it stems from
them
wanting to acknowledge the death of the victims rather than the death of the attacker.
Let's just make this very clear... ''them'' = ''the Bush administration''.
As far as I know, this isn't a term that is used anywhere other than Fox to such an extent.
No I meant 'them' as in the person writing or speaking, I don't think there's a big conspiracy about it's a linguistic editorial decision by the US media
I notice they are calling the perpetrators "homicide bombers" which I find a little strange. That said I find Americans strange in general, so I really shouldn't be surprised.
Yep - it's a funny "Foxism" - for some reason they think suicide bomber as a description adds more weight to the death of the bomber than the victims. I think it is a Bush White House thing - as I don't think many other news outlets do it.
Fox are happy to attack the BBC for questioning the blanket use of the word terrorist (there are situations when this is a subjective term - one person's terrorist could be another's freedom fighter in some situations) - but themselves have specific rules when it comes to some uses of language.
(As others have pointed out - all fatal bombs are homicide bombs - using the term is less clear)
I noticed their graphic crediting Sky News for reports is a very old logo.
Also some wonderfully unsubtle I-Sky moment on their footers with the "Find out more from these Fox News partners" with links to The Sun, Times of London and Sky News. I'm sure the latter two are glad of the association.
I have, during the years and months since Gibson's rant against the BBC, been following him closely (not literally, as i am here in Blighty). I have deduced 3 things:
1) He doesn't like Canadians
2) He doesn't like the French
3) He is a ****
That is my scientific analysis of this "prim-ear" journalist. Basically Fox News escapes censure because of America's daft freedom of broadcast laws where a readily available news channel claiming to be Fair and Balanced is anything but.
You imagine if a pro-"liberal" (I hate the Fox use of that word as a negative) news channel with the backing of a major media conglomerate came out, runniing news articles on raped women being forced to have babies, gay and lesbian people being abused and ostracised, and evidence that talking to people rather than bombing them sometimes works. I imagine Bush's administration would be on their case in a second, accusing them of putting out propaganda and politically leaning idealised falsehoods.
You imagine if a US channel such as CNN or ABC suddenly started blanket coverage of a Democratic tribute to Clinton or Carter. The administration would accuse them of pandering to a particular political group.
America's media is utter crap. Fact. It's just like most of that pitifully divided superpower - ruled by those with money yet those who live in the REAL world have to suffer.
I've dealt with some pretty misguided Bush arse lickers on my course, and I have a radical Christian amongst my friends. People are blind to the damage this type of agenda has on them. They lose sight of things to such an extent that the pursuit of "moral" rights and "Christian" values clouds every decision they make.
Chrisitanity is as extreme a religious belief as Islam, perhaps even more so. Islamic extrmists convince people to kill themselves and others, Christian extremists convince people that they have healing powers and that the Bible is law and anyone who doesn't follow it should go to a hell. Christianity is a plague that should be eradicated like polio.
/rant
sorry, got up on my high horse then. I just get frustrated by the neo-fascists and their "christianity".
I have, during the years and months since Gibson's rant against the BBC, been following him closely (not literally, as i am here in Blighty). I have deduced 3 things:
1) He doesn't like Canadians
2) He doesn't like the French
3) He is a ****
That is my scientific analysis of this "prim-ear" journalist. Basically Fox News escapes censure because of America's daft freedom of broadcast laws where a readily available news channel claiming to be Fair and Balanced is anything but.
You imagine if a pro-"liberal" (I hate the Fox use of that word as a negative) news channel with the backing of a major media conglomerate came out, runniing news articles on raped women being forced to have babies, gay and lesbian people being abused and ostracised, and evidence that talking to people rather than bombing them sometimes works. I imagine Bush's administration would be on their case in a second, accusing them of putting out propaganda and politically leaning idealised falsehoods.
You imagine if a US channel such as CNN or ABC suddenly started blanket coverage of a Democratic tribute to Clinton or Carter. The administration would accuse them of pandering to a particular political group.
America's media is utter crap. Fact. It's just like most of that pitifully divided superpower - ruled by those with money yet those who live in the REAL world have to suffer.
I've dealt with some pretty misguided Bush arse lickers on my course, and I have a radical Christian amongst my friends. People are blind to the damage this type of agenda has on them. They lose sight of things to such an extent that the pursuit of "moral" rights and "Christian" values clouds every decision they make.
Chrisitanity is as extreme a religious belief as Islam, perhaps even more so. Islamic extrmists convince people to kill themselves and others, Christian extremists convince people that they have healing powers and that the Bible is law and anyone who doesn't follow it should go to a hell. Christianity is a plague that should be eradicated like polio.
/rant
sorry, got up on my high horse then. I just get frustrated by the neo-fascists and their "christianity".
I'm a christian, you need to be careful what you just said, just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you have to slander it!
i don't mind people practising christianity - im not against people being religious - im agianst people using it to justify themselves being "right" against people being wrong. apparently im in the "wrong" for believing in abortion and gay marriage.
I noticed their graphic crediting Sky News for reports is a very old logo.
Also some wonderfully unsubtle I-Sky moment on their footers with the "Find out more from these Fox News partners" with links to The Sun, Times of London and Sky News. I'm sure the latter two are glad of the association.
At least they describe The Times as 'The Times of London' rather than he usual 'The London Times'. The concept of national newspapers is rare in the US, but no matter how many times it is pointed out that The Times isn't a paper for London.... they still can't get to grips with it
