Even when the New York Times is in a rare, truth-telling mode, it can’t help but fudge the discussion of terrorism, draping ugly reality in gauzy euphemism.
Here’s the truth-telling: The Times, reporting on the plunge in polling numbers for Hillary Clinton, acknowledged she “has emerged from the F.B.I. investigation into her email practices as secretary of state a wounded candidate with a large and growing majority of voters saying she cannot be trusted.” Wow—don’t sugarcoat it!
But later in the same article, the reporters found themselves exploring how particular issues might benefit or harm the candidates, and they got to the question of “handling terrorism and national security.” They began that paragraph by discussing the murderous jihadist rampage at the Pulse nightclub in June. Here’s how they phrased it: “After the deadly attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., by a gunman who expressed sympathy for the Islamic State . . . ”
Expressed sympathy? Let’s, as the sportscasters say, go to the tape:
“What’s your name?” the Orlando police department 911 dispatcher asked the shooter, who was on the phone.
“My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.”
“Okay,” the dispatcher asked again. “What’s your name?”
“I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.”
No doubt if that hadn’t been clear enough, he would have been happy to repeat it again.
There is a fundamental difference between “expressing sympathy” and “pledging allegiance,” especially when fealty to murderous terrorist organizations is involved. The Scrapbook suspects that the New York Times is savvy to the distinction.
Why then the dishonest portrayal? Perhaps because a blatant, ISIS-linked terrorist attack on U.S. soil is politically inconvenient for Hillary. Perhaps the Times team is just pledging allegiance to—sorry, we mean expressing sympathy for—their candidate of choice.
