Why didn't this make the news?

Remove all ads!

The 'largest ever' must count for something, however this is the British Nationalist Party so they can't be too bad

Other interesting points

and

link

[ October 14, 2006, 01:31: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Your link has too many http://'s in.

I have absolutely no idea why it didn't make the news. Although I can't say I have any time for the socialist worker, the story appears in the local lancashire press as well.

http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=13&ArticleID=1806590

http://www.burnleycitizen.co.uk/news/newsheadlines/display.var.951775.0.exbnp_man_faces_explosives_charge.php

Where are the conspiracy theorists when you want them?

 

This is ridiculous. The government's making universities keep track of asian and muslim students and report them, but "the largest ever haul" of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (loevely combination here) goes unreported? What's going on here?

 

Racism

 

A veritable coup for the British Nazi Party- media protection for them. It's a shame that only a Socialist site covered it.

 

Stuff you might want to think about:

First of all, it's from a political website. I personally am more inclined to trust news from commercial sources since their goal is to, well, report on news (and therefore make money) rather than advance a political agenda.

Also, if this is something so big, you would think that the commercial press would at least try to cover it. I'm sure the British press is not hugely different from the American press, so I can't really see why there wouldn't be coverage on such a matter than would attract readers, barring A) most of the press knew it was bogus or or B) most of the press was simply igonrant or C) there is some kind of conspiracy theory to cover it up.

Last, it comes off as pretty poor reporting, due to A) a real lack of objectivity (but it's a political site, so --) and B) four words of quotage. That's not really impressive.

 

Carcaroth has already posted some links to other newsources and it was featured in the Belfast Telegraph which is the biggest newspaper in N.Ireland.

I noticed that Dick Cheneys praise of waterbording did not get much US news coverage so I guess he didn't say anything...

 

I would assume that the lack of coverage is mainly so that they do not give coverage or credence to a blatantly racist party. If that is the case that's a very dangerous policy, also there is a upswell in the support of the BNP, by the stupid, febrile masses.

I've since found this on the BBC but still no great reporting and no description of quantity or quality

[ October 30, 2006, 10:44: Message edited by: DarkStrider ]

 

Commercial sources are just as political as anyone else. Just because a news channel isn't a political party doesn't mean they don't sympathise with a party, or aren't a blatantly advancing a propagandist agenda in said party's favour.

 

Of course, there are political (and commercial) biases in journalism. But there are degrees of bias -- compare Fox News and CNN.

I read an article on it on CNN.com. Maybe you're not looking in the right places?

 

I remember Tony Snow's comment on Cheney. It was basically that Cheney didn't say what everyone understood him saying. That's because we're all dumb and don't understand what we hear or read.

That guy is brazen.

My opinion is that Bush's personal involvement in the torture issue for instance is seriously understimated. Most probably he was very much personally involved in these decisions. I'm confident that the decider signed secret presidential executive orders on every single issue - torture, violation of the Geneva Conventions in general, violation of the US constitution, US laws - you name it.
I remember reading that FBI agents were appaled at what they probably with good reason considered illegal interrogation methods by the CIA, to be told that a secret executive order sanctioned their use. While I can only assume, that strongly suggests presidential involvement.

That would then also be the likely reason why the Justice Department isn't pursuing cases based on that. Because if they did, they would have to force the administration to cough up these orders in defense and that would not look so good: It would once again rise the pressing question of executive overreach. It is an interesting question how, in the context of his constitutional obligation to uphold the law, a presidential order allowing torture can be compatible with US laws banning torture.
And Gonzales most certainly doesn't want that to happen. You can't seriously expect much but stonewalling from a former whitehouse legal counsel and Bush loyalist. Not to mention him covering his own ass. He isn't called 'quaint and obsolete' Gonzales without a reason. Probably it was him who wrote the presidential legal case behind the executive order in question. Lovely.