jump to navigation

The Québec City attack… February 2, 2017

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
trackback

The murderous attack on a mosque in Canada this week is – unfortunately – not unsurprising. Is it me or did it seem as if details were remarkably scant – indeed that coverage of the whole appalling event was much less high profile than might have been expected? That it fell off the media with remarkable rapidity?

Advertisements

Comments»

1. sonofstan - February 2, 2017

Trump was soaking up all the attention

Like

2. Ed - February 2, 2017

Even worse, there was an attempt in the immediate aftermath to make out that it was the work of a ‘Muslim terrorist’, supposedly targeting the mosque because that’s what Muslims do. Fox News pushed that line and it was picked up by the likes of the Daily Mail; one of Trump’s representatives even cited the Quebec attack as a justification for his immigration ban. No retraction when the truth came out, predictably enough. Trudeau, in fairness, was very clear in referring to it as a terrorist attack; usually when it’s a white fascist who murders people, ‘crazy’ and ‘lone wolf’ are the standard labels applied.

Liked by 1 person

ivorthorne - February 2, 2017

Trump-fan attacked a mosque and there are still people going around claiming that it was a Muslim who did it.

It’s been debunked but the fascists will still still believe it.

Like

WorldbyStorm - February 3, 2017

That’s the basic problem at the moment. What does one do to counter that?

Like

3. 6/5against - February 2, 2017

I thought it was remarkable how quickly it fell off the news agenda. These are often capricious, and high levels of media coverage rarely correlate to human suffering or injustice, but a North American terrorist attack with multiple fatalities would usually make the cut, wouldn’t it? Could it simply be down to the fact that it was in French-speaking Canada?

Liked by 1 person

WorldbyStorm - February 2, 2017

That and the fact it was Muslims who were victims and I fear that that is at this point sufficient to deny it coverage in the same depth.

Liked by 1 person

4. Enzo - February 2, 2017

The Canadian flag has been conspicuous in it’s absence from people’s facebooks…

Like

WorldbyStorm - February 2, 2017

Yeah. That says it all.

Like

Satan - February 3, 2017

Can you name one mass killing with less than ten casualties where a flag motif on FB was used? I’m afraid the massacre just wasn’t of the standard necessary for such ‘virtue signaling’

Like

WorldbyStorm - February 3, 2017

I dislike flags etc on Facebook as much or more than you, i particularly disliike empty emoting wjich costs nothing and is forgotten minutes later, but 6 as against say 12 in Germany and 10 being the cut off point?

Like

5. GW - February 3, 2017

Good and timely post.

I was just thinking if you compared the column inches (do people still think in inches? – perhaps kilobytes of text / images are a more relevant measure) devoted to the Quebec attack on Muslims and the Berlin attack by an Daesher on Christmas-Market in Berlin, you’d come out with a ratio < 0.001.

Like

6. GW - February 3, 2017

On a related theme of highly selective meeja attention (spans), the London Review of Books has a particularly good issue this fortnight, and Patrick Cockburn writes to compare the media representation of the slaughter in Aleppo with it’s (non-)representation of the battle for Mosul.

He notes:

All wars always produce phony atrocity stories – along with real atrocities. But in the Syrian case fabricated news and one-sided reporting have taken over the news agenda to a degree probably not seen since the First World War. The ease with which propaganda can now be disseminated is frequently attributed to modern information technology: YouTube, smartphones, Facebook, Twitter. But this is to let mainstream media off the hook: it’s hardly surprising that in a civil war each side will use whatever means are available to publicise and exaggerate the crimes of the other, while denying or concealing similar actions by their own forces. The real reason that reporting of the Syrian conflict has been so inadequate is that Western news organisations have almost entirely outsourced their coverage to the rebel side.

and..

In East Aleppo any reporting had to be done under licence from one of the Salafi-jihadi groups which dominated the armed opposition and controlled the area – including Jabhat al-Nusra, formerly known as the Syrian branch of al-Qaida.

He compares the reportage with that attack on Mosul, where civilians are trapped and dying in the thousands, in a long drawn out street battle between decentralised groups of Daesh fighters whose highest ambition is to die in battle, and an Iraqi army who has lost half of its 10,000 elite troops, Peshmurga fighters, the usual ‘special forces’ and US air strikes.

The nearest parallel to what is happening in Mosul would be the siege of Sarajevo between 1992 and 1995, in which 10,000 people were killed, or the siege of Grozny in 1994-95, in which an estimated 5500 civilians died.

But of course the killers of civilians here aren’t Russians or Assad’s troops. Therefore Mosul is much less reported.

Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: