Online journalism class encourages students to put jihad ‘in context’

OK. How about a journalism class that puts the tragic deaths of “kids” by firearms “in context” with backyard swimming pool deaths? Or taking the time to let us know their definition of a “kid” is a 20 year-old gangster?

I’m fine with putting statistics in context as compared to other events, be them tragic or not, but journalists should not be picking and choosing which stories they will sensationalize. They are supposed to be unbiased.

Cough. Hack. Cough.

As a reminder, I’m a commentator, not a journalist … there is a difference.

From Fox News.

A new online journalism course on Islam appears to downplay the threat posed by global jihad groups, suggesting reporters keep the death toll from Islamic terrorism in “context” by comparing that toll to the number of people killed every year by malaria, HIV/AIDS and other factors.

So I ask again, will they put accidental or deliberate shootings “in context” with backyard swimming pool deaths of children? Those deaths don’t have to happen either, all we need to do is ban or heavily regulate swimming pools. If you don’t want them banned, just regulate them to death by requiring lifeguards be on duty 24/7/365 at every pool and require the pools be empty and filled with those balls they put in kid’s ball pits during the off-season.

In the meantime, we’re waiting to find out if Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani will face execution in Iran for not renouncing Christianity. CNN picked up on the story in Dec. 2010, and National Review Online has a collection of articles. In the last 24 hours it’s getting a lot more attention, as it should.

3 replies
  1. JBS
    JBS says:

    A journalism course is for aspiring reporters. What better way for the liberal press to train their future lefty mouthpieces than teach them to equivocate on something like jihad or terrorism? Next the liberals will be braying that terrorists and jihadists really aren’t such bad people once you get to know them; they are just misunderstood. Bull____!
    Liberals. Arrraaahhhh! Their fuzzy-brained, emotion-based, suck-up, be-my-friend attitude will see us all unemployed, evicted, penniless and beholding to the government for a handout. That’s where all of this love-everyone gibberish is heading.
    I think Samuel Clements said it, “There’s lies, damn lies and statistics.” And, statistics can be perverted any number of ways.

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    “As a reminder, I’m a commentator, not a journalist … there is a difference.”
    I think I have to take issue with that Steve: journalism, with all the bias (both deliberate and not deliberate), running with rumors and not following them up, and lousy proofreading by editors (with their own biases), has seriously eroded the original definition of journalism as currently understood, i.e. “b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism.

    Journalism today is characterized by people too lazy to confirm sources beyond a Google search, and regurgitate talking points fed to them by the administration.
    Clark Kent and Lois Lane are dead.  Jimmy Olsen is selling cars.

Comments are closed.