The media begins to spin the Times Square attack to cover their irresponsible journalism
Before the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in the attempted car bombing in Times Square the media made a big deal over their claim that the “person of interest” in the case was a white American citizen who was probably a Tea Party member who was disgruntled with Barack Obama. These reports turned out to be false. While technically Shahzad is an American citizen after he became a naturalized American citizen, the rest of their reporting was off the mark. In fact it was the definition of irresponsible journalism.
It turned out that Shahzad attended terror camps in Pakistan where he received training in bomb making (apparently he was not at the top of his class as his ineptitude in bomb making is the only reason that we do not have dead Americans on our hands.) But the media is still trying to cover their asses with their reporting following the revelation that Shahzad was in fact a Jihadist. Every story that we read from the media seems to mention in the first sentence that Shahzad is an American citizen and now the speculation can be seen in this article what they are trying to claim his motivation was, while ignoring the fact that his motivation was he was a radical Jihadist hell bent on attacking America for his radicalized religious beliefs.
At the time of his arrest, Mr. Shahzad and his wife, Huma Mian, were facing foreclosure on the compact home of gray vinyl shingles they owned on Long Hill Avenue near the center of Shelton, Conn. He is “financially bankrupt,” said a high-level official briefed on the investigation.
Igor Djuric, a broker who showed Mr. Shahzad the 1,356-square-foot home he eventually bought, said he remembered that Mr. Shahzad was quiet about himself, but was openly critical of President Bush in the aftermath of the Iraq war.
There you have it, he was losing his house and he hated George W Bush. This is the angle the media is going to take in their attempt to understand what motivated Shahzad to kill innocent Americans. It wasn’t that he was a radical Muslim, it is simply the fact that he hated Bush because of the Iraq war, and the fact that Bush’s economic policies led to him losing his house. That is the angle the media is using for two purposes; first to cover their totally false reporting, and second; to try to blame this attack on George W Bush.
It is what it is and this is to be expected from the media, but is anyone really going to buy the explanation that a person disgruntled at the former president and angry that he was losing his house was inspired for these reasons alone to kill Americans that had nothing to do with his plight? I don’t think so, other than staunch Bush haters is there anyone who doesn’t believe that Shahzad was motivated by Jihad and Jihadist beliefs?
America's Watchtower 
The rest of the story – from what I have read – isn’t that he was losing his house – that’s stretching it a bit much. He willing gave it up. HE stopped making the payments about the same time HE decided to go back to Pakistan.
LikeLike
I heard something along those lines also.
LikeLike
The answer to the extreme left is not an equally extreme right. I find myself using this site more to see how far the right is bending, and less to get good informative articles. The same can be said for my use of Media Matters. A site that is equally bias as this one. Keep up the good work creating fallacies, and selling them. Good for you.
LikeLike
Rather than just throw around accusations and “subtle” ad hominems, could you give some examples of the “fallacies” being “sold” and give reasonable evidence for why they are false?
LikeLike
Thanks for stopping by. About that whole bias thing, I never claimed to not be biased.
LikeLike
The media reported what they were told. They didn’t have access to the data from which law enforcement was working, and so had to rely on LEW for information. It’s one thing for Mayor Bloomberg to indulge in idle speculation, but the reports I’ve read and seen have concentrated on passing along facts. Or whatever law enforcement is feeding the media. I think you’re giving them a bum rap.
I don’t hold it against the investigators if they purposely gave out misleading information. For goodness’ sake, did anyone really want them to identify the dude and say “Hey, if anyone’s seen this guy, let us know where he is, okay?” The purpose of law enforcement was to catch the guy, NOT to make sure that the public were always being kept abreast of developments with accurate information.
As to his financial problems, I haven’t heard anyone suggesting that they were the motive for his attempted murder. I do know, however, that it’s responsible journalism to find out whatever can be learned about a suspect and report it. What sort of journalist, upon learning that Shahzad’s house was in foreclosure, would decide to withhold that fact from the public? “Oh, I don’t think I’ll publish that, someone might think it’s his motive.”
The same with his religion – I assume, and I think many others do as well, that he’s a Muslim, but he apparently didn’t spend any time at the mosque near his home, according to a report I read. Or should that fact as well have been omitted from the reporting?
Some other interesting things were reported about the electronic surveillance techniques used to keep this clown in sight, and then got yanked from the internet shortly after they were published there. I remember that a military source told CBS how they tracked Osama bin Laden through his cell phone, and then CBS published it, and OBL stopped using cell phones, so apparently the military decided they’d given CBS too much and it was retracted. So I guess I won’t repeat it here, but I don’t think that Shahzad ever had the potential to leave our shores.
LikeLike
re: The Georgia Yankee permalink
“The media reported what they were told. They didn’t have access to the data from which law enforcement was working, and so had to rely on LEW for information.”
Sorry, Georgia… I seriously doubt that the NYPD issued press releases speculating that the “white guy” in the video was probably a Tea Party activist acting out against Obama. I would bet any odds that the NYPD released a statement saying that the man in the vid was a “person of interest”. “Person of interest” means that they’re not sure what the person was up to, but it looks kinda funny.
In fact, it WAS the news media who ran with the idea that the man in the vid was a “white man”, and the speculations about him being a Tea Party activist came from individual reporters.
LikeLike