Lash wrote:You YOURSELF bring evidence that a significant "French news conspiracy" DOES exist
Nah.. i bring evidence that there have been notable French newscasters who felt uncomfortable about showing the full extent of the riots, and partly covered things up. A conspiracy, on the other hand, implies a concerted agreement among the whole cabal ...
Lash wrote:--and then try to act as though it is unreasonable to think if they'll cover up ONE controversial fact, they'll cover up ANOTHER.
Are you sincerely comfortable with that?
Nooooo ... what I said (in the post right above yours in fact), was: "The extent of the rioting can easily be verified in non-French media reports. The religious fervour of the rioters that you assert, I have not seen evidenced in non-French media reports."
Ie: even if some French media were inclined to underplay the general
extent of the riots, we have been easily able to verify the full extent of what did happen in the reports brought from the spot by reporters from all over the world. Right?
But your additional hypothesis is that the French media ALSO underplayed the way that, according to you, most of the riots were inspired by religion. But
that hypothesis I have
not seen credibly confirmed in the from-the-spot reports from other journalists from over the world.
Re: the extent of the riots: its not hard to imagine a more or less widespread individual inclination among French media to underplay events. Whereas there's no reason for journalists from elsewhere to share that desire: if anything, there's enough countries where audiences crave to hear about how bad the Frenchies messed up to make it a commercially winning deal to show the full extent of it.
OK, so far so good, cause thats exactly what we've seen: widespread international media coverage of the violence.
Now, I am already more sceptical about the hypothesis that there was a widespread inclination among French media to specifically underplay the
religious element of the riots. I'd say that for many, especially on the right (and yes, there's right-wing media in France too), it's actually a lot more convenient to focus on religion as a cause than on the decades of neglect and institutionalised racism that they, the white French, themselves are to blame for.
But sure, let's imagine that there were
also French media who, out of fear of helping Le Pen, underplayed the purported religious element of the rioting, specifically. But then that would have come out in the reports from all the international reporters on the spot too, right? Just like they showed the full extent of the violence?
I mean, considering how people all over the West are especially concerned/interested in the Muslim-extremist angle (so much more interesting than your run-of-the-mill story of ghetto youth running amock), it wouldn't make commercial sense for the international reporters to shove
that aspect, in particular, under the carpet - collectively, even.
Well, I read a lot of reports in different countries' papers about the riots, and I didnt get away with the impression of bearded fundamentalists spurring the rioters on in much any of 'em. In fact, a lot of 'em emphasised not only the all too secular teenage rage behind the rioting, fuelled more by hip-hop than the Quran, but also the fact that, if anything, the mosques were playing an intermediary role, actively working to calm their neighbourhoods down.
Like I said, the difference between us, I suppose, is that I dont believe in a
global conspiracy of on-the-spot reporters to collectively underplay the religious element of the riots. Too far-fetched. (Never one for conspiracy theories.)
In short: you and I have never differed about a certain unease about the French media not paying sufficient attention to the riots, per se. Hey, I actually raised that point way before you, in this
post of 16 November, so you could have spared yourself the effort on that one.
But your
other point, that the riots were supposedly mostly inspired by religion, I don't agree with - not just on the basis of what i've seen back home in Holland, but also because it's contradicted by most all the reporting I've read.
Finally, not to put too fine a point on it, but the reason I called you out for - not racism, but close enough - sweeping xenophobe generalisations it was, I believe - was, quite specifically,
this post - the last long green-font stuff.
Now I dunno whether you blur these distinctions deliberately, because it is quite convenient for you to act like you were called xenophobic just because you came out and said you thought the riots were religiously inspired - rather than because of a quite specific rant of yours on how those Muslims are, and why its only logical that they cant find any jobs. But it's rather transparent.
You saw what happened with something as simple as a headscarf. They will protect their ritualistic mutilation of their daughters--especially more recent immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East. The percentage of girls mutilated there is in the 90th percentile!! It pisses me off. If this were a band of white neo-nazis doing this to their children and wives, you would demand the gov to stop it immediately. Don't think family services will protect these children. They reject secular law--and they can't be allowed to do so.
