Why one drowned child was deemed much more “newsworthy” than many murdered children.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Originally published by PJ Media.
Why did the so-called “mainstream media,” or MSM, widely disseminate the picture of Alan Kurdi—the three-year-old Syrian child who drowned in the Mediterranean—while never publishing pictures of other Mideast children who, worse than accidentally drowning, were intentionally murdered?
Did you, for instance, ever see this more recent picture?
This little boy was murdered a few weeks ago, on March 27 — Easter Sunday — when Islamic suicide bombers, targeting Christians, attacked a crowded park, killing dozens of people, mostly women and children.
What about this baby in diaper, lying dead under a church pew?
He—along with some 60 Christian worshippers—was killed when Islamic jihadis attacked their church service in Baghdad in 2010 (click here to see what happened to the adults—including the Muslim suicide bombers).
Did you see this picture?
It was of the “youngest hostage” captured by ISIS/Freedom Fighters after they took the predominantly Christian town of Kessab, Syria, in 2014. Based on precedent [1], he’s likely dead now.
What about this 12-year-old Coptic Christian girl — also found lying dead on the Mediterranean coast?
She was abducted and murdered in Libya last year, soon after the U.S.-supported jihadis who ousted Gaddafi issued a “reward” for anyone finding and killing Christians. Her parents were also murdered for the same reason. (More graphic images of her mutilated face here.)
What of this 12-year-old Pakistani Christian girl?
She was raped and murdered by a Muslim man who wasn’t even convicted, as happens regularly in Pakistan whenever a Muslim abuses or murders a Christian.
Christian children are not the only ones to be slaughtered by Muslim jihadis for being subhuman “infidels.” The child below was executed in Syria in 2012 by “freedom fighters”—today more commonly known as “ISIS”—for being the son of Shia (who are seen as “infidels” no less than Christians).
This toddler girl was reportedly chained and made to watch her Shia parents being executed. Based on another extremely graphic picture, her heart may have been later carved out by the “rebels.”
The above pictures are only a small sampling of Christian and other “infidel” children killed by Islamic supremacists. Much more graphic images are available (such as the beheaded and mangled corpse of a very young Buddhist girl in Thailand).
Back to our original question: why did the MSM—which you now know habitually ignores images of children killed for being non-Muslim “infidels”—publish and widely disseminate the image of a child who accidentally drowned? Simple: For a desired effect. For a political agenda. In this case, to prompt “sympathy and outrage at the inaction of developed nations in helping refugees,” as one report put it.
And it worked.
Thus, French president François Hollande phoned a number of “European leaders after the images [of Kurdi] were circulated in the media and told the leaders that the picture must be a reminder of the world’s responsibility against refugees.” British Prime Minister David Cameron said he felt “deeply moved” by the picture, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny found it “absolutely shocking,” and so on. “Shame on us all for the death of Aylan Kurdi”—the title of an op-ed—was the dominant theme.
Action followed words. Because of the widely disseminated image of that unfortunate child, countless more Muslim “refugees”—mostly single adult males, some ISIS operatives and sympathizers—were received into Western nations, whose heartstrings were sufficiently pulled, than might have otherwise.
And that’s the reason—the desired effect—that prompted the “mainstream media” to disseminate the image of Alan Kurdi far and wide.
If the mainstream media had intended to be “fair and balanced,” the pictures you just saw, likely for the first time, would have been deemed more newsworthy than the picture of Alan. After all, they depict children who were intentionally killed by Islam-inspired hate, whereas Kurdi died accidentally.
The former murders can actually be prevented—but first the media would have to report them far and wide—whereas the tragedy that befell Kurdi is of the kind that will always plague man.
More pivotal questions:
Based on the widespread outrage and action elicited by the picture of Kurdi, would a picture of a Christian child killed for being an “infidel”—if disseminated widely—provoke widespread “sympathy and outrage at the inaction of developed nations in helping” Christian minorities living under Islam?
Would European leaders wring their hands and express how “absolutely shocked” or “deeply moved” they are? Would the MSM publish a barrage of op-eds berating us for shirking our humanitarian responses? Would Hollande proclaim that “the picture must be a reminder of the world’s responsibility” for persecuted Christians?
Would action follow words?
Rather than put their political counterparts in such a predicament, the “mainstream media” do not publish such images at all.
For those who still need it spelled out: the MSM’s primary function is to normalize and popularize certain narratives that pave the way for certain political agendas. These narratives often have nothing to do with reality and exist solely to cause much of the populace to support policy.
In this case, the narrative/political agenda is to maintain the farce that Islam is inherently peaceful and that the West is responsible for taking in millions of Muslim “refugees.”
The above pictures of Christian and other “infidel” children mutilated and murdered by Muslims destroy that narrative, so you never got to see them before.
But now you have them, along with access to social media and contact information for mainstream outlets. Let’s see how they respond.
Notes:
[1] This particular picture reminds one of a very apt excerpt from Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s classic work, The Brothers Karamazov, which follows:
These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children, too; cutting the unborn child from the mother’s womb, and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mothers’ eyes. Doing it before the mothers’ eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They’ve planned a diversion: they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby’s face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby’s face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn’t it? By the way, Turks are particularly fond of sweet things, they say. [Emphasis added]]]>