Obama will redact radical Islam allegence claims in 911 calls from Omar to the Police

[jeffblue101]

no other worldview or philosophy enjoys the same systematic whitewashing that liberals give to Islam. Why even go to such an extant,when we already know what is on the tapes? I just don't get why liberals protect Islam to the extant that they do. hypothetically, if this Orlando shooter declared that he was doing this in Jesus's name, Obama wouldn't even hesitate for a split second in releasing the tapes in full, let alone make a distinction between a hypothetical "radical and moderate Christianity".

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/201...e-trying-whitewash-omar-mateens-motive-video/

LORETTA LYNCH: Yes. It will be primarily a partial transcript of his calls with the hostage negotiators.

CHUCK TODD: You say partial. What's being left out?

LORETTA LYNCH: Well, what we're not going to do is further proclaim this individual's pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda.

CHUCK TODD: So we're not going to hear him talk about those things?

LORETTA LYNCH: We will hear him talk about some of those things, but we're not going to hear him make his ascertains of allegiance and that. This will not be audio. This will be a printed transcript. But it will begin to capture the back and forth between him and the negotiators. We're trying to get as much information about this investigation out as possible. As you know, because the killer is dead, we have a bit more leeway there. And so we will be producing that information tomorrow.

Incredibly, Lynch's Justice Department, in the guise of illuminating Mateen's motive, is actually going to redact his motive from the tapes. As RealClearPolitics reports, what makes this nonsense particularly egregious is that we already know what Justice is redacting:....

What the Justice Department is doing here is analogous to making a pornographic movie. Just as a porn flick excises virtually all elements of plot, theme, character development to "here's the pizza... and here's the pepperoni", the administration has stripped out the plot, theme, and character development in the tapes, the things that make the tapes meaningful, and reduced it to a voyeuristic exercise of murder porn.

The reason for this is very simple. Barack Obama and his henchmen are invested in a narrative that says all Islamic terror attacks are one-offs, they are "lone wolves", that there is no rhyme or reason in the attacks and, ergo, the administration is blameless for the attacks and guns are to blame.

 

[annabenedetti]

The reason for this is very simple. Barack Obama and his henchmen are invested in a narrative that says all Islamic terror attacks are one-offs, they are "lone wolves", that there is no rhyme or reason in the attacks and, ergo, the administration is blameless for the attacks and guns are to blame.

Or maybe they're trying to avoid encouraging copycats, or giving other like-minded would-be terrorists the satisfaction of getting fired up by hearing his call to jihad.

Makes sense.

 

[jeffblue101]

Or maybe they're trying to avoid encouraging copycats, or giving other like-minded would-be terrorists the satisfaction of getting fired up by hearing his call to jihad.

Makes sense.

if copycats are issue why don't we do the same with other mass shooters? do you honestly believe that Obama would do the same to any other religiously motivated shooter

 

[jeffblue101]

liberals think that the only way to defeat Islamic propaganda is to engage in propaganda themselves.

 

[annabenedetti]

if copycats are issue why don't we do the same with other mass shooters? do you honestly believe that Obama would do the same to any other religiously motivated shooter

I wish we would. I wish the mass media wouldn't give them the notoriety that they crave. Here's another perspective, from the parent of one of the Aurora shooting victims:

Naming mass shooters has become a complicated decision for officials and news outlets, who want to balance the public’s right to know with minimizing the risk of making shooters famous or encouraging copycat behavior.

And while the details of the Orlando shooting are unfolding, several prominent people, including Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and FBI Director James Comey, purposely avoided using the shooter’s name.

News outlets are frequently criticized for plastering the shooter’s face everywhere, and many have chosen to spotlight the victims over the shooter. But U.S. media still consistently name the shooter, and it’s unclear if that process will ever change.

A campaign called No Notoriety has challenged the media to report on mass shootings responsibly:

“The quest for notoriety and infamy is a well known motivating factor in rampage mass killings and violent copycat crimes,” the group’s website states. “In an effort to reduce future tragedies, we CHALLENGE THE MEDIA – calling for RESPONSIBLE MEDIA COVERAGE FOR THE SAKE OF PUBLIC SAFETY when reporting on individuals who commit or attempt acts of rampage mass violence, thereby depriving violent like minded individuals the media celebrity and media spotlight they so crave.”

Its founders, Caren and Tom Teves, started the campaign after they lost their son Alex in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting.

The campaign calls for media to limit the name and likeness of shooters unless they’re still at large; refuse to publish statements, videos and manifestos made by the shooter; and promote victims’ stories instead.
​

​

​

 

[jeffblue101]

I wish we would. I wish the mass media wouldn't give them the notoriety that they crave. Here's another perspective, from the parent of one of the Aurora shooting victims:

Naming mass shooters has become a complicated decision for officials and news outlets, who want to balance the public’s right to know with minimizing the risk of making shooters famous or encouraging copycat behavior.

And while the details of the Orlando shooting are unfolding, several prominent people, including Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and FBI Director James Comey, purposely avoided using the shooter’s name.

The campaign calls for media to limit the name and likeness of shooters unless they’re still at large; refuse to publish statements, videos and manifestos made by the shooter; and promote victims’ stories instead.
​

I doubt that main stream media suppressing a shooters information will have any effect on a shooters notoriety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.[1]

 

[annabenedetti]

I doubt that main stream media suppressing a shooters information will have any effect on a shooters notoriety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

There's been a lot of discussion about how much to put out there. At what point does journalistic responsibility to deliver information begin to affect the course of future events? Here's more:

In the aftermath of the shooting at UCSB, Margaret Sullivan, the Public Editor of the Times penned a piece titled, “Giving Killers Coverage, Not Platforms,” that wrestled with some of these tough journalistic standards:

After The Times posted both the 141-page written manifesto and a video statement issued by the California gunman last week, Mr. Schulman wrote to me. He made the case that publishing those statements — which he sees as a form of propaganda — perpetuates a culture in which violence is rewarded with notoriety.

“There’s an unspoken agreement that if you are frustrated and angry, that all you have to do to get your feelings broadcast is to kill a lot of people,” Mr. Schulman, the executive editor of The New Atlantis, a quarterly journal devoted to technology and society, told me in a later interview. He spoke of a “conscious copycat effect” that can be seen in the string of mass killings, from Columbine to Virginia Tech to Newtown, Conn.

The media, he says, “have been nearly perfect participants” in the “ritualistic response” that incentivizes these horrific episodes. It’s past time, he believes, to rethink that and to change it.

He was not alone, among Times readers, in considering this question. I heard from a Hunter College professor, Steven M. Gorelick, who wrote that he wondered “what might have gone into the decision by The Times to post the chilling video made by Mr. Rodger before he went on his killing rampage.” He wondered whether this was “a simple case of the public’s right to know, or whether there was any substantive discussion about any kind of possible negative impact that posting the video might have had.”
​

 

[annabenedetti]

Obama will redact radical Islam allegence claims in 911 calls from Omar to the Police

The DOJ and FBI have reversed the decision to redact. I don't know if it makes any difference to you that it wasn't Obama doing the redacting.

On Monday, the White House said the decision was made solely by the Justice Department.

“All of the decisions about releasing the transcripts were made by Justice Department officials,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said at the daily press briefing at the White House. “The view of the White House is that we should not interfere with an ongoing investigation and rather that those decisions should be made consistent with the assessment by law enforcement officials about the best way to advance the investigation.”

The FBI and DOJ reversed the morning decision and released the full transcript in an afternoon news release. "Unfortunately, the unreleased portions of the transcript that named the terrorist organizations and leaders have caused an unnecessary distraction from the hard work that the FBI and our law enforcement partners have been doing to investigate this heinous crime," the organizations said in a statement.
​