A Newsman`s Thoughts On The Buffalo Beheading And Other Atrocities

May 25, 2009

I am a newspaper editor somewhere
in America. For reasons that will become obvious, I am
not able to reveal my real name.

In February, Muzzammil Hassan, the
founder of
Bridges
TV
, his effort to combat the widespread
negative "stereotypes"
of Muslims,

was arrested
for beheading his wife,
Aasiya.

This ghastly murder in Buffalo,
N.Y. evoked two reactions.




  • The first
    , from
    those who may be
    "prejudiced"
    but understand that a person`s cultural
    background means something and might affect their
    behavior, thought Mrs. Hassan was likely the victim of
    an

    honor killing
    , that estimable Muslim practice of
    killing women who dishonor parents, husbands or family
    by

    refusing arranged marriages
    , adopting

    Western attitudes
    , dating unapproved men or filing
    for divorce.


  • The
    second, from the

    Mainstream Media,
    was that the murder must be
    anything but an honor killing.

The New York Post
suggested


"money woes"

led Hassan to behead his wife. [Buffalo
`Beheading` | Money Woe Spurred Slay: Cop
s,
By
Kevin Purdy and Adam Nichols, February 14, 2009]

For
The Buffalo News, the beheading was a chance to
"focus" on
domestic violence. [A
history of abuse preceded Orchard Park beheading
,

February 22, 2006]

The
New York Times—the “paper of
record”
, as they say—also


suggested
it was a case of routine
domestic violence and quoted a Muslim imam.
"This was not an
honor killing, no way,"
said he.
"It has nothing
to do with his faith."[
Upstate
Man Charged With Beheading His Estranged Wife
,

By Liz Robbins, February 17, 2009] Muslims were
"outraged" at
the idea, the NYT
averred. The paper offered no counterpoint to the
Imam, who supported his asseveration by saying that Mrs.
Hassan was "more
of a practicing Muslim"
than her husband.

Somehow, the
NYT missed
other details about Mrs. Hassan`s suffering, reported at
Fox News.com. She was subjected to
"`physical
confrontations off and on` for their entire eight-year
marriage that had recently escalated to death threats.
The grounds for divorce were `cruel and inhuman
treatment,` [
the lawyer]
said, referring to multiple prior incidents of abuse."

[Beheading
in New York Appears to Be Honor Killing, Experts Say,

February 17, 2009, By Joshua Rhett Miller]

Unlike the
Times, Fox
News found an expert to explain why Mrs. Hassan could
very well have been the victim of an honor killing.

The
NYT published just one story about the event in the week that
followed Hassan`s arrest. Its coverage of this very real
crime was eclipsed by, say, the paper`s coverage of the
fictitious rape story of a black stripper
.

Where are the stories about Muslim
violence against women? The follow-ups on other honor
killings in this country? The religious expert
commenting on

the Koran`s injunctions on castigating wives?
How
could the Buffalo News publish a story about this without once mentioning the
possibility that Mrs. Hassan was victim not a
"domestic violence" but a
misogynistic religion
?

As William McGowan
reported
in Coloring The News:
How Crusading For Diversity Has Corrupted American
Journalism
, that`s just the
old
grey lady and her lesser cohorts
doing business as
usual. Readers of VDARE.COM need no recitation of the
MSM`s systematic repression of any connection between

immigrants and crime,
race and crime or any other
unpleasant pathologies traceable to

alien cultures
and

religions
. The Hassan case was just more of the
same.

Most observers will blame this on
"liberal bias"
in the news media. And it is certainly true that most
reporters and editors in this country are liberals. They
likely voted for

Barack Hussein Obama
by a margin of 90 percent or
better.

Yet the word
"bias" can`t
explain how reporters and editors can so routinely and
reliably exclude facts inhospitable to their world view,
and it wrongly implies that they consciously distort the
day`s news to do so.

Anyone who has worked in a daily
newsroom knows writers and editors don`t really have the
time, on deadline, to spin stories. Editors take what
the reporters give them. They correct obvious errors,
ask questions about content and push the button to
publish the story. Indeed, every once in a while, some
newspapers do

publish stories
that comport with what
everyone knows—for instance, about
illegal immigrants and drunk driving.
In those
cases, somehow the offending news got through the
system.

Yet many biased stories are published.
That`s because

they are often biased in concept.
No marching
orders to exclude information need be given.
Notwithstanding the content analysis done by the

Media Research Center
and

Accuracy In Media
, a more sophisticated
reading of
"bias,"
coupled with

actual knowledge of what occurs in a newsroom
, shows
that reporters and editors needn`t orchestrate the news
consciously, story by story, to exclude unwelcome facts.
Their leftist

worldview
precludes contradictory ideas. It isn`t
that they take their side versus another or give short
shrift to conservatives. For them, no other side exists.
They don`t need to spin the actual story. The concept
took shape before the story was written.

Point is, the average newsroom leftist
is impervious to truth. He

cannot conceive,
for instance, that blacks and
Hispanics are
more prone to crime than whites
because they are
more violent. Or that Hispanics think

drunk driving is a sign of machismo
, which accounts
for their high rate of DUI fatalities. Or that domestic
violence is a problem in Hispanic homes because of
Hispanic culture, which prosecutors and women`s shelter
workers know very well. Or that

sex with underage girls
is also permissible, again,
because of Hispanic culture. Or, with the beheading,
that Islam sanctions the castigation of disobedient
wives.

Even when

their own reporting
proves

these
truths
, MSM types do not draw the obvious
conclusions. They just think of reasons why the obvious
conclusions are wrong.

This blinkered
view of human nature
not only prevents most writers
and editors from acknowledging the truth about racial
and cultural issues but also accounts for their
reflexive mendacity about those with whom they disagree.
Leftist media people are obsessed with
"racism" and
other pathologies. They automatically attribute them to
whites even as they ignore them in blacks and Hispanics.

Hence the
New York Times

attack
on VDARE.com writer
Marcus Epstein
and those with whom he produced
"Immigration
and the 2008 Republican Defeat
"
[PDF],
an

American Cause
report debunking the myth that
immigration cost the GOP the 2008 election. Of course,
this cannot be an honest disagreement with the
NYT and its
editorial positions. Rather, Epstein and VDARE.COM must
be "nativists,"
in NYT`s view, guilty of "racialist
extremism"
and

"white-supremacist views."
[The
Nativists Are Restless
,
January 31, 2009]A


blog item
in the
Times tossed
around words like
"racial warfare"
and
"dark people,"
hinting, darkly, that Epstein and VDARE.COM Editor Peter
Brimelow are covertly plotting a race war against, well,
the "dark
people."
The

"dark people`s" war
against the rest of us seems to
have escaped their notice.

Unsurprisingly, the
Times
editorial and blog post relied heavily on the Southern
Poverty Law Center, the thoroughly discredited
"anti-hate"
racket. And just as unsurprisingly,

a Times
editorial writer had worked for SPLC
.

Despite the SPLC`s


well-documented fraud
, most journalists
cannot conceive that the SPLC is anything but what it
says it is. It fights hate and must be on the side of
the angels. The SPLC labels VDARE.com as a
"hate" site,
and that`s that.

Unlike the
NYT
sophisticates, however, most leftist journalists are not
leftists because they have thought about things and
arrived at an intelligent conclusion. Most don`t
understand their ideology, as talking to them for a few
minutes quickly reveals. They have just been subjected
to 12 years of
indoctrination in public schools
. Many of them spend
four years in "journalism"
schools
at the knee of leftist
malcontents. They can`t help it.

As an editor, I know that young
reporters are shockingly and sadly ignorant.

They can readily unbosom jeremiads
about "ethics"
in journalism and society`s ills, real and imagined. But
few of them can tell you a thing about

George Washington
or

John Randolph,
even if they know who Randolph was.
They know who

Martin Luther King
and

Nelson Mandela
are, but don`t know when the English
colonists arrived at

Jamestown
. They know the Spanish Conquistadors were
evil because they defeated the Mesoamerican Indians, but

they likely haven`t heard
about the Indians` ritual


orgies of human sacrifice
. They know
slavery caused the
"Civil War,"
but not that Yankees

dominated the slave trade
and that


Northerners owned slaves
. They can wax
poetic about the

"Civil Rights Movement,"
but cannot identify

Sgt.
York
or
Audie
Murphy
as two great American war heroes.
They`re

certain
the United States was wrong to imprison
Japanese Americans during World War II, but they don`t
know anything about the era in general or that some
these

alleged innocents
were

spies for Tojo
.

And, important in the context of the
Buffalo beheading and
the nature
of Islam
, they will aver that

the
Crusades
were bad and that Muslims were
living peacefully in the Holy Land

until evil Christians
marched into to do murder and
mayhem on the orders of an evil pope.

But, of course, they can`t tell you

when the First Crusade was or why Pope Urban II called
it
. They only know the Christians were oppressors
and the Muslims were oppressed.

Paradoxically, the best thing I can
say about my profession is that it no longer matters
much in the Internet Age. Web sites like VDARE.COM now
run
rings around the legacy media
and its leftist
writers.

That is why the truth will come out
about Muslims` beheading their wives, illegal aliens`
driving drunk—and of course, editorialists who plant
lies, hate speech and propaganda for the
$PLC.

Robert de Brus
[Email
him
] is a newspaper editor somewhere in America.