Secretary of State Kerry would prefer if the news media didn't cover terrorist attacks


#1

cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/kerry-terrorism-perhaps-media-would-do-us-all-service-if-they-didnt

Kerry would prefer if the news media didn’t cover terrorist attacks.


#2

Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”

He doesn’t want us knowing what is going on so he can lie to us without the risk of being caught in his lies.


#3

You speak like someone more concerned with politics than the safety of the country.

The deal is that terrorist thrive on the fear of their victims, and media coverage only validates that fear for them. The secretary, whether you like is politics or not, is on to something.

One of the problems with this country is those opposed to the politics of our country, rather right or left (because the left is just as obstructionist towards the right, when they hold power), undermine our unity and greatness, and are unwitting accomplices of our enemies and adversaries.


#4

Some sort of new recreational drug?


#5

What unity? It seems like there are two very different views of where we (US) should be going, and that is what is causing the obstructiveness, not the obstructiveness causing division!


#6

He wants to “achieve” what the European media have; obfuscate and cover to facilitate support for mass immigration. It’s back fired and we voted to Brexit and intelligent reluctance to acceptance of destructive uncontrolled immigration has grown.

Kerry wanted money to “counter Russian propaganda” a while ago. It was just stupid. Everyone knows that happened in Maidan Square but as a baby boomer, he thinks the media dictate public opinion. They’ve lied to much now that no one believes them.

The latest approach is to say attacks carried out where perpetrated by a “mentally ill” men of Middle Eastern origin. Everyone now knows what this means. Kerry should come into the 21st Century and stop talking about progressiveness when he and his boss are doing the polar opposite.


#7

There can be no doubt that there is a connection between terrorism and media coverage of the same. Here is a good article on that subject. Of course we cannot, and should not, suppress all coverage of terrorism. But the media is motivated by anything that increases the number off eyeballs on their product, and sensational coverage of terrorism does just that.

The title of this thread is incorrect, since Kerry actually said “perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much.” He has a good point. Terrorism, as bad as it is for those affected, does very little to advance the military goal the terrorists have in mind, without the aid of the media. Even in 2001, with 9/11 and the worst terrorist attack on American soil, influenza killed ten times as many people as terrorism. Yet no one was worried that influenza was going to threaten the US as a nation. Why did terrorism get 100 times as much media coverage as influenza? Because it made a sensational story. And if it weren’t for the guarantee of sensational coverage, terrorists would have no incentive to mount their relatively ineffective attacks.

By sensationalizing the attacks of terrorists, the media is complicit in their horrible deeds. Kerry was simply recognizing this truth and calling for more rational coverage.


#8

The truth would suit me


#9

You speak like someone who is OK with the government lying to you. I am not OK with that. Me not knowing a threat exists does not mean the threat does not actually exist. Ignorance is NOT bliss.


#10

It is not a question of total suppression of coverage of terrorism. Kerry did not suggest that. No one is suggesting that. So you are arguing against a strawman.

It is a question of degree. How much coverage and what sort of coverage should be given to the various threats we face (not just terrorism)? Going back to my influenza example, don’t you think that influenza is a greater threat to life than terrorism? So don’t you think it ought to be given more coverage?


#11

Maybe we should do away with the “news” altogether. It would free up more time for spending time with our families, getting involved with our communities, reading the Bible and good spiritual books, volunteering at the food pantry. You get the idea.


#12

I don’t see the media sensationalizing terrorist attacks. They should not be ignored nor the lives of their victims forgotten. I do see the media giving more coverage to attacks
in some countries than to attacks in Africa, India, Syria or Iraq.


#13

Of course he does! The Barak Hussein Obama administration doesn’t want coverage that shows they have no interest in winning this war. They are being exposed and they don’t like it!


#14

I guess this is your last resort when you run out of reasons to explain how a terror attack wasn’t really a terror attack, i,e, he was a repressed homosexual, had problems with co-workers, was estranged from his family, flunked out of college, wife left him, shunned by neighbors, severe depression, bad acne, etc. Anything but the truth. Thankfully we have alternative media.


#15

Influenza is given plenty of coverage. As are flu shots. How can you compare influenza to terrorism?


#16

Influenza did not murder a Priest as he celebrated the Holy Mass in France


#17

Because it killed 10 times as many people in 2001, and 100 times as many people in any other year.

As for coverage, just count up the number of minutes devoted to terrorism in the CBS, NBC, and ABC news tonight. And then do the same thing for influenza - even in January when it is an even bigger deal. Do you have any doubt which will have more coverage?


#18

I have seen plenty of coverage on influenza and the number of deaths.
People also die in car accidents and from drug addictions.
I still don’t see how you compare influenza to terrorism.


#19

I don’t understand why you think the current coverage of influenza is “plenty”. 100 times as many people are killed by influenza each year, compared to terrorism. Shouldn’t it get 100 times as much coverage?

As you pointed out, people die from lots of other things too. Some of them preventable. So why does terrorism deserve so much coverage if it accounts for such a small fraction of the total preventable deaths?


#20

I don’t know, maybe because these people are actively seeking to kill you and I.
I believe that takes priority, don’t you?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.