Torture: Headlines vs. No Headlines

The latest torture pictures from Iraq get little play in the German media (exception: BILD):

(Source)

Forget about an appearance on the cover of SPIEGEL or STERN.

I guess the gentlemen from Al Qaeda won't be too happy about this lame PR fallout... Well, as an excuse the German media can claim that they didn't report much on torture under Saddam either.

It's not, however, as if the topic of torture wasn't of any interest to the German media. Now, these OUTRAGEOUS TORTURE EXAMPLES definitely made headlines:

For the life of me...I can't come up with an explanation as to why some torture pics make headlines in German media and others don't...

Any ideas??

Update: More Al Qaeda-torture news...

NOTE from Ray on selective headlines: Something to keep in mind over this Memorial Day weekend: While the US and world media are absolutely obsessed with presenting and re-presenting "US casualties" in every imaginable light and form - in what can only be characterized at this point as willful defeatism - there is virtually no acknowledgment that the US military is slowly bleeding Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks to death - unless a leader so large is killed that they can't ignore it. Why won't they show the massive casualties taken by the insurgents? CNN will show snipers killing US soldiers - but they won't show you this.

As David asks: Any ideas why??

NOTE #2 from Ray: Speaking of selective headlines: It will be interesting to see if our media friends at ARD Weltspiegel, who so gullibly swallowed Hugo Chavez's propaganda oil donations to Joseph Kennedy in Boston, will now dedicate large chunks of air time to explaining why their Socialist hero is stamping out freedom of speech and shutting down opposition media at home. As journalists, you would think that is a story they would jump to report.

Or perhaps author Justin Webb was correct. Writing of the European left, he observed:

"The protests against nuclear weapons, for instance, concentrated on American weapons. The anti-war rallies were against American-led wars. The anti death penalty campaign focused on Texas. A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been altered. A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion - or to magnify those indiscretions - while leaving the murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched."

Stay tuned...

Comments

[Motorhead]

Well, the German media (or any other liberal media organ) wouldn't want to put the USA (or the Western/civilized world) in a good light now, would they?

(It's pathetic, isn't it?)

[FranzisM]

How odd that the only place where a story like this can get through is the cesspool among the German media.

And Bild Online (I haven´t seen the print edition) only covered the drawings, not the photographs of the victims (which can be found by clicking the "Source" link above and browsing through the entire album), prompting one contributor in this forum discussion to state "in the case of the US, it wasn´t just plotted but real torture."

For so many, it is simply unimaginable that Western civilisation, for all its wrongs, could still be on the right side of history.

Still, there are several points I find interesting about these drawings:
- Some of the drawings feature special furniture which requires a lot of work to construct and whose purpose cannot be hidden, in contrast to the tools which are standard items with a civilian purpose.
- The victims depicted in the drawings are not stereotypical Westerners, but black-bearded men, presumably fellow Muslims.
- The artist has put considerably more effort in depicting suffering than in depicting techniques.
Conclusion: These drawings are jihad porn, produced for the purpose to get terrorists excited and/or to intimidate fellow terrorists suspected of treason.

[Jörg Brörmöller]

Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Scouring the barrel, arn't you? First the pathetic "botched execution" bit that was a bit of a preemptive whinge, now this piece that is the blogospheric equivalent of a silent movie hamming up?

Straw man argument if I ever saw one. Come on, I suppose the new edition of the Spiegel with its Atheism piece and the Bagdad suburb massacre trial coverage has enough grist for your little mill, or thor that matter enough ink for the loo walls of the internet without having to use silly season material such as this.

Jörg

Note from Daivid: Here is some more silly season material, just for you... Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Have a good laugh, Jörg!

[Doug]

LMAO! "Jihad porn". Priceless.

Somehow I don't think the New York Times will give this three dozen front page articles either.

The link under "update" seems to be broken, btw. (Note from David: Thanks. Corrected it.)

[Pat Patterson]

David-I think you're being insulted by one with a tin ear for Ameican and British idioms. The "silly season" is late August till right before the World Series. The correct term is "scraping the barrel" from when slaves in the US were allowed to scrape the inside of the barrels of sorghum after being emptied. "Silent movie hamming up" can only be an example of the writings of a drama queen.

[WhatDoIKnow]

I read what Jörg Brörmöller writes and I really wonder what goes through his mind? Is there any decency left in there, or he is a product of the "post modern" world, which dictates that its followers should not engage in any moral judgments (the only exception being judging Bush).

The fact is that the media reported constantly about the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but when evidence of far, far more vicious behavior on the side of Islamic terrorists is unveiled, the media's coverage is, in comparison with their Abu Ghraib coverage, completely unbalanced (to say the least).

I know, I know the excuses. "We expect more from America, that's why Abu Ghraib is huge news, but Islamist savages are nothing special, so that's no news". Really? Really?? What about the media's duty to report the facts?

How long was Abu Ghraib news for? How many day, weeks? Months, maybe? And now, how many days will be this new evidence of Islamist barbarism be news? That's obviously a rhetorical question, even people like Jörg Brörmöller know the answer.

Who decides what's news and what isn't? Who decides which issue should run constantly for weeks and which not? Is this truly professional journalism? Or is it professional selective journalism?

I said it before and I will say it again (although this doesn't guarantee that it will have any effect): people like Jörg Brörmöller have nothing to say about the obvious and undeniable cases of disinformation and anti-Americanism in the German media. That's when they exercise remarkable restraint. Those posting on DMK don't inspire them to share their thoughts with us. No, they have full understanding for the shortcomings of the German media.

There have been many like Jörg Brörmöller on DMK in those last years. They come, they attack DMK, they don't contribute anything meaningful being basically just online parasites, and eventually they go back where they came from, in the black hole of the internet. All they leave behind is the testimony of their deep dishonesty. No one misses them, they are forgotten instantly, and they are free to continue to give testimony of their twisted minds in some other remote corner of the online world.

[Jörg Brörmöller]

(del.)

Ps: Tsk, tsk, tsk, shutting somebody out of this discussion is kind of lame, especially when he is addressed.

Note from David: Jörg, you first need me to have a look at your comments before they are published. I then decide on the publication. It's not up to you to make that decision. You don't have any publication rights in this blog. Check our comments policy statement (right column).

Of course, I will fully respect your decision to publish your comments in your own blog. Good luck!

[Jörg Brörmöller]

(del.)

Note from David: Jörg, you first need me to have a look at your comments before they are published. I then decide on the publication. It's not up to you to make that decision. You don't have any publication rights in this blog. Check our comments policy statement (right column).

Of course, I will fully respect your decision to publish your comments in your own blog. Good luck!

[WhatDoIKnow]

Jörg Brörmöller

From what/how you write, I alwyas had the feeling that you are an idiot, I just restrained myself in using that word. Not anymore. In fact, the word "idiot" doesn't do you justice, it doesn't have the power to fully describe your complex character.

OK, now that niceties are out of the way, I see that what you got out of my posting is that I want to excuse Abu Ghraib. (???). I re-read what I wrote and I can't find anything that would support your conclusion. I guess you saw what you wanted to see. However, what you saw isn't there. It's not there simply because I have never excused and never will excuse anything that happened at Abu Ghraib, nor do I think that what happened there is "not so bad because the other side does worse things". Just check the archives if you don't believe me.

Basically, you managed to miss the entire point of my posting. In fact, you dismissed my point with one sentence and then you distorted my point, making out of it what you wanted it to be, not what it really was. This only confirms my judgment (sorry for the word) of you. In your short existence on DMK, you have been nothing but a parasite. You have not shown that you can be anything else. If you don't like some DMK postings, move on, you'll find plenty others which deal with gross failures of the German media. Go ahead and share your deep thoughts there.

But that's contrary to your MO. Little parasites like you know they shouldn't bite more than they can chew. Why bother with Eberhard Piltz's words in Ray's interview, which are impossible to deny? No, as everyone knows, best defense is to attack, and that's what you do constantly. I see my words about your dishonesty weren't well received. Oh, my, the parasite has his pride. He doesn't use his pride for anything constructive, but, hey, he has pride. In spite of your pride, you are deeply dishonest. Not because I say it, but because of what you say. Your words and your behavior here hurts your "credibility" more than any of my words ever could.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Jörg

The media doesn't cover AQ's atrocities extensively because everyone knows that's their modus operandi, so that's not really "news".

Really?

At this point I can only post again what I said earlier. Who decides what's news and what isn't? Who decides which issue should run constantly for weeks and which not? Is this truly professional journalism? Or is it professional *selective* journalism?

Your excuse is another testimony of your arrogance and the arrogance of the media. Why arrogance, you ask? Because media people decide, in my name, what is newsworthy and what isn't. Because media people choose what to emphasize and what not. I thought they were about presenting raw facts, not about making decisions in my name. Sorry, I forgot, the media is about "making the world a better place"...

You see where the arrogance is? The arrogance is in making assumptions about what I want to hear, read and watch. The arrogance lies in leaving things out or simply minimizing their importance, because they aren't really relevant. What about presenting the *facts* and then letting me decide what's relevant? Quite a revolutionary idea, huh? Unheard of, this new rebellion of the media consumers? We were supposed to keep behaving like sheep, not start blogs and comment on the fall of the (media) gods.

That's something media apologizers like you don't know quite yet how to respond to. You attack the messengers, you distort the messengers' words, you belittle the messengers, anything, everything, just to avoid the real big issue of media bias, because this issue is next to impossible to counter. Your tactic can be summarized in one single word - diversion. And this diversion stems from one main failing of character - dishonesty. Believe it or not (and you obviously won't believe it), every single post of yours so far reeks of dishonesty.

[Alex N.]

"I read what Jörg Brörmöller writes and I really wonder what goes through his mind? Is there any decency left in there, or he is a product of the "post modern" world, which dictates that its followers should not engage in any moral judgments (the only exception being judging Bush)." - WDIK

(del.)

Jörg Brömöller doesn't come here to this blog to have a free exchange of ideas in order to discuss, let alone learn something - he's coming here so that he can later say to his masters: "Oh, I've been there, I've discussed with those Americans as a part of my sophisticated education, and ah, were they dumb." This is the only reason why Jörg and similar people are here. They feel they need to do it, they feel they "owe" it to their "intellect", so just being here is really what it is all about. You can not have a real discussion with them because they've already made their mind up. They are not here to discuss. They are here for their ego, so that they can pretend they had an exchange of ideas, but people were just too stupid to discuss on their level.

It's just a game. (del.) Ist das das Sommerloch, David? Tsk, Tsk, Tsk...

(del.)

Note from David: Alex, no foul language, please.

[Mir]

>> The media doesn't cover AQ's atrocities extensively because everyone knows that's their modus operandi, so that's not really "news".

That would indeed be the case in a sane world without the amount of stupidity and Anti-Americanism that our world has. It would be true in a world where people people would be informed and willing enough to see things in perspective. Unfortunately, thanks to a great extent to our MSM, our world isn't like that. In our world, too many people are obviously NOT able to see that Abu Ghraib was bad, but Al Qaeda is a hundred thousand times worse. They are not able to see that with all its faults, our free world still is still a million times better than what our enemies do and want. And the MSM knows that many people can't put the news they are flooded with into perspective. The journalists know that helping with that would be their job, but they don't do it anymore - some can't, some simply don't want to for political and ideological reasons. Anyway, they know it. And THAT makes the above argument completely hypocritical.

[wc]

Has anyone else also noticied that every filmclip shown with terrorist or simialr characters in it show the terrorist always wearing hoods to hide their faces? Why is that?
I have not seen any similar clips with our soldiers wearing hoods to hide their identity. Think about it. Are they hiding their faces from us? Why bother since we kill or torture so many innoncents anyway as I am told by the MSM that a mask will not protect ANY Muslim from our evil.
I think they are covering their heads not only because they are cowards, but I think what they are doing is not as respected within their society as the MSM propaganda would have you think. They are hiding their identities from their own society and their own people. Their acts are also not accepted within their own world so that have to stay undercover even though our MSM likes to show them as freedom fighters that are trying to over come occupation from some EVIL imperalist countires.
As far as Jörg - if you just ignore him he might go away. At least don't try to change him, let his cancer ridden sick mind help him fade away as quick as possible.

[lars]

@ wdik / alex

could you please stop calling other people (del.)? this nazisprech is disgusting.
thank you.

Note from David: Thanks for making me aware, Lars. Deleted it.

[Cousin Dave]

wc: Interesting thought about the masks. I had honestly not considered it that way. I've been just assuming that the masks were like "war paint" was in the old days: a way of getting themselves psyched up, as well as perhaps making themselves look more intimidating to the opposition. Also, since Islam seeks to suppress individual identity to the maximum extent possible, the masks are an expression of that: they reduce the solders to interchangable parts, a set of mere pawns for the higher powers to move as they will.

[Don Miguel]

When abuse such as that at abu Ghraib (and loud music, women interrogators "touching" Muslim men, etc.) is described as torture, it leaves no description in the world of modern journalism for real torture as depicted in the "jihadi porn" and as is found time and time again in the multitudes of torture chambers discovered by coalition and Iraqi troops. The meaning of the word torture is now lost just like the word terrorist is.

BTW, the reason that all of these guys wear masks is so that they can integrate into society without people knowing who they really are. They like to dress up and play terrorist for the camera, but as shown by the video they are rank amateurs when they come up head-to-head with professionals. A nice, final welcome to reality for those bozos.

[FranzisM]

Ray -

As David asks: Any ideas why??

One place I can point at for answers on that scale is the blog of Bill Whittle:

And maybe it’s the dawning realization that our elites in politics, academia and entertainment (which controls our mythology) are leading the charge not to salvation but to the cliffs that seem so obvious to so many common people.

Something seems to be failing, something essential, as if all the nails and glue that hold a house together were dissolving all at once. And many people – perhaps you are one of them – watch all this happening and feel powerless to stop it.

It is an unprecedented situation in history that our mythology is controlled by a media elite.

In the past this was not technologically possible. The ideas and imaginations that were at a time crucial for the perpetual growth of civilisation into the semantic no-man´s land of the unseen could not be controlled the way they are now. The only possibility to control them was through an institution such as the Church, which would be static, identifiable and opposable. When it was going the wrong way, people would run away from it and there was be open conflict.

The post-enlightenment information age situation is very different from that. There is a class or caste of professionals who feel it was their duty to direct our mythology, but it is not a centralised institution that could be clearly opposed, it is more like a swarm which is dynamic and unidentifiable. It is a difficult target for opposition and it is nearly impossible to describe it in intuitive terms: Mainstream media? Political correctness? Culture industry? All these words don´t really nail it.

The phenomenon is producing a standard definition which stories do belong into the horizon of what we have learned to perceive as the reality, and which ones are too far out from that perception to be discarded as either irrelevant or ubiquitary. The media elite produces the consensus narrative that prescribes our mythology, that is the definitions where civilisation is bordering the semantic no-man´s land. And even the individual journalist has rather little chances to change this, he depends on producing stories that sell.

The jihad porn above is an example of a story that is outside this narrative, because its full implications require to adjust the established imagination of reality, which would be detrimental to the media elite, since it would point out that it had been delusional all along. However, there is no journalism czar or other central authority passing some kind of Church bull prohibiting recognition of the story, the media swarm is just ignoring it and where it can´t producing excuses to work around it. The media elite as whole is behaving like an insane person, ultimately destructive to itself and everyone else, but it lacks all the other characteristics of a person.

PS: Jörg, have you taken into account that Hannelore Krause may still be waiting in one of these torture chambers?

PPS: I think the masks are their way to identify with the common man - a statement that the terrorist could be any guy from the streets.