I agree and would even go a step further and say we shouldn’t give them any press coverage. I have a feeling at least a good portion of it is done in order to get media attention.
It all depends upon what you mean by an approach “working” and what your expectations are as to the degree of suppression of terrorism.
I quite frankly don’t recall the 1990’s as being an era rife with terrorist attacks on us or any great fear of them.
Much of it is. But it remains the press’ responsibility to cover the events.
It worked better than what we are doing now. The people behind the 1993 WTC bombing were captured and thrown in prison. Osama Bin Laden and friends are still free and active.
Yeah. Can you picture the outcry when it became known that the liberal media cabal didn’t report such praise?
And, of course it would become known as long as there is an O’Reilly extant.
True, but I was thinking it would be a complete abandonment of the job they’re supposed to fulfill.
Oh sure. The job of the media is to report whatever happens and let the populace assess the importance of the news.
Since no news source can report absolutely everything, different sources will omit different things. That’s one really bad thing about the ownership of the media oulets by just a few huge corporations. It’s a lot easier for things to fall through the cracks.
Now that we are mired in Iraq it is indeed a hard thing to get out of; as we have given the people who have only the terrorists and their supporters to give them news and incourage hatred for the west. Had we put the time and money in Aphganistan until it was settled I think we would not have had the troubles or deaths of so many of our soldiers and innocent Iraqi’s that we now have and encouraged the people who were on the fence to turn against us, and get the Irani’s to back the Shia’s causing division between Shia and Sunni’s.
The elder Bush was aware of this situation becoming a great possibility when he didn’t go into Bahdad during the Gulf war.
Monavis