For words that correspond with things
May I be permitted to point out that the Libyans whom Kaddafi is killing are not “protesters,” i.e., people seeking redress of grievances from Kaddafi’s regime, but rebels, i.e., people seeking to overthrow his regime?
The liberal media’s manipulation of language, so as to fit all events into their preferred script of the moment, never ceases. And our protest against that manipulation must also never cease.
As an example of what I mean, the top front page photograph of the February 23 New York Times shows an excited crowd of men holding up their hands in victory gestures as they face the camera. The caption says:
“Antigovernment protesters celebrated in Tobruk, Libya, on Tuesday after seizing control of several areas in eastern Libya.”
Now, people who seize control of parts of a country away from the government are not protesters, right? They are rebels. But the Times editors were so ensconsed in the liberal script du jour that they didn’t notice the gross contradiction in what they were saying.
Dimitri K. writes:
I appreciate—you are almost only one person I know who noticed this strange addiction of the media (both left and right) to revolutions. Whoever revolts against their government, they immediately claim the democratic revolution. The more brutal is the uprising, the more they blame the government. I am not a fan of Gaddafi, but according to Stratfor, the main force of his opposition is al Qaeda. Still, the media are mad supporting revolution. It seems that they have become completely destructive.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 24, 2011 03:37 PM | Send