Bizarre LAT editorial

Ed Lasky
A Los Angeles Times editorial calls for Hamas to release BBC reporterand actually asks which side is Hamas on? It also compares Hamas to America's Founding Fathers.

It claims that punishing journalists has become a standard tactic of terror. While there have been a few kidnappings and one horrific beheading, more often, terrorist and journalists have come to have an understanding: we will provide good coverage for you of terror attacks (even tipping the media off occasionally so journalists can be on the scene of the attack and have good video) and interview with our leaders; in return, journalists are expected to provide propaganda outlets and all-too-often favorable coverage and spin.

The rhetorical and morally obtuse question, " Which side is Hamas on" should be reframed, " Which side is the LA Times editorial board on?"  Has there been any editorial that called for the release of hostages who are not journalists?

The oblivious and clueless editorial board asks:

"With death threats arriving daily, what kind of fearless reporting on Iraq's civil strife, what kind of hard-hitting investigations of death squads and terrorists or political or clerical corruption can be expected from journalists who wish to remain alive? And consider Afghanistan, where two female journalists have been murdered this month in a Taliban campaign of intimidation against women who dare speak out in the media. What kind of civil society can bloom in their silence?

"A modern society, whether in Gaza or Iraq, cannot aspire to political accountability if its press is terrorized. The American founding fathers understood this, and so does the Taliban. Where does Hamas stand?"
Do the members of the LAT editorial board actually think that terrorists and their allies want "hard-hitting investigations of death squads or political and clerical corruption"? That may work in America (well, maybe not) but how likely is it that those are the concerns of Hamas? We are not talking Kansas here.
 
If anything, many journalists are so intimidated or so sympathetic to the Palestinians, that they usually refrain from reporting the honest and brutal truths from that part of the world. This is particularly the case in the face of threats from Hamas.

Does the LAT really want to compare Hamas to the Founding Fathers? Does the hallucination extend to believing that Hamas values free speech and an enterprising press?

Such journalism is either delusional or deeply corrupt.

A Los Angeles Times editorial calls for Hamas to release BBC reporterand actually asks which side is Hamas on? It also compares Hamas to America's Founding Fathers.

It claims that punishing journalists has become a standard tactic of terror. While there have been a few kidnappings and one horrific beheading, more often, terrorist and journalists have come to have an understanding: we will provide good coverage for you of terror attacks (even tipping the media off occasionally so journalists can be on the scene of the attack and have good video) and interview with our leaders; in return, journalists are expected to provide propaganda outlets and all-too-often favorable coverage and spin.

The rhetorical and morally obtuse question, " Which side is Hamas on" should be reframed, " Which side is the LA Times editorial board on?"  Has there been any editorial that called for the release of hostages who are not journalists?

The oblivious and clueless editorial board asks:

"With death threats arriving daily, what kind of fearless reporting on Iraq's civil strife, what kind of hard-hitting investigations of death squads and terrorists or political or clerical corruption can be expected from journalists who wish to remain alive? And consider Afghanistan, where two female journalists have been murdered this month in a Taliban campaign of intimidation against women who dare speak out in the media. What kind of civil society can bloom in their silence?

"A modern society, whether in Gaza or Iraq, cannot aspire to political accountability if its press is terrorized. The American founding fathers understood this, and so does the Taliban. Where does Hamas stand?"
Do the members of the LAT editorial board actually think that terrorists and their allies want "hard-hitting investigations of death squads or political and clerical corruption"? That may work in America (well, maybe not) but how likely is it that those are the concerns of Hamas? We are not talking Kansas here.
 
If anything, many journalists are so intimidated or so sympathetic to the Palestinians, that they usually refrain from reporting the honest and brutal truths from that part of the world. This is particularly the case in the face of threats from Hamas.

Does the LAT really want to compare Hamas to the Founding Fathers? Does the hallucination extend to believing that Hamas values free speech and an enterprising press?

Such journalism is either delusional or deeply corrupt.