Corpse of journalism shudders in grave

This Sunday Times article is the worst piece of journalistic shilling-for-Tony (and of "why the bombings mean you have to support my politics") I’ve read since July 7.

The article nominally evaluates, but in practice argues for, all of the anti-terror measures proposed by authoritarians since the attacks. It achieves its aims mostly through the weaselly use of phrases like ‘experts believe’ (ie ‘we made up’), combined with occasional quotes from tame political hacks.

It also features some epically stupid assertions, such as "why have dangerous radicals been allowed to turn London into ‘Londonistan’?". Err, they haven’t. ‘Londonistan’ is a term made up by right-wing idiots, which means precisely nothing. None of the loons that we’ve allowed (as we should, as a civilised country) to preach nonsense have any involvement whatsoever with the July attacks.

(incidentally, I wonder whether – but strongly doubt that – there’s any truth to this story…)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John B. Bookmark the permalink.

25 thoughts on “Corpse of journalism shudders in grave

  1. On the one hand, it’s extremely unlikely that we’ve seen the last of the bombers. On the other hand, I am more and more bemused by the selective briefings and news management tactics of the security services.

  2. On the other hand, I am more and more bemused by the selective briefings and news management tactics of the security services.

    Dismayed, yes, but bemused?

    Regarding the Sunday Times apologia: I couldn’t face reading all of it, but there did seem to be the odd legitimate comment buried in it. That said, it’s telling that the article ends by concluding that “multiculturalism … must be ditched" and that “a first step would be to reform the benefits system." Er, WTF does that have to do with anything?

    At this point I feel I should link to Peter Cook’s wonderful sketch on the judge summing up the Jeremy Thorpe trial, but I can’t find one. Could someone else oblige?

  3. It’s titled "Entirely a matter for you", but google isn’t being very helpful viz. a transcript…

  4. Actually, reform of the benefits system has a lot to do with it.

    One of the reasons Muslims in the US have integrated better than here in the UK, or, even more so in Holland, is that the US doesn’t have a welfare culture. American Muslims must work hard, compromise and are likely to be too knackered at the end of the day to nurse dreams of the Caliphate.

    Muslims in the UK are more likely to be on benefits than adherents of any other religion. This gives those of them who are that way inclined time and space to nurse ‘grievances’, dream of the caliphate, and in some cases plot violence.

    Put ’em to work, or cut their money.

  5. OP, your idea of a good society seems to be one where the mass of people are too knackered to take part in politics. Elightenment democracy indeed.

  6. Not necessarily – but a society where some people are too busy earning a living to get ideas of blowing themselves up can’t be all bad.

    I’m sure you don’t want that kind of ‘political participation’.

  7. Yes, but if they are too busy to get ideas of blowing themselves up, they are probably too busy to get ideas. Which is all bad – it sounds like a particularly oppressive state of affairs.

  8. Really? Why?

    How on earth do you make people so busy that they cannot possibly imagine blowing themselves up, yet leave them enough time to have other ideas?

  9. "Muslims in the UK are more likely to be on benefits than adherents of any other religion"

    Do you have a source for that, out of interest?

  10. "Muslims in the UK are more likely to be on benefits than adherents of any other religion"

    After controlling for location, educational status, gender, parental income, time since previous employment, marital status and number of children, you mean? Incredible.

  11. Good god dammit. A large part of the point of terrorism is to stimulate draconian and unfair responses which will ensure that the non-radicalised population will either be radicalised, or will be alienated enough to lend tacit support. And here we have the Sunday Times promoting this little laundry list. I think I want dibs on the term "useful fucking idiots".

  12. Unemployment is quite a bit higher amongst Muslims than other comparable groups, so they’re likely to be on benefits aren’t they?

    (The number of Muslims in prison is disproportionately high too -8% which is four times what it ought to be, since Muslims are 2% of the population.)

    There should be a workfare scheme, like in the US to keep them out of trouble.

  13. "Unemployment is quite a bit higher amongst Muslims than other comparable groups, so they’re likely to be on benefits aren’t they?"

    This is convincing.

  14. ("I suggest we deport them all."

    or go for extraordinary rendition.)

    anyone else think the Sunday Times chose their "experts" with care or severely edited their comments?

  15. [i]Old P: Muslims in the UK are more likely to be on benefits than adherents of any other religion[/i]

    Why the elision between socio-economic status and religion?

    I’m not disputing OP’s assertion (I’m not informed enough on the stats) but since we all seem to agree that it’s at best correlation rather than causal link, I think my original naive question of “WTF does that have to do with anything?" stands.

    I agree about the selection of the “experts", BTW. Can’t say it surprises me though.

  16. Muslims and Hindus are the same race and come, mostly from the same backgrounds.

    Hindus are a control group for Muslims.

    Hindus have integrated very well. Muslims haven’t and one or two are blowing themselves up.

    Clue: Islam.

  17. "Muslims and Hindus are the same race and come, mostly from the same backgrounds."

    Good grief. Read a fucking book, eh?

  18. "Muslims and Hindus are the same race and come, mostly from the same backgrounds."

    Is that a joke? Or are you just fond of being wrong in public?

    Oh and incidentally, more Hindus blow themselves up (Tamil Separatists) than Moslems do (excluding the ongoing conflict in Iraq).

  19. Simon – I meant in the UK, most Muslims and Hindus are the same race as each other. Obviously not in the world as a whole, where Muslims can be any race.

    As I’ve said on a different thread, the racism excuse is often used for Muslim underachievement, criminality (4 times the expected proportion in prison) and now terrorism. But Hindus will experience any racism that Muslims do, and don’t have the same problems.

    You appear to have misunderstood what I said, but there is no need to be abusive.

    Tamil separatists etc are not relevant, because I’m trying to do a like for like comparison – British Hindus and British Muslims, who live in the same conditions etc.

  20. Aren’t UK immigrants who happen to be Hindu usually from a different socio-economic background, and from a different period of immigration, than those who happen to be Muslim? In which case the attempt to use the former as a control group against the latter would be, er, a bit flawed.

    Might be useful for any attempts at debate if someone could find some data to link to.

  21. Just thought you might want to know it was French and/or Algerian authorities who coined the term "Londonistan". They may also be right-wing idiots, of course.

    http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/comment.cfm?id=1075

    "I believe the term "Londonistan" actually dates back to the mid-1990s and was a term of derision used by French counter-terrorism agencies towards their British counterparts for the amount of such Islamist activity that the British were allowing to be run out of London"

    http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006206.php

    P.

Comments are closed.