And why not? They give us so much material to work with. Right now, I've got two things in mind, somewhat connected.
First, if you haven't read about the riots in Toledo, go here and read. Take due note of the headline, and then of who actually did the rioting, and their excuses for it. Here's a major newspaper blaming a riot not on the clowns who actually, oh, rioted and looted, but on those the rioters used as an excuse. There is, flatly, no excuse for this crap. I don't care how much they dislike having the Nazis march(not too damn fond of them myself), that does not give them excuse to riot. And it most certainly does not give the media an excuse to blame the Nazis instead of the idiots who actually committed the crimes.
Second stop here, where Mark Steyn takes note of the refusal of the media to call fascists what they are; as long as they're Islamic fascists, that is. Never mind where they're from, what they're doing and why and to who, you just can't call the bastards what they are; it's not allowed, apparently. Just like the BBC won't call Palistinian terrorists 'terrorists'; they're militants, or rebels or something, but never ever 'terrorists'. And so many in the media won't call the bombers and head-choppers and kidnappers in Iraq 'terrorists', they're 'insurgents'; it's just so much more PC to call them that. After all, if you call them terrorists you're actually stating they're bad people doing bad things, and we can't have that. Can we?
Yes, we damn sure can, at least if the media weenies are not so bigoted and PC that they'll make excuses for these dirtbags. Something happens here in the U.S., and you generally have to dig through piles of words before you'll find out that the doer was, who could believe it?, Muslim. I swear to God, if some jackass grabbed an old couple in a mall and cut their heads off with a machete while screaming "Allahu Akbar!", most of these jerks would jump through hoops to avoid even mentioning that part of it; after all, us ignorant peasants in flyover country can't be trusted to hear such things, now can we?
Connected to all this is this, the attempts to ignore/cover up/deny some information about the FREDS who blew himself up in Norman. Please note this wording from the FBI about a possible attempt to get into the stadium: "He said, 'We may never know. We have no evidence of a plan to do that, but we also couldn't tell you definitively he didn't try to do it and was rebuffed. We just simply don't know,' " Mr. Cole said."
This is used by the Wall Street Journal to say: "None of these claims are true". The FBI didn't say that, it said 'We do not know', but that's good enough to say 'nothing to it', at least for some of the major media. If this kid had been walking around with a swasticka armband and had a Nazi flag on his bedroom wall, you know these people would be talking about the dangers of neo-nazis; but God forbid they say anything bad about, or even mention, connections to Islam.
It reminds me, to an extent, of the attitude a lot of these 'journalists' have toward various minority groups; you shouldn't mention anything bad because it might upset them, and if you do have to mention it you have to include excuses for their actions, because after all, you can't expect them to deal with it well. I think R. Reagan referred to this as the 'bigotry of low expectations'; don't expect this or that group to live up to civilized standards, because they're just not able to, and they might get upset/violent if you demand those standards of them. So you have these 'journalists' calling names and describing as murderers U.S. troops in battle, but making excuses and carefully choosing words to keep from calling Islamist nutcases what they really are.
To borrow a line from Quint in Jaws, it's enough to piss off the Good Humor man.