NOT A JOKE: Media Blaming the TRUCK, not the TERRORIST, For Attack in France!

[Pogo]

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

Paul Joseph Watson - July 15, 2016 1615 Comments



Media Blames Truck, Not Terrorists or Islam, For Nice Attack

"Leftist media outlets reacted to the devastating attack in Nice not by blaming Islam or even terrorists, but by suggesting that an inanimate object – the truck – was responsible for the carnage.

Instead of pointing the finger at Islamists, CNN, CBC and the New York Times all published headlines that served to hide the true nature of the attack.

CBC reported, “Children feared killed in Nice as truck attacks family event”. Presumably, the truck was somehow able to manifest artificial intelligence and plough itself through dozens of victims.

Not to be outdone, CNN reported “Truck rams crowd; 84 dead in Nice,” again providing a convenient way of avoiding any mention of the ideology that inspired the driver."

-----

No use of the word 'Islamic Extremist', 'Radical Islam', 'ISIS', or even 'terrorist'.
No mention of 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' at all (for example, 'Terrorist Attack - Rams Truck Into Crowd killing 84') - Just 'TRUCK Rams Crow'.

So how long before we see Liberals demanding legislation be passed regarding TRUCKS or demanding Semis be labeled as 'ASAULT Trucks'?

"Given that the truck alone, and not the ideology that radicalized the terrorist who used one as a weapon, is to blame for the massacre in Nice, the solution to stop further violence is simple; Ban deadly assault trucks."

Dear easyt65
Isn't this because when the news was first reported,
people didn't have information on which people committed the attack? All they knew was a truck hit the crowd, so that's all they could state.

Even after stories get published with more information, because of legal liability, the news media have to be careful to state phrases like "alleged suspects" and CAN'T go around calling people terrorists unless they want to risk getting sued.

Apparently he doesn't know what an adjective is. Which is what "truck" is in the phrase "truck attack".

God forbid he should encounter the phrase "surprise attack". I bet he's off right now feverishly working up a thread about how the 1941 media tried to report that "surprise", and not "Japan", attacked Pearl Harbor.

Intellectual sloth --- it's what's for dinner around here.

Correct. Even with headlines that actually do exist outside Photoshop. Because most human readers above the level of the OP can figure out that a car crashing into people, or a plane flying into things, or a bullet hitting something, was put in place via some human action. Unless they're an alien from planet Uvoerhg who has no clue how the world works.

 

[Pogo]

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

Paul Joseph Watson - July 15, 2016 1615 Comments



Media Blames Truck, Not Terrorists or Islam, For Nice Attack

"Leftist media outlets reacted to the devastating attack in Nice not by blaming Islam or even terrorists, but by suggesting that an inanimate object – the truck – was responsible for the carnage.

Instead of pointing the finger at Islamists, CNN, CBC and the New York Times all published headlines that served to hide the true nature of the attack.

CBC reported, “Children feared killed in Nice as truck attacks family event”. Presumably, the truck was somehow able to manifest artificial intelligence and plough itself through dozens of victims.

Not to be outdone, CNN reported “Truck rams crowd; 84 dead in Nice,” again providing a convenient way of avoiding any mention of the ideology that inspired the driver."

-----

No use of the word 'Islamic Extremist', 'Radical Islam', 'ISIS', or even 'terrorist'.
No mention of 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' at all (for example, 'Terrorist Attack - Rams Truck Into Crowd killing 84') - Just 'TRUCK Rams Crow'.

So how long before we see Liberals demanding legislation be passed regarding TRUCKS or demanding Semis be labeled as 'ASAULT Trucks'?

"Given that the truck alone, and not the ideology that radicalized the terrorist who used one as a weapon, is to blame for the massacre in Nice, the solution to stop further violence is simple; Ban deadly assault trucks."

Dear easyt65
Isn't this because when the news was first reported,
people didn't have information on which people committed the attack? All they knew was a truck hit the crowd, so that's all they could state.

Even after stories get published with more information, because of legal liability, the news media have to be careful to state phrases like "alleged suspects" and CAN'T go around calling people terrorists unless they want to risk getting sued.

Apparently he doesn't know what an adjective is. Which is what "truck" is in the phrase "truck attack".

God forbid he should encounter the phrase "surprise attack". I bet he's off right now feverishly working up a thread about how the 1941 media tried to report that "surprise", and not "Japan", attacked Pearl Harbor.

Intellectual sloth --- it's what's for dinner around here.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

The OP got snookered by an irrational blog from Alex Jones who apparently, speaking of competing for attention, came up with writer's block and couldn't think of anything cleverer than this. What astounds me is how people just pass this crapola on with an endorsement, without ever stopping to look at it with any kind of critical eye.

 

[emilynghiem]

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

Paul Joseph Watson - July 15, 2016 1615 Comments



Media Blames Truck, Not Terrorists or Islam, For Nice Attack

"Leftist media outlets reacted to the devastating attack in Nice not by blaming Islam or even terrorists, but by suggesting that an inanimate object – the truck – was responsible for the carnage.

Instead of pointing the finger at Islamists, CNN, CBC and the New York Times all published headlines that served to hide the true nature of the attack.

CBC reported, “Children feared killed in Nice as truck attacks family event”. Presumably, the truck was somehow able to manifest artificial intelligence and plough itself through dozens of victims.

Not to be outdone, CNN reported “Truck rams crowd; 84 dead in Nice,” again providing a convenient way of avoiding any mention of the ideology that inspired the driver."

-----

No use of the word 'Islamic Extremist', 'Radical Islam', 'ISIS', or even 'terrorist'.
No mention of 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' at all (for example, 'Terrorist Attack - Rams Truck Into Crowd killing 84') - Just 'TRUCK Rams Crow'.

So how long before we see Liberals demanding legislation be passed regarding TRUCKS or demanding Semis be labeled as 'ASAULT Trucks'?

"Given that the truck alone, and not the ideology that radicalized the terrorist who used one as a weapon, is to blame for the massacre in Nice, the solution to stop further violence is simple; Ban deadly assault trucks."

Dear easyt65
Isn't this because when the news was first reported,
people didn't have information on which people committed the attack? All they knew was a truck hit the crowd, so that's all they could state.

Even after stories get published with more information, because of legal liability, the news media have to be careful to state phrases like "alleged suspects" and CAN'T go around calling people terrorists unless they want to risk getting sued.

Apparently he doesn't know what an adjective is. Which is what "truck" is in the phrase "truck attack".

God forbid he should encounter the phrase "surprise attack". I bet he's off right now feverishly working up a thread about how the 1941 media tried to report that "surprise", and not "Japan", attacked Pearl Harbor.

Intellectual sloth --- it's what's for dinner around here.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

The OP got snookered by an irrational blog from Alex Jones who apparently, speaking of competing for attention, came up with writer's block and couldn't think of anything cleverer than this. What astounds me is how people just pass this crapola on with an endorsement, without ever stopping to look at it with any kind of critical eye.

That's what he's banking on Pogo

He knows ppl will take the bait, and that means ad clicks and Google hits.

With the BLM stories, same thing, ppl will post anything for or against to take advantage of the media hype and searches going on wanting the latest investigation to come out this way or that way. Brings to mind the Dirty Laundry song sung by Don Henley, but multiplied by Internet media and YouTube viewers and search engines.

Sick and sad. If we focused more attention on working directly to address reduction of crime and violence, we'd be too busy spreading good news of success stories that are much more deserving of publicity. Instead of waiting until after someone dies to string them up in the media as bait for ppl to "lynch" each other in mobs.

 

[depotoo]

Something as simple as "individual plows truck through crowd" would have worked.
I understand your point, but the above would have at least identified there was a person behind the wheel. The truck wasn't the culprit. And when first reported it was known someone was behind that wheel.
This bit of trying to blame inanimate objects for attacks has become too common place, with an agenda attached.
It is true they want those clicks, but journalists should actually have the wherewithal to know an inanimate object cannot attack without a being attached to it in some way. And please note I stated attack.

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

Paul Joseph Watson - July 15, 2016 1615 Comments



Media Blames Truck, Not Terrorists or Islam, For Nice Attack

"Leftist media outlets reacted to the devastating attack in Nice not by blaming Islam or even terrorists, but by suggesting that an inanimate object – the truck – was responsible for the carnage.

Instead of pointing the finger at Islamists, CNN, CBC and the New York Times all published headlines that served to hide the true nature of the attack.

CBC reported, “Children feared killed in Nice as truck attacks family event”. Presumably, the truck was somehow able to manifest artificial intelligence and plough itself through dozens of victims.

Not to be outdone, CNN reported “Truck rams crowd; 84 dead in Nice,” again providing a convenient way of avoiding any mention of the ideology that inspired the driver."

-----

No use of the word 'Islamic Extremist', 'Radical Islam', 'ISIS', or even 'terrorist'.
No mention of 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' at all (for example, 'Terrorist Attack - Rams Truck Into Crowd killing 84') - Just 'TRUCK Rams Crow'.

So how long before we see Liberals demanding legislation be passed regarding TRUCKS or demanding Semis be labeled as 'ASAULT Trucks'?

"Given that the truck alone, and not the ideology that radicalized the terrorist who used one as a weapon, is to blame for the massacre in Nice, the solution to stop further violence is simple; Ban deadly assault trucks."

Dear easyt65
Isn't this because when the news was first reported,
people didn't have information on which people committed the attack? All they knew was a truck hit the crowd, so that's all they could state.

Even after stories get published with more information, because of legal liability, the news media have to be careful to state phrases like "alleged suspects" and CAN'T go around calling people terrorists unless they want to risk getting sued.

Apparently he doesn't know what an adjective is. Which is what "truck" is in the phrase "truck attack".

God forbid he should encounter the phrase "surprise attack". I bet he's off right now feverishly working up a thread about how the 1941 media tried to report that "surprise", and not "Japan", attacked Pearl Harbor.

Intellectual sloth --- it's what's for dinner around here.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

 

[bodecea]

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

Paul Joseph Watson - July 15, 2016 1615 Comments



Media Blames Truck, Not Terrorists or Islam, For Nice Attack

"Leftist media outlets reacted to the devastating attack in Nice not by blaming Islam or even terrorists, but by suggesting that an inanimate object – the truck – was responsible for the carnage.

Instead of pointing the finger at Islamists, CNN, CBC and the New York Times all published headlines that served to hide the true nature of the attack.

CBC reported, “Children feared killed in Nice as truck attacks family event”. Presumably, the truck was somehow able to manifest artificial intelligence and plough itself through dozens of victims.

Not to be outdone, CNN reported “Truck rams crowd; 84 dead in Nice,” again providing a convenient way of avoiding any mention of the ideology that inspired the driver."

-----

No use of the word 'Islamic Extremist', 'Radical Islam', 'ISIS', or even 'terrorist'.
No mention of 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' at all (for example, 'Terrorist Attack - Rams Truck Into Crowd killing 84') - Just 'TRUCK Rams Crow'.

So how long before we see Liberals demanding legislation be passed regarding TRUCKS or demanding Semis be labeled as 'ASAULT Trucks'?

"Given that the truck alone, and not the ideology that radicalized the terrorist who used one as a weapon, is to blame for the massacre in Nice, the solution to stop further violence is simple; Ban deadly assault trucks."

Dear easyt65
Isn't this because when the news was first reported,
people didn't have information on which people committed the attack? All they knew was a truck hit the crowd, so that's all they could state.

Even after stories get published with more information, because of legal liability, the news media have to be careful to state phrases like "alleged suspects" and CAN'T go around calling people terrorists unless they want to risk getting sued.

Apparently he doesn't know what an adjective is. Which is what "truck" is in the phrase "truck attack".

God forbid he should encounter the phrase "surprise attack". I bet he's off right now feverishly working up a thread about how the 1941 media tried to report that "surprise", and not "Japan", attacked Pearl Harbor.

Intellectual sloth --- it's what's for dinner around here.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

The OP got snookered by an irrational blog from Alex Jones who apparently, speaking of competing for attention, came up with writer's block and couldn't think of anything cleverer than this. What astounds me is how people just pass this crapola on with an endorsement, without ever stopping to look at it with any kind of critical eye.

Apparently, Alex Jones knows his audience. I've seen at least 3 dim bulbs here take that idea and run with it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Something as simple as "individual plows truck through crowd" would have worked.
I understand your point, but the above would have at least identified there was a person behind the wheel. The truck wasn't the culprit. And when first reported it was known someone was behind that wheel.
This bit of trying to blame inanimate objects for attacks has become too common place, with an agenda attached.
It is true they want those clicks, but journalists should actually have the wherewithal to know an inanimate object cannot attack without a being attached to it in some way. And please note I stated attack.

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

Paul Joseph Watson - July 15, 2016 1615 Comments



Media Blames Truck, Not Terrorists or Islam, For Nice Attack

"Leftist media outlets reacted to the devastating attack in Nice not by blaming Islam or even terrorists, but by suggesting that an inanimate object – the truck – was responsible for the carnage.

Instead of pointing the finger at Islamists, CNN, CBC and the New York Times all published headlines that served to hide the true nature of the attack.

CBC reported, “Children feared killed in Nice as truck attacks family event”. Presumably, the truck was somehow able to manifest artificial intelligence and plough itself through dozens of victims.

Not to be outdone, CNN reported “Truck rams crowd; 84 dead in Nice,” again providing a convenient way of avoiding any mention of the ideology that inspired the driver."

-----

No use of the word 'Islamic Extremist', 'Radical Islam', 'ISIS', or even 'terrorist'.
No mention of 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' at all (for example, 'Terrorist Attack - Rams Truck Into Crowd killing 84') - Just 'TRUCK Rams Crow'.

So how long before we see Liberals demanding legislation be passed regarding TRUCKS or demanding Semis be labeled as 'ASAULT Trucks'?

"Given that the truck alone, and not the ideology that radicalized the terrorist who used one as a weapon, is to blame for the massacre in Nice, the solution to stop further violence is simple; Ban deadly assault trucks."

Dear easyt65
Isn't this because when the news was first reported,
people didn't have information on which people committed the attack? All they knew was a truck hit the crowd, so that's all they could state.

Even after stories get published with more information, because of legal liability, the news media have to be careful to state phrases like "alleged suspects" and CAN'T go around calling people terrorists unless they want to risk getting sued.

Apparently he doesn't know what an adjective is. Which is what "truck" is in the phrase "truck attack".

God forbid he should encounter the phrase "surprise attack". I bet he's off right now feverishly working up a thread about how the 1941 media tried to report that "surprise", and not "Japan", attacked Pearl Harbor.

Intellectual sloth --- it's what's for dinner around here.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

Individual doesn't sell headlines or generate ad clicks depotoo

That's why we're here on a FREE message board discussing things in normal sensible language because we don't depend on competing for hyped up traffic like online news groups do.

We put up with ads blocking our screens to pay for our free speech.

The news groups won't survive putting generic headlines like individuals committing crimes when they're competing with news sources dramatizing terrorism and fear as much as possible.

If you can't sell a movie title or trailer with that language what makes you think anyone will read an article on that?

depotoo I think Pogo makes good points, in that we have to understand Internet media culture and the tactics used to attract or incite audience response so we don't keep falling into the traps and manipulation going on. The rightwing media will bait their audience similar to how politicians will say keywords to hook their followers who need to hear them say that.
If you seriously study advertising and media, it would blow your mind how easy it is to string ppl along. Sad but serious, we need public education and training on this since it affects our political process and legislation.

 

[depotoo]

Personally I would click on an article stating "individual plows through crowd with truck killing dozens" before one stating "truck attack on French crowd; scores die", knowing the first headline would be more likely to deal wih facts than the latter. But that is just me.

Something as simple as "individual plows truck through crowd" would have worked.
I understand your point, but the above would have at least identified there was a person behind the wheel. The truck wasn't the culprit. And when first reported it was known someone was behind that wheel.
This bit of trying to blame inanimate objects for attacks has become too common place, with an agenda attached.
It is true they want those clicks, but journalists should actually have the wherewithal to know an inanimate object cannot attack without a being attached to it in some way. And please note I stated attack.

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

Dear easyt65
Isn't this because when the news was first reported,
people didn't have information on which people committed the attack? All they knew was a truck hit the crowd, so that's all they could state.

Even after stories get published with more information, because of legal liability, the news media have to be careful to state phrases like "alleged suspects" and CAN'T go around calling people terrorists unless they want to risk getting sued.

Apparently he doesn't know what an adjective is. Which is what "truck" is in the phrase "truck attack".

God forbid he should encounter the phrase "surprise attack". I bet he's off right now feverishly working up a thread about how the 1941 media tried to report that "surprise", and not "Japan", attacked Pearl Harbor.

Intellectual sloth --- it's what's for dinner around here.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

Individual doesn't sell headlines or generate ad clicks depotoo

That's why we're here on a FREE message board discussing things in normal sensible language because we don't depend on competing for hyped up traffic like online news groups do.

We put up with ads blocking our screens to pay for our free speech.

The news groups won't survive putting generic headlines like individuals committing crimes when they're competing with news sources dramatizing terrorism and fear as much as possible.

If you can't sell a movie title or trailer with that language what makes you think anyone will read an article on that?

 

[emilynghiem]

Personally I would click on an article stating "individual plows through crowd with truck killing dozens" before one stating "truck attack on French crowd; scores die", knowing the first headline would be more likely to deal wih facts than the latter. But that is just me.

Something as simple as "individual plows truck through crowd" would have worked.
I understand your point, but the above would have at least identified there was a person behind the wheel. The truck wasn't the culprit. And when first reported it was known someone was behind that wheel.
This bit of trying to blame inanimate objects for attacks has become too common place, with an agenda attached.
It is true they want those clicks, but journalists should actually have the wherewithal to know an inanimate object cannot attack without a being attached to it in some way. And please note I stated attack.

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

Apparently he doesn't know what an adjective is. Which is what "truck" is in the phrase "truck attack".

God forbid he should encounter the phrase "surprise attack". I bet he's off right now feverishly working up a thread about how the 1941 media tried to report that "surprise", and not "Japan", attacked Pearl Harbor.

Intellectual sloth --- it's what's for dinner around here.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

Individual doesn't sell headlines or generate ad clicks depotoo

That's why we're here on a FREE message board discussing things in normal sensible language because we don't depend on competing for hyped up traffic like online news groups do.

We put up with ads blocking our screens to pay for our free speech.

The news groups won't survive putting generic headlines like individuals committing crimes when they're competing with news sources dramatizing terrorism and fear as much as possible.

If you can't sell a movie title or trailer with that language what makes you think anyone will read an article on that?

Thank you depotoo
And maybe with time more ppl will tire of the media games and just want the straight story. I agree we'd stop the games sooner if more ppl quit buying them! Thanks!

 

[Pogo]

Something as simple as "individual plows truck through crowd" would have worked.

I don't think I've ever seen the word "individual" in any headline anywhere, ever. You have any idea how long that is? Headlines have to fit in a short space; they're written to be concise.

"Man" would be three times shorter, but even that's not necessary. Everybody else in the world already knows that if there's a vehicle moving --- SOMEBODY'S DRIVING IT. That's a given.

I understand your point, but the above would have at least identified there was a person behind the wheel.

As opposed to --- what? A giraffe?

he truck wasn't the culprit.

Nobody anywhere said or implied that it was. It's the instrument.

This bit of trying to blame inanimate objects for attacks has become too common place, with an agenda attached.

This bit of trying to deliberately misconstrue common terms by acting stupid is as transparent as it is ineffective.

 

[Pogo]

Personally I would click on an article stating "individual plows through crowd with truck killing dozens" before one stating "truck attack on French crowd; scores die", knowing the first headline would be more likely to deal wih facts than the latter. But that is just me.

Something as simple as "individual plows truck through crowd" would have worked.
I understand your point, but the above would have at least identified there was a person behind the wheel. The truck wasn't the culprit. And when first reported it was known someone was behind that wheel.
This bit of trying to blame inanimate objects for attacks has become too common place, with an agenda attached.
It is true they want those clicks, but journalists should actually have the wherewithal to know an inanimate object cannot attack without a being attached to it in some way. And please note I stated attack.

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

Apparently he doesn't know what an adjective is. Which is what "truck" is in the phrase "truck attack".

God forbid he should encounter the phrase "surprise attack". I bet he's off right now feverishly working up a thread about how the 1941 media tried to report that "surprise", and not "Japan", attacked Pearl Harbor.

Intellectual sloth --- it's what's for dinner around here.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

Individual doesn't sell headlines or generate ad clicks depotoo

That's why we're here on a FREE message board discussing things in normal sensible language because we don't depend on competing for hyped up traffic like online news groups do.

We put up with ads blocking our screens to pay for our free speech.

The news groups won't survive putting generic headlines like individuals committing crimes when they're competing with news sources dramatizing terrorism and fear as much as possible.

If you can't sell a movie title or trailer with that language what makes you think anyone will read an article on that?

You will *NEVER* see a headline using the word "individual", trust me.
That's a bullshit term anyway. Should be restricted to adjectival use.

Speaking of adjectival use, that's exactly what the word "truck" is doing in the phrase "truck attack". If it had said "truck attacks" then you've got a subect-verb: "the truck attacked", a declarative statement. But that's not what it says -- it says "truck attack" --- "an attack using a truck". A noun-phrase, anticipating a verb, which comes later.

Compare "knife attack"... "baseball bat attack".... "verbal attack". Are we to believe verbs jump up and start pummeling people??

This is simple basic English. Hard to believe y'all are willing to appear this dense just to try to get a bullshit point off the ground.

 

[depotoo]

http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/driver-plows-through-crowd-in-nice-france/
http://www.10news.com/news/woman-injured-after-driver-plows-through-crowd-during-zombie-walk-07272014

Then how about driver?
Truck attack was ridiculous.

Personally I would click on an article stating "individual plows through crowd with truck killing dozens" before one stating "truck attack on French crowd; scores die", knowing the first headline would be more likely to deal wih facts than the latter. But that is just me.

Something as simple as "individual plows truck through crowd" would have worked.
I understand your point, but the above would have at least identified there was a person behind the wheel. The truck wasn't the culprit. And when first reported it was known someone was behind that wheel.
This bit of trying to blame inanimate objects for attacks has become too common place, with an agenda attached.
It is true they want those clicks, but journalists should actually have the wherewithal to know an inanimate object cannot attack without a being attached to it in some way. And please note I stated attack.

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

Individual doesn't sell headlines or generate ad clicks depotoo

That's why we're here on a FREE message board discussing things in normal sensible language because we don't depend on competing for hyped up traffic like online news groups do.

We put up with ads blocking our screens to pay for our free speech.

The news groups won't survive putting generic headlines like individuals committing crimes when they're competing with news sources dramatizing terrorism and fear as much as possible.

If you can't sell a movie title or trailer with that language what makes you think anyone will read an article on that?

You will *NEVER* see a headline using the word "individual", trust me.
That's a bullshit term anyway. Should be restricted to adjectival use.

Speaking of adjectival use, that's exactly what the word "truck" is doing in the phrase "truck attack". If it had said "truck attacks" then you've got a subect-verb: "the truck attacked", a declarative statement. But that's not what it says -- it says "truck attack" --- "an attack using a truck". A noun-phrase, anticipating a verb, which comes later.

Compare "knife attack"... "baseball bat attack".... "verbal attack". Are we to believe verbs jump up and start pummeling people??

This is simple basic English. Hard to believe y'all are willing to appear this dense just to try to get a bullshit point off the ground.

 

[OldLady]

Paul Joseph Watson - July 15, 2016 1615 Comments



Media Blames Truck, Not Terrorists or Islam, For Nice Attack

"Leftist media outlets reacted to the devastating attack in Nice not by blaming Islam or even terrorists, but by suggesting that an inanimate object – the truck – was responsible for the carnage.

Instead of pointing the finger at Islamists, CNN, CBC and the New York Times all published headlines that served to hide the true nature of the attack.

CBC reported, “Children feared killed in Nice as truck attacks family event”. Presumably, the truck was somehow able to manifest artificial intelligence and plough itself through dozens of victims.

Not to be outdone, CNN reported “Truck rams crowd; 84 dead in Nice,” again providing a convenient way of avoiding any mention of the ideology that inspired the driver."

Really. So they actually said the driver was innocent of any devious plan but the truck just up and commandeered itself, do they?

Could you quote that part?

Going back to post 12...

The point of the entire thread is how the media avoided the fact this was a terrorist attack, avoided the using the term TERRORIST in the headings, and instead focused on and declared how THE TRUCK killed those people.

Much like how Ivana works his ass of to defend not mentioning how many attack are terrorist attacks, you seek to ignore the focus of the thread, want to ignore the pictures, want to ugnore the headlines, and take the issue off in another direction(spin).

You are free to do that as you wish. The premise of my post has been proven with pictures, headlines, and links.
- YOU show ME in the attention-grabbing photos or the headlines where emphasis was placed on the fact that this was a terririst attack. Had I not already heard about the attack on the radio and saw these photis/headlines I would have initially thought sone drunk semi-driving Frenchman gad mowed down his fellow countryman.

Feel free to engage in the Alynski tactics if you wish. I do not. Have a nice evening.

Wouldn't you be equally disgusted with the MSM for printing headlines not based on facts? Since ISIS did not take credit for the attack in Nice until just now, and since investigators had no evidence of links to terrorism at the time, why are you criticizing the media for stating what it knew?

 

[Pogo]

Personally I would click on an article stating "individual plows through crowd with truck killing dozens" before one stating "truck attack on French crowd; scores die", knowing the first headline would be more likely to deal wih facts than the latter. But that is just me.

Something as simple as "individual plows truck through crowd" would have worked.
I understand your point, but the above would have at least identified there was a person behind the wheel. The truck wasn't the culprit. And when first reported it was known someone was behind that wheel.
This bit of trying to blame inanimate objects for attacks has become too common place, with an agenda attached.
It is true they want those clicks, but journalists should actually have the wherewithal to know an inanimate object cannot attack without a being attached to it in some way. And please note I stated attack.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

Individual doesn't sell headlines or generate ad clicks depotoo

That's why we're here on a FREE message board discussing things in normal sensible language because we don't depend on competing for hyped up traffic like online news groups do.

We put up with ads blocking our screens to pay for our free speech.

The news groups won't survive putting generic headlines like individuals committing crimes when they're competing with news sources dramatizing terrorism and fear as much as possible.

If you can't sell a movie title or trailer with that language what makes you think anyone will read an article on that?

You will *NEVER* see a headline using the word "individual", trust me.
That's a bullshit term anyway. Should be restricted to adjectival use.

Speaking of adjectival use, that's exactly what the word "truck" is doing in the phrase "truck attack". If it had said "truck attacks" then you've got a subect-verb: "the truck attacked", a declarative statement. But that's not what it says -- it says "truck attack" --- "an attack using a truck". A noun-phrase, anticipating a verb, which comes later.

Compare "knife attack"... "baseball bat attack".... "verbal attack". Are we to believe verbs jump up and start pummeling people??

This is simple basic English. Hard to believe y'all are willing to appear this dense just to try to get a bullshit point off the ground.

http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/driver-plows-through-crowd-in-nice-france/
http://www.10news.com/news/woman-injured-after-driver-plows-through-crowd-during-zombie-walk-07272014

Then how about driver?
Truck attack was ridiculous.

Oh POSTER PLEASE.

---- shouldn't that subheadline say "President -- who is an individual and not a giraffe --- Vows to Exact Punishment..."??

​

We must demand to know why this paper didn't make clear there were PILOTS in those planes!

This bullshit thread was bullshit at the moment it first went up. Even the OP has abandoned it. Trying to get what cannot fly off the ground is a Sisyphustic errand.

 

[easyt65]

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

Dear easyt65
Isn't this because when the news was first reported,
people didn't have information on which people committed the attack? All they knew was a truck hit the crowd, so that's all they could state.

Even after stories get published with more information, because of legal liability, the news media have to be careful to state phrases like "alleged suspects" and CAN'T go around calling people terrorists unless they want to risk getting sued.

Apparently he doesn't know what an adjective is. Which is what "truck" is in the phrase "truck attack".

God forbid he should encounter the phrase "surprise attack". I bet he's off right now feverishly working up a thread about how the 1941 media tried to report that "surprise", and not "Japan", attacked Pearl Harbor.

Intellectual sloth --- it's what's for dinner around here.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

The OP got snookered by an irrational blog from Alex Jones who apparently, speaking of competing for attention, came up with writer's block and couldn't think of anything cleverer than this. What astounds me is how people just pass this crapola on with an endorsement, without ever stopping to look at it with any kind of critical eye.

Apparently, Alex Jones knows his audience. I've seen at least 3 dim bulbs here take that idea and run with it.

Still dodging questions like Hillary...

 

[emilynghiem]

So, next time there is major car accident that kills a family caused by a fellow drunk as a skunk, it is ok for the headline ro read "car kills family". Got it.

Apparently he doesn't know what an adjective is. Which is what "truck" is in the phrase "truck attack".

God forbid he should encounter the phrase "surprise attack". I bet he's off right now feverishly working up a thread about how the 1941 media tried to report that "surprise", and not "Japan", attacked Pearl Harbor.

Intellectual sloth --- it's what's for dinner around here.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

The OP got snookered by an irrational blog from Alex Jones who apparently, speaking of competing for attention, came up with writer's block and couldn't think of anything cleverer than this. What astounds me is how people just pass this crapola on with an endorsement, without ever stopping to look at it with any kind of critical eye.

Apparently, Alex Jones knows his audience. I've seen at least 3 dim bulbs here take that idea and run with it.

Still dodging questions like Hillary...

Dear easyt65 quit giving them easier bait and targets to shoot down. If we all focused on hammering for govt accountability to the public and not partisan hackery maybe we'd get somewhere. By uniting on common goals instead of dividing over petty issues.

 

[depotoo]

Notice the qualifiers before those inanimate objects, dear?

Personally I would click on an article stating "individual plows through crowd with truck killing dozens" before one stating "truck attack on French crowd; scores die", knowing the first headline would be more likely to deal wih facts than the latter. But that is just me.

Something as simple as "individual plows truck through crowd" would have worked.
I understand your point, but the above would have at least identified there was a person behind the wheel. The truck wasn't the culprit. And when first reported it was known someone was behind that wheel.
This bit of trying to blame inanimate objects for attacks has become too common place, with an agenda attached.
It is true they want those clicks, but journalists should actually have the wherewithal to know an inanimate object cannot attack without a being attached to it in some way. And please note I stated attack.

If they don't have information yet, they can use wording like family dies in car accident because they don't know the cause yet or the identity of the drivers.

We are talking about ONLINE sources that are competing for viewers even BEFORE reports or ID are fully confirmed.

So they will use whatever headlines they can, even with no information or very little to go by, to get ratings and clicks .

Sad this sensationalizes tragedy but all these sources online are vying for hits on Google which means ad revenue

If we don't like it, then we can go resort to leftwing or rightwing radio or other sites to get news that way. But that also means waiting for more details to be confirmed .

Individual doesn't sell headlines or generate ad clicks depotoo

That's why we're here on a FREE message board discussing things in normal sensible language because we don't depend on competing for hyped up traffic like online news groups do.

We put up with ads blocking our screens to pay for our free speech.

The news groups won't survive putting generic headlines like individuals committing crimes when they're competing with news sources dramatizing terrorism and fear as much as possible.

If you can't sell a movie title or trailer with that language what makes you think anyone will read an article on that?

You will *NEVER* see a headline using the word "individual", trust me.
That's a bullshit term anyway. Should be restricted to adjectival use.

Speaking of adjectival use, that's exactly what the word "truck" is doing in the phrase "truck attack". If it had said "truck attacks" then you've got a subect-verb: "the truck attacked", a declarative statement. But that's not what it says -- it says "truck attack" --- "an attack using a truck". A noun-phrase, anticipating a verb, which comes later.

Compare "knife attack"... "baseball bat attack".... "verbal attack". Are we to believe verbs jump up and start pummeling people??

This is simple basic English. Hard to believe y'all are willing to appear this dense just to try to get a bullshit point off the ground.

http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/driver-plows-through-crowd-in-nice-france/
http://www.10news.com/news/woman-injured-after-driver-plows-through-crowd-during-zombie-walk-07272014

Then how about driver?
Truck attack was ridiculous.

Oh POSTER PLEASE.

---- shouldn't that subheadline say "President -- who is an individual and not a giraffe --- Vows to Exact Punishment..."??

​

We must demand to know why this paper didn't make clear there were PILOTS in those planes!

This bullshit thread was bullshit at the moment it first went up. Even the OP has abandoned it. Trying to get what cannot fly off the ground is a Sisyphustic errand.

 

[Pogo]

Personally I would click on an article stating "individual plows through crowd with truck killing dozens" before one stating "truck attack on French crowd; scores die", knowing the first headline would be more likely to deal wih facts than the latter. But that is just me.

Something as simple as "individual plows truck through crowd" would have worked.
I understand your point, but the above would have at least identified there was a person behind the wheel. The truck wasn't the culprit. And when first reported it was known someone was behind that wheel.
This bit of trying to blame inanimate objects for attacks has become too common place, with an agenda attached.
It is true they want those clicks, but journalists should actually have the wherewithal to know an inanimate object cannot attack without a being attached to it in some way. And please note I stated attack.

Individual doesn't sell headlines or generate ad clicks depotoo

That's why we're here on a FREE message board discussing things in normal sensible language because we don't depend on competing for hyped up traffic like online news groups do.

We put up with ads blocking our screens to pay for our free speech.

The news groups won't survive putting generic headlines like individuals committing crimes when they're competing with news sources dramatizing terrorism and fear as much as possible.

If you can't sell a movie title or trailer with that language what makes you think anyone will read an article on that?

You will *NEVER* see a headline using the word "individual", trust me.
That's a bullshit term anyway. Should be restricted to adjectival use.

Speaking of adjectival use, that's exactly what the word "truck" is doing in the phrase "truck attack". If it had said "truck attacks" then you've got a subect-verb: "the truck attacked", a declarative statement. But that's not what it says -- it says "truck attack" --- "an attack using a truck". A noun-phrase, anticipating a verb, which comes later.

Compare "knife attack"... "baseball bat attack".... "verbal attack". Are we to believe verbs jump up and start pummeling people??

This is simple basic English. Hard to believe y'all are willing to appear this dense just to try to get a bullshit point off the ground.

http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/driver-plows-through-crowd-in-nice-france/
http://www.10news.com/news/woman-injured-after-driver-plows-through-crowd-during-zombie-walk-07272014

Then how about driver?
Truck attack was ridiculous.

Oh POSTER PLEASE.

---- shouldn't that subheadline say "President -- who is an individual and not a giraffe --- Vows to Exact Punishment..."??

​

We must demand to know why this paper didn't make clear there were PILOTS in those planes!

This bullshit thread was bullshit at the moment it first went up. Even the OP has abandoned it. Trying to get what cannot fly off the ground is a Sisyphustic errand.

Notice the qualifiers before those inanimate objects, dear?

I notice adjectives --- just like in "truck attack".
What kind of jets? Hijacked jets (denotes the act was deliberate).
What kind of planes? Japanese planes (denotes where they came from).
What kind of attack? Truck attack (denotes what instrument was used).

NONE OF THEM specifically state these machines had operators. WE ALL KNOW they had operators. That's how they WORK.

You're still willing to appear too dense to get this simple English? Sad.

 

[depotoo]

Notice hijacked requires a being to do such.
Japanese is a pretty self explanatory qualifier.

Personally I would click on an article stating "individual plows through crowd with truck killing dozens" before one stating "truck attack on French crowd; scores die", knowing the first headline would be more likely to deal wih facts than the latter. But that is just me.

Something as simple as "individual plows truck through crowd" would have worked.
I understand your point, but the above would have at least identified there was a person behind the wheel. The truck wasn't the culprit. And when first reported it was known someone was behind that wheel.
This bit of trying to blame inanimate objects for attacks has become too common place, with an agenda attached.
It is true they want those clicks, but journalists should actually have the wherewithal to know an inanimate object cannot attack without a being attached to it in some way. And please note I stated attack.

Individual doesn't sell headlines or generate ad clicks depotoo

That's why we're here on a FREE message board discussing things in normal sensible language because we don't depend on competing for hyped up traffic like online news groups do.

We put up with ads blocking our screens to pay for our free speech.

The news groups won't survive putting generic headlines like individuals committing crimes when they're competing with news sources dramatizing terrorism and fear as much as possible.

If you can't sell a movie title or trailer with that language what makes you think anyone will read an article on that?

You will *NEVER* see a headline using the word "individual", trust me.
That's a bullshit term anyway. Should be restricted to adjectival use.

Speaking of adjectival use, that's exactly what the word "truck" is doing in the phrase "truck attack". If it had said "truck attacks" then you've got a subect-verb: "the truck attacked", a declarative statement. But that's not what it says -- it says "truck attack" --- "an attack using a truck". A noun-phrase, anticipating a verb, which comes later.

Compare "knife attack"... "baseball bat attack".... "verbal attack". Are we to believe verbs jump up and start pummeling people??

This is simple basic English. Hard to believe y'all are willing to appear this dense just to try to get a bullshit point off the ground.

http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/driver-plows-through-crowd-in-nice-france/
http://www.10news.com/news/woman-injured-after-driver-plows-through-crowd-during-zombie-walk-07272014

Then how about driver?
Truck attack was ridiculous.

Oh POSTER PLEASE.

---- shouldn't that subheadline say "President -- who is an individual and not a giraffe --- Vows to Exact Punishment..."??

​

We must demand to know why this paper didn't make clear there were PILOTS in those planes!

This bullshit thread was bullshit at the moment it first went up. Even the OP has abandoned it. Trying to get what cannot fly off the ground is a Sisyphustic errand.

Notice the qualifiers before those inanimate objects, dear?

I notice adjectives --- just like in "truck attack".
What kind of jets? Hijacked jets (denotes the act was deliberate).
What kind of planes? Japanese planes (denotes where they came from).
What kind of attack? Truck attack (denotes what instrument was used).

NONE OF THEM specifically state these machines had operators. WE ALL KNOW they had operators. That's how they WORK.

You're still willing to appear too dense to get this simple English? Sad.

 

[Pogo]

Personally I would click on an article stating "individual plows through crowd with truck killing dozens" before one stating "truck attack on French crowd; scores die", knowing the first headline would be more likely to deal wih facts than the latter. But that is just me.

Individual doesn't sell headlines or generate ad clicks depotoo

That's why we're here on a FREE message board discussing things in normal sensible language because we don't depend on competing for hyped up traffic like online news groups do.

We put up with ads blocking our screens to pay for our free speech.

The news groups won't survive putting generic headlines like individuals committing crimes when they're competing with news sources dramatizing terrorism and fear as much as possible.

If you can't sell a movie title or trailer with that language what makes you think anyone will read an article on that?

You will *NEVER* see a headline using the word "individual", trust me.
That's a bullshit term anyway. Should be restricted to adjectival use.

Speaking of adjectival use, that's exactly what the word "truck" is doing in the phrase "truck attack". If it had said "truck attacks" then you've got a subect-verb: "the truck attacked", a declarative statement. But that's not what it says -- it says "truck attack" --- "an attack using a truck". A noun-phrase, anticipating a verb, which comes later.

Compare "knife attack"... "baseball bat attack".... "verbal attack". Are we to believe verbs jump up and start pummeling people??

This is simple basic English. Hard to believe y'all are willing to appear this dense just to try to get a bullshit point off the ground.

http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/driver-plows-through-crowd-in-nice-france/
http://www.10news.com/news/woman-injured-after-driver-plows-through-crowd-during-zombie-walk-07272014

Then how about driver?
Truck attack was ridiculous.

Oh POSTER PLEASE.

---- shouldn't that subheadline say "President -- who is an individual and not a giraffe --- Vows to Exact Punishment..."??

​

We must demand to know why this paper didn't make clear there were PILOTS in those planes!

This bullshit thread was bullshit at the moment it first went up. Even the OP has abandoned it. Trying to get what cannot fly off the ground is a Sisyphustic errand.

Notice the qualifiers before those inanimate objects, dear?

I notice adjectives --- just like in "truck attack".
What kind of jets? Hijacked jets (denotes the act was deliberate).
What kind of planes? Japanese planes (denotes where they came from).
What kind of attack? Truck attack (denotes what instrument was used).

NONE OF THEM specifically state these machines had operators. WE ALL KNOW they had operators. That's how they WORK.

You're still willing to appear too dense to get this simple English? Sad.

Notice hijacked requires a being to do such.
Japanese is a pretty self explanatory qualifier.

*ALL* mechanized vehicles except drones/bots "require a being to do such". Everybody knows that. That's why it's unnecessary to specify that there was an operator --- there MUST be an operator.

Similarly it's not necessary to explain in the headline what trucks or planes look like or what they do. EVERYBODY KNOWS what they look like.