NYT gets one 66.6% correct -- maybe

AS several bloggers have pointed out over the past 48 hours, the New York Times described the individuals arrested after the latest spate of attempted bombings in the UK as from the "disenfranchised South Asian population."

Mark Steyn answers the first part of that description:

Tim Blair provides a fine example of why The New York Times is an unreliable guide to the ways of the world:

In July 2005, four suicide bombers killed 52 people on London’s transit system, and another set of attacks failed two weeks later, bringing home to Britain fears of homegrown terrorist attacks among its disenfranchised South Asian population. Witnesses said the two men in the Glasgow attack were South Asian.

My dictionary defines "disenfranchised" as:

to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote

The "South Asian population" are British subjects with as much right to vote as Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. If the Times is merely using the word to mean more generally "deprived", the July 7th bombers didn't exactly hail from the ghetto: Shehzad Tanweer rode around in his dad's Mercedes. Omar Sheikh, who's supposed to have plotted the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl, was an English "public" (ie, private) schoolboy and a London School of Economics alumnus. The four would-be suicide bombers who attempted a follow-up Tube carnage on July 21st 2005 were discovered to have "more than £500,000 in benefits payments" from the bountiful British welfare state in their bank accounts.

So the next editor of Webster's might like to include a new New York Times definition of "disenfranchised": "complacent liberal assumption designed to reassure readers that they can fit this story into all the old cliches about the usual root causes"

At the time of that publication, those arrested had been recent immigrants, with real property (they had money enough for nice cars), education (several of them were physicians or medical students), and were from Jordan and Iraq... not exactly "South Asian." So, wrong on two counts about these guys' backgrounds (and many of the 7/7/05 bombers were even voters, having been born or naturalized as British subjects).

Well, now we learn that at least one of this recent spate of deadly doctors came from India and another from Pakistan, and, without citizenship, they're temporarily disenfranchised until or unless they apply for and receive citizenship in UK. So that's 2/3 accurate. But wait! Is either qualified to vote back home in their respective countries? Maybe this brings them back down to just being "South Asian," a score of 33.3% accurate.

Still, not bad, for the NYT.

But the Times is not the only journal to miss a few facts: somehow, according to the WaPo, the only tie they all seem to have is that they're "foreign physicians." Funny how they all have names like Mohammed and Abdulla, and, yet, have no common ground except their having become doctors without boundaries.
(HT: CQ)

Update: Christopher Hitchens has an observation about a further subject not accurately dealt with, in MSM coverage of the London car bombs: the target was women.

There are no more journalistic ethics

At least, they haven't been taught to Gavin King, reporter for Aussie paper Cairns Post. This low-life-with-a-press-pass contacted blogger Sheik Yer'mami (who contributes heavily to the anti-jihad site Winds of Jihad) for comments on a proposal for building a local mosque, promising Sheik that his anonymity would not be broken. King subsequently not only published the actual name of the blogger, but his home address and telephone number, among other private data. From the letter (posted at Dhimmi Watch) Sheik sent to the Australian press council in complaint (with emphasis added by me):

Islamic terrorism is a scourge on humanity. Gavin King, the Cairns Post reporter who focused his article on me, ad hominem, my family, age, business, even listing my property holdings including where I live, is totally out of line. My identity was never a matter for the public record. Because of death-threats to anyone who opposes the spread of Islam I certainly see myself and anyone else in that regard entitled to anonymity. That should be common sense.

It would seem that common sense still isn't terribly common. At least among the news people.

(Full confession: I write a weekly column for a small-town paper. I even took a few courses in journalism in my feckless youth. But I do not want to be associated with those sorts of people who risk the lives of private individuals for their own agendas.)

King has not only endangered the blogsite by labeling it a "hate site" sight unseen, but he has endangered the lives of Sheik and his entire family, plus anybody else who is seen publicly as his friend and supporter.

As one commenter pointed out, this isn't the first time a journalist has endangered the life/lives of private citizens for no good reason. Earlier this month, a Virginia newspaper published the names and addresses of all its local citizens who had concealed carry gun permits -- without regard for the possibility that some of those people were (a) hiding from violent exes or (b) not actually carrying guns, only carrying permits, and (c) perfectly within their legal rights to own and carry guns for their own protection. The paper essentially printed a shopping plan for gun thieves.

And another case is cited of a paper which published the address of a battered women's shelter. Nice.

I hope Sheik and his family can find some satisfaction from the Cairns Post. I hope King gets his hindquarters tossed to the wolves in much the same way he has tried to do to Sheik. Not that I think anybody but the jihadis are likely to do anybody any physical harm. It's just that, when violence arises (and it will. There is jihad in this world, and people are really dying because they choose to think and live freely) I'd just like to see it come to the right people: the ones who would call it down innocents.

The use of children in ugly ways

Many people are now almost immune to the news of pedophiles, baby-rapists, and such abusing children. The news and entertainment industries have made a big noise (justfiably) about the problem, and it makes headlines on a regular basis.

The problem is, that's not new. Neither is the use of children as decoys in committing crimes. The news Charles Johnson posts at lgf is horrific, and deserves headlines, as well, but kids have been decoys for a very long time. The practice even touched our own family, in my pop's childhood.

Pop had an uncle who lived in Missouri, just across the border from "dry" Kansas, in the 1930s. After all the other states had repealed prohibition, Kansas continued to bar the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. All liquor transport was stopped at the state lines. But Pop's uncle used to make the rum run on a regular basis, tossing my pre-school-aged pop on the seat above the crates of hooch.

The first time Pop was asked if he wanted to go for a drive in the country, it seemed like a swell time. But it gets to be a chore, and my father has, to this day, resented the role he played in breaking the law -- especially considering the risks being taken -- and, I believe, would not forgive his uncle even at graveside. After all, this was the sort of thing that would get the old man arrested, and where would the cops keep a little kid when the old man was in the clink? And, Pop was the sort of kid who had his moral bearings quite early -- he was a guaranteed Eagle Scout, he and his mom and sister and aunts all had strong senses of right and wrong.

Pop learned to dread the rides.

Pop was one of the lucky ones. He lived to tell the tales. He was otherwise unharmed, for all of his rides. He still has a family who loves him, regardless of how ill-used he was as a child.

The tots used by terrorists (why do the MSM persist in calling them "insurgents"?) have not been identified. The men who brought in the car bomb ran from the scene like cowards, letting the babies perish in a blast and a blaze. There was no love at all in this. Do the little ones' parents know and truly understand what happened to them? If so, how could they live with themselves, throwing away precious little ones in such a vile act. If not, then the act was doubly cruel for stealing the lives of little ones from caring families, and the terrorists will have a special place in hell.

From this agnostic's lips and keyboard to whatever deity's ear...

We're gonna keep this train a-rollin'

The news and the bloggers have been all over the attack by as-yet-unnamed terrorists against the Friendship Express, the new train run between Pakistan and India commemorating their peace treaties.

I have a thing against people attacking trains, in general (except when I'm watching a good-old-fashioned western movie. It's all about context). Going after this one, though, gets me more than a bit steamed.

I have to admit, though, I like the Captain's perspective on the events: Hatred Fails To Derail Friendship Express.

Train kept a-rollin' ...