Oh My Allah, Hamas is going to kill us all!
I have to admit, even I was drawn in. "HAMAS VOWS TERROR" screamed the Post's A1 in bold, all-caps font. "'Big mistake' for Canada to ban group: spokesman" read the subhead. I was worried. Was a Hamas spokesperson vowing terrorist attacks on Canada because of the ban? Nope. Despite the implied link, those two statements are not related. Hamas vowed to continue its attacks on Israel and also criticized Canada, the U.S. and others for banning the group. This all becomes somewhat clear as you read the story. This isn't the first time I've criticized the Post's fear mongering headlines on A1 (see this post and this post, for example), and I'm afraid it won't be the last. Canada's other national newspaper is taking a real turn for the tabloid these days. As much as I dislike the paper, I think it's important to have many dissenting voices at the national level. It's a shame to see the closest thing the Globe has to competition pandering. Need more terror? The Post also printed edited, translated excerpts from an al-Qaeda Internet posting defending the death of innocent people in their campagin against the infidels. This is confusing for a few reasons. One, borrowed editorials (and I guess that's what this is supposed to be) are usually picked up to bolster the paper's editorial stance (the Star calls their borrowed editorials "Worth Repeating"). Does this mean the Post backs al-Qaeda? I doubt it. But opinion pieces and columnists that counter the paper's stance are identified somehow, this piece is just attributed to "al-Qaeda." There's no context or explanation. Forgetting all of that, though, let's assume it was printed to illustrate the evils of the al-Qaeda way (which is why I assume they printed it, feel free to debate me on that point. It is, after all, under the headline "Voices of Hatred"). Does anyone else notice how much it sounds like Bush, Rumsfeld and others who defend "collateral damage" in U.S. actions? The only difference is Bush and Rummy feign concern for the innocent lives lost, while this (edited and translated) al-Qaeda posting is a bit more callous . This seems to be the lastest thing for papers to do, print excerpts from speeches or online postings in their editorial pages with no real explanation or context. I guess it adds to the debate, but it just seems weird to me. Perhaps one of you can explain it to me. A few shouts-out Okay, I've been picking on the Post today, but they actually co-opted one of the points I was hoping to argue today. I've been really frustrated by the lack of coverage of the latest surge in violence in Afghanistan, especially since Canada is ready to expand operations there. Today, however, Matthew Fisher wrote a fairly solid piece on the dangers Canadian soldiers will face in Kandahar, AND it ran quite prominently on A3. Fisher concludes with his own little shot at the press, noting that Canadian papers have stopped covering Afghanistan because it's been awhile since any Canadians have been killed there. Well done, Mr. Fisher. Also, the Globe beat me to the punch on talking about the G8 plan for Africa. I've been wanting to comment on this homogenous view of "Africa" that much of the Canadian political establishment and media want to propogate. The fact is, Africa is made up of many different countries with many different problems and backgrounds. Yes, there are key themes that dominate the continent, but there is not one overarching solution for Africa. Doug Saunders does a good job illustrating this, read his story here. Okay, that about does it for today. As for the week ahead, I'm doing the MediaScout post twice this week, tomorrow and Thursday, so check those out. And of course, I'll be here spewing forth my thoughts through til Thursday, so keep coming back. Cheers!