MSM miss the point on terrorism

This column was originally published on Sept 13th 2004 in the Minnesota Daily.


This past weekend, we remembered those who were killed by terrorists three years ago. Most Americans think the last terrorist attack happened on Sept. 11, 2001. That is not because they are unaware of the beheadings, car-bombings and suicide bombings that have taken place since then.
It is because the mainstream media are afraid to call a spade a spade. What I mean by that is that they are afraid to call a terrorist a terrorist.

USA Today called the men who beheaded Nick Berg “captors.” On Sept. 1, 16 Israelis were killed when two men exploded bomb belts on two separate buses. CNN called them “fighters.” Chris Matthews, of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” calls the men who detonate roadside bombs in Iraq “insurgents.”

Last Thursday, our own Daily used these adjectives to describe the men who murdered innocent women and children in Beslan, Russia: rebels, hostage-takers and freedom fighters.

The editorial “Lessons Beslan should teach us” even said the word “terrorist” has become overused. The point of the Daily’s editorial piece was to condemn the murder of innocent civilians. That’s fine, but calling these men freedom fighters is like calling Michael Moore skinny.

The ABCs, CBSs and NBCs of the world must want Americans to think that the war on terror is over. The harsh reality is that there are terrorists plotting to kill us every day. Some people on the left will say that the United States has created these terrorists by invading Iraq. That’s ideological nonsense. There were terrorists before we invaded Iraq, just as there are terrorists now.

In fact, because of the Bush administration’s pre-emptive policy, we have killed or captured two-thirds of al-Qaida. But there are other terrorists other than just al-Qaida, and this is what the mainstream media don’t want you to know.

The media doesn’t want to label terrorists as such because it helps the Bush administration. Recent polls show that President George W. Bush has a commanding lead on the question of whom the U.S. public trusts to protect us from terrorism. But if the media keep terrorism and the word “terrorist” out of national headlines, then there is a greater chance that people will vote on other issues.

People need to be reminded of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. They need to know that the people we are dealing with don’t care about Republicans or Democrats. They don’t care if they kill a soldier in uniform, a civilian contractor or a 5-year-old school child. They will kill anybody to get what they want.

This war is waged, not just on far-off battlefields, but also at home in the form of public opinion. Those who think the war in Iraq is not a battle against terrorism are just plain wrong. We know Iraq was not involved with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But, what we also know is that al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi traveled in and out of Iraq with Saddam Hussein’s knowledge.

Who is to say that Saddam wouldn’t help him at some point? After Sept. 11, 2001 we can’t take that chance. When the war in Iraq is done, the war on terror will not be over. That is why the United States must have a firm commitment in fighting this war. We can’t do that, if people think that the war has subsided.

The media must be responsible and not scare the public. But they also must be accurate. People who kill innocent children are not freedom fighters. People who detonate roadside bombs or behead civilians are not insurgents. They are terrorists.

Before Sept. 11, 2001, we had our eyes closed to the threat of terrorism. Every time the media replace the word “terrorist” with “insurgent” or “freedom fighter” they help close our eyes a little bit more.

Black History Month

Being that February is Black History Month, I figured I would peruse the NAACP Web site to gain insight on the importance of this month. I found out that new Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., will receive the Chairman’s Award at the annual National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Image Awards. I thought this was quite the achievement for the freshman senator. That was, until I saw that past winners included the Dave Matthews Band and actor Danny Glover.
I don’t know about you, but when I think about champions of civil rights, drug-induced rockers and Cuban President Fidel Castro’s best buddy don’t come to mind. Does the award really bear the same merit for Obama given its past winners? It’s like having the “husband of the year award” given to you by previous winners former President Bill Clinton and Scott Peterson.

In addition to Obama’s award, Oprah Winfrey will be inducted into the NAACP Image Awards Hall of Fame. Personally, I love Winfrey. Her show about maternity makeovers was especially moving. Even more noteworthy was her show asking, “Single women: Why are you alone?” Not only was that episode informative, it was touching as well (does anyone have a Kleenex?).

These awards themselves are not that offensive. Given the partisan behavior of the NAACP, it’s not shocking to find out that it would give an award to noted communist-sympathizer Glover. What is shocking is its glaring omission of a person who has brought a considerable amount of diversity to the forefront of our way of life. That person is President George W. Bush. If all Cabinet nominees are approved, Bush will have a more-diverse group of top advisers than any president in history.

Donna Brazille (former Al Gore presidential campaign manager and a black woman) said, “President Bush has opened new doors for minorities and women to consider the benefits of joining the ranks of the Republican Party.” She couldn’t be more correct.

Bush named Alberto Gonzales to be the first-ever Hispanic to hold the position of attorney general. Condoleezza Rice has been confirmed as the only black woman in history to be the secretary of state. Alphonso Jackson is secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Cuban-born Carlos Gutierrez has been tapped to lead the Department of Commerce. The list goes on and on.

What does not is media coverage of this cabinet’s diversity. Did you know that during four years Bush has named five women, seven blacks, three Hispanics and two Asian Americans to cabinet positions? Prior to Bush, no minority had ever been nominated to any of the four most-prestigious cabinet positions. Bush has named three. You won’t find those stories in the Star Tribune.

Detractors might say Bush is only paying lip service to minorities, but that is an insult to the achievement of these nominees. They are some of the most-qualified, educated and talented people we have to offer. They earned their jobs because they were well-equipped to fill the position, not because of the color of their skin.

Having women and minorities close to him is not something new for Bush. Throughout his time as governor of Texas and his two presidential campaigns, he has always had a diverse group of advisers and confidants. Some Democrats even complained that in last year’s presidential election, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., had fewer blacks and Hispanics as top advisers than Bush did. There are more minorities at a Celine Dion concert than there were in Kerry’s campaign.

Not that having a campaign full of rich white men is a bad thing; it’s just surprising coming from the party of diversity and inclusiveness. Only after a CNN reporter wrote a column criticizing Kerry for the lack of diversity in his inner circle did he introduce more minorities into his campaign. It seems that the Democrats were the ones using minorities as window dressing.

It’s also ironic that liberals often stereotype the Republican Party as racist. Then, when Republicans appoint minorities to high-level positions, those minorities are often criticized and attacked by liberals.

Bush should get attention and accolades for his diverse nominations. More media coverage of the diverse group of nominees would be a positive influence on minority groups and show that the United States is coming together. Bush is furthering the idea that the Republican Party believes that hard work will be rewarded regardless of race.

In 2001, Clinton won the NAACP’s President’s Award, which is determined by the organization’s president, currently Dennis Courtland Hayes. Bush is not asking for any awards, but clearly deserves them. Maybe Bush will get more recognition if he gives everyone in the White House press corps a new car like Winfrey did with her audience.