Not long ago, I was riding to a a meeting when I noticed a headline significantly placed in the day's issue of the Washington Post, on a fellow-rider's copy of the paper.
"CIA and Special Operations Team Up to Kill Extremists [sic] in Syria and Iraq", the headline screamed. It was not my paper, so I could not read the text, the context or anything else. But, of course, I didn't have to.
My mind was far too occupied digesting the implications of the headline.
I didn't really care as much that the CIA and Special Ops "teamed up" to kill, well, anyone. It was not a particularly big deal to me, and it wasn't even what got my attention. What did get my attention was the oh, so indicative use of the term "Extremists" to refer to ISIS and Al Qaeda, the Taliban and others who are our opponents in the war on terror, being, you know, terrorists.
"Terrorists", as in "willing to kill innocents to achieve their global ambition to impose their particular view of a particular religion." There is nothing "extreme" about that, actually. It is perfectly mainstream Islamist terrorism. But the headline writer who forwarded the story -- and it came from a news service, not an actual reporter at the Post -- apparently chose that word intentionally.
I say that because I'm not the only one startled by the headline. The New York Post ran the story, all right, but unlike the Tulsa World, the Huffington Post, the Charlottesville Observer and, of course, the Washington Post -- all of which left the headline intact -- the New York Post ran the story with the headline "CIA and Special Operations Team Up to Kill Al Qaeda and IS Targets", eschewing the "extremists" word for one more appropriate.
I got a little wired when I saw the headline on the fellow-rider's paper. What, I asked myself, possessed the headline-writer to make the curious word choice of "extremists", when we're talking about Islamist terrorists and everyone knows it, including the news-service writer who produced the properly-worded headline in the first place? Ask 100 people on the street to name the intended victims of this CIA-Special Ops team, and I guarantee you 100 will come up with a word other than "extremists."
Well, I'm not a stupid man. This is clearly a choice of words on the part of someone wired into the left's word-speak to avoid naming the Islamic terrorists as "Islamic terrorists." Now, I can understand if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or other lefties used words like that, but this was the Associated Press, an ostensibly, if not actually, independent news organization.
Moreover, it was not a choice of words just meant to avoid saying something (it was that, of course), but a specific selection meant to convey that being an “extremist” is not a good thing in any context. Setting the stage, as it were, for the use by the left of that term to characterize its political opponents – first get the sheep in the press to use precisely the words you want them to, setting the context, then use those same words to describe your opponents. Darn clever, those leftist extremists.
I suppose that I’m writing this piece not just to alert you, the reader, to how cleverly you are being manipulated when you plunk down a buck for a newspaper, but also to let the left know that we do see through you. Choosing a word such as “extremists” could not possibly be an accident. I know exactly what you were doing, as did the New York Post, to their eternal credit.
It is very saddening to know this sort of thing goes on. You want to know that the press is at least mostly out there to report the news. You want to be able to trust them even a little. You want to think that news agencies like AP have a shred of independence.
I also want to see the Easter Bunny. I think I’m more likely there.
Copyright 2017, 2015 by Robert Sutton