Sunday, July 03, 2005

Adopting Jargon from Invested Sources

It was reported recently that another US helicopter “crashed” while taking “indirect and direct” fire from insurgents. Crashed? Might it be more accurate and impartial to report that the aircraft “was shot down?”

Crashed is the term government officials reported, but “shot down” is the event that occurred. Why does the media sell the government’s company line on a matter like this? Call me crazy, but it seems to do a great disservice to the dead soldiers aboard the aircraft to suggest that they may have died as a result of something other than a violent conflict. “Crash” is what happens when you lose control of a vehicle or it fails to operate correctly. Calling the event a crash is hardly anything more than a tragically bad joke. Do you really mean to suggest that the fire the helicopter was taking at the time was not the cause of the crash? How can media in good conscience review the circumstances and imply that perhaps the soldiers that perished could be more to blame for the malfunction than a willing attack from forces on the ground?

As independent observers, adopting the story of an invested party is simply bad business. Just who is it that the media are serving by stopping short of calling this helicopter crash exactly what it was?


Blogger Veruca Salt said...

hahahaha, amazing guys!
i just read 'bout you in a online newspapers from argentina and went to ur website...hahaha, grrreat!
keep on the good work!

7/06/2005 4:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reminds me of another "crash", routinely reported as such even in the liberal media, which is still mostly clueless about 9/11. Namely, Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, with debris spread across an eight-mile radius. Some "crash".

In both cases, considering that the vehicle might have been "shot down" raises uncomfortable questions.

Iraq: Maybe those insurgents actually shot down a helicopter. So the US military isn't invincible. Dang! We better hush it up, not encourage the terrorists!

Pennsylvania: Who shot down Flight 93? Why? Why was it reported as a crash despite obviously contradictory evidence? If it wasn't shot down, was there a bomb on board, or how else to explain the 8-mile trail of debris? What other questions should we ask about 9/11, if we dare to consider the possibly-uncomfortable answers? And why should we trust anyone else -- news reporters, The 9/11 Omission, et al. -- if they're not asking or addressing any of these questions?

7/30/2005 6:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent, love it! » »

2/16/2007 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


2/23/2007 12:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, there was not confirmation that it was shot down. Accidents happen under fire, and pilots inadvertently "crash" even when not hit...sometimes when not even being the target.

12/25/2008 7:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home