Here’s a piece of idiocy, approvingly quoted by Glenn Reynolds:
I bet if the media voluntarily stopped showing any pictures of all terror attacks, that the terror would stop. Thus ending the GWOT without a shot. This policy would be NO DIFFERENT than how they cover folks who run on to baseball fields: they do NOT show them on TV; they ignore them. Would the media ever put peace above their ratings/profits? Never.
Glenn comments: “Sadly, that’s probably right.” I suppose I see the underlying point: that terror needs media oxygen to survive. But the notion that we should somehow not cover mass murder, or that it’s equivalent to misbehavior at sporting events, or that the only reason for covering it is “ratings/profits” is nutty. People have a right to know what’s going on in their own countries and around the world. If the MSM decided to stop reporting terror attacks, bloggers would fill the gap. Yesterday, for example, was remarkable for the first-hand accounts of terror we were able to read – within hours of the massacres – by citizen journalists. Would Glenn like to see them silenced? Yes, these events shouldn’t be hyped; yes, they should be put in context. But this out-of-sight-out-of-mind mentality is a form of denial. The same goes for abuse and torture accusations. Instapundit won’t actually link to credible accounts. By ignoring them, he somehow thinks they don’t exist or will go away. They won’t. Similarly, exposing the violence perpetrated by the Islamists is simply what the media does. Moreoever, it doesn’t always help the terrorists; it also hurts them. We need to see the atrocities these fanatics commit, however appalling, however vile. The job of the media, even in wartime, is to relay facts, not to skew coverage for purposes of morale.
The Dish 