry. They want to get to the bottom of a very important issue. Was the voice that uttered "I am coming to you..." in a recent "naval" standoff in the Strait of Hormuz really a hoax? And was the nickname for the alleged prankster, the "Filipino monkey" an ethnically derogatory slur?

OK, seriously AP, you have to report something regarding the U.S. military that is not frivolous, vacuous, or a part of a Democrat talking point. First of all, about the "Filipino monkey" epithet.

Here is the AP's fifth sentence:

"However, the Navy Times, a weekly newspaper published by the Gannerr company, quoted several veteran sailors as speculating the transmission could have come from a heckler widely known among sailors as the ethnically insulting term 'the Filipino monkey.""

First of all, we have broken down that the entire story is completely based on speculation. Second of all, the AP attacks the men and women serving overseas to defend our nation by saying they use "ethnically derogatory" speech (the horror). Third of all, I've seen this trick before by the AP regarding the term "Filipino monkey," and the argument goes very similar to the one regarding "Islamic terrorism." The left argues that the latter phrase is offensive because it equates Islam with terrorism. But an attentive fourth grade English student can tell the difference between a predicate phrase and an adjective and a noun. The latter, just like the former, is a case of the latter. In other words, the AP is conflating an equivalent statement with a description of an object. But this is per usual. We will look at the AP's following sentence:

"The newspaper, which serves the Navy community, said U.S. sailors in the Persian Gulf have heard the prankster- possibly more than one person- transmitting 'insults and jabbering vile epithers' on unencrypted frequencies."

Which pretty much explains why the naval personnel are angry enough to deem this jerk a "monkey," with the descriptor that he is "Filipino" - probably because he looks Filipino. If the guy was Irish, the serviceman might name him "that Irish #&*#&*&#." Either way, the AP's smug slight is founded on a poor understanding of English and human psychology.

The rest of the article requires a bit more analysis.

The following paragraph from the one cited above laments the verbal abuse taken in particular by women from the "monkey." As if this somehow trumps the national security implications of someone possibly trying to provoke a war, a concept that is not even mentioned in the entire story. I am not for sexual harassment, but it seems like the liberals are really superimposing their inane worldview onto a subject of immensely graver proportions.

After a fleeting mention that the Navy did not respond to their calls, the AP jumps in bed with the enemy, their pals, the Iranians, who seem to be taking talking points from the AP (or is it the AP taking talking points from the Iranians?):

"Iran has denied that its boats threatened the U.S. vessels and accused Washington of fabricating video and audio it released. Iran's government has released its own video, which appears to be shot from a small boat bobbing at least yards away from the American waships."

The AP seems to think that Iran's insane comments somehow bear repeating. Always fishing for a conspiracy theory (in the vein of "Bush knew about 9/11"), there seems to be no anti-military comment the AP won't print.

The imbalance in this article speaks for itself. The focus is on meaningless issues (politically correct speech; sexual harassment) within the news story context; the sources are poorly patched together or irrelevant (Navy sources omitted; Iran's version given even-footing and therefore enhanced credibility); and there is an absence of any meaningful background to the story. What is the greater context? Why is this important? Instead of properly framing the importance of the story in any larger sense, the AP relies on rehashing news stories that fit their template, and they pass off trivia (like ethnically derogatory speech and possible sexual harassment - from a foreigner) as the main gist of the story.