Joel Mowbray has a column pondering why some trials get more play in the press than others.
Contrast that to the coverage afforded the recent mistrial in the government’s case against Holy Land Foundation, an alleged front for Hamas.
The mistrial was spun by most mainstream media outlets as a major defeat to U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The New York Times dedicated over 1,200 words in a page one story. The Washington Post was a bit more restrained, putting its coverage on page three, but the editorial page ran a stinging criticism by Georgetown professor David Cole of supposed government overreach.
Defenders of high-profile treatment of the Holy Land mistrial likely would assert the connection to 9/11, as the Islamic charity was shut down with great fanfare in October 2001.
Seemingly, the only trials worth writing about are those which end up supporting the defendants. But if the defendants want to blow up Americans--particularly American soldiers--that's only suitable for Page 19A, along with the tire ads.
Mowbray discusses the arrest of two young Egyptian nationals (and college students) who were arrested Aug. 4. The case isn't boring; there's a YouTube video of one of the students showing someone how to turn a remote-controlled car into a detonator. There's connections between the two men and terrorism organizations. There's the fact that the suspects were caught with explosives, fuse, PVC pipe and more in their car.
Yet this case has garnered little or no coverage in the MSM. True, the Holy Land case was important, not just for the decision but for the tangled way the decision was announced, then pulled, then reannounced.
We frequently hear from the left about the Bush administration's abuse of the Patriot Act, its overreaching and disregard for civil liberties. But wouldn't coverage of actual terrorist's trials put some governmental precautions in perspective?
|