How to eliminate terrorism "without a shot"
UPDATE: I see some people in comments seem to think I'm endorsing Instapundit's (and his readers') crackpot theory. I thought my post made it clear that I was mocking it, but I guess it wasn't clear enough so - no, I'm not endorsing the nonsense one bit. Remember the rule of the Far Right: if the media shows the work of terrorists - bad; if they don't show the work of terrorists - bad.
JIM DUNNIGAN: "Al Qaeda, and Islamic radicals, would not be a world terrorism problem were it not for global Islamic media, and media coverage that treated the goals of the Islamic radicals with seriousness and respect."Thanks Glenn; I'm sure Ms. Miller and all her pals agree (certainly about the "being manipulated by our own government" part).
What's interesting to me is that members of the press are exquisitely sensitive to the dangers of being manipulated by our own government, but so much less so in other cases.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Zelda Aronstein emails:I bet if the media voluntarily stopped showing any pictures of all terror attacks, that the terror would stop. Thus ending the GWOT without a shot.Sadly, that's probably right.
This policy would be NO DIFFERENT than how they cover folks who run on to baseball fields: they do NOT show them on TV; they ignore them.
Would the media ever put peace above their ratings/profits? Never.
Now if only the media had known not to cover terrorism and terrorist attacks before 9/11 and covered all manner of silly stuff instead! Maybe 9/11 would have never happened! Why does the media hate America so!
Anyway, it's nice to start the weekend knowing that the emergence of terrorism post-dates the creation of TV and the media and can be smacked down (smack! smack!) by cutting out "terror" from media reports.