Why did CNN deel the need to put "peaceful" in quotes. The idea is to make it seem that there is a question as to whether it was peaceful.
Note that the article doesn't say anything about the man's statements. It does say "The source stressed potential mental health concerns have not yet been ruled out, which could factor into any charging decision."
They don't do reporting on the actual event, they try to make it seem as if it being "peaceful" is a controversial issue; but then do no reporting about what the suspect said.
The BBC also doesn't say anything about the perpetrator, but they don't put "peaceful" in quotes.
"A pro-Israeli peaceful demonstration was under way when the attack happened, police say - the group meets regularly for a walk to remember the hostages taken by Hamas"
This is how they report it. No reporting on what the man said, even though it is on video; only an attempt to make it seem general. They cast doubt on whether it was "targeted"...there is a video of the man targeting it....
yet here you have officials saying it was targeted. So why the need to make it seem it was not?
NBC is better, it notes that these were people who gathered to support hostages. No quote marks here.
NBC "Multiple people were injured when an attacker used an incendiary device on demonstrators in Colorado who were marching to buoy awareness of hostages held by Hamas militants in Gaza."
CNN: "A man reportedly set people on fire in Boulder, Colorado, leaving multiple individuals injured, the city’s police chief said, as people gathered for a ‘peaceful’ pro-Israeli demonstration."
Why is "peaceful" in quotes? Is there a suggestion the people who gathered were not peaceful? No. It's an attempt to quietly tell the reader that there might be a mitigating circumstance, it's coded language
here is CBS...which won't identify anything in the headline...just a people being burned...
Paragraphs in...CBS won't tell you anything about it, it'sjust some generic event. This is a clear attempt to hide what happened.
Only later in the article: "Witnesses at the scene told CBS Colorado that the suspect attacked people with Molotov cocktails who were participating in a walk to remember the Israeli hostages who remain in Gaza."
Why isn't that at the top?
This is how legacy media reported an attack on people. This is what they do. They downplay the motive and refuse to report what the perpetrator said...every attempt is made to hide all the details. It's systematic. It's not just "whoops"...it's systematic.
The screenshots tell you how they did this. It has been hours since this happened. It's not that they didn't know. They know...they see it...and they too often work to hide and minimize it.
Here is ABC...you have to read half the article to get to;
"Leo Terrell, head of the antisemitism task force at the Justice Department, said that an 'incendiary device' was thrown at participants in the Run for Their Lives walk. The attack happened 'as they peacefully raised awareness for the hostages held in Gaza,' Terrell said."
Why is this half way into the article? Why not the lead?
It's systematic. Every. Single. Article.
The CNN quote of "peaceful" isn't quoting anyone in the lead of this. If you try to find out why they felt the need to put this in quotes...there's no logic behind it. It's no where in the article.
I looked...the word "peaceful" doesn't appear in quotes in the article. It's only put in this quote mark at the top. Why? edition.cnn.com/2025/06/01/us/…
Let's ask a simple question. If it was a peaceful gathering of ANY OTHER group and someone attacked them with molotov cocktails...would "peaceful" be put in quotes. Would the motive of the perpetrator be erased...or at the end of the article.
If it was a BLM march would "peaceful" be in quotes?
I think it's worth asking this basic question.
Is it unfair to latch onto this one word and the quotes? No. It's worth asking why. Why did someone feel the need to add quotes to this? It was a peaceful mark wasn't it? Someone attacked it. There's no question about whether it was peaceful. There is only a question about the perpetrator. If they wanted to put "anti-Israel" in quotes...as in "peaceful march attacked by 'anti-Israel' man"....then you could say that's fair...the person who did it is being described that way. Or "peaceful march attacked by 'terrorist'". Ok. Fair. But why put peaceful in quotes?
It’s on video. But from the reports above you wouldn’t know it
I've been thinking about the remnants of the Hamas leadership, who almost all seem to live abroad. Two Hamas officials went to Iran this week and talked tough about continuing the war. This is a war they don't experience. They want Gaza destroyed while they live abroad. Most of these men are in their 60s or older.
Key Hamas leaders today include: Mohammed Zahar born in 1945, Mousa Abu Marzouk was born in 1951, Khaled Meshaal was born in 1956, Khalil al-Hayya was born in 1960, Fathi Hamad in 1961, Basem Naim was born in 1963, Ghazi Hamid in 1964, Osama Hamdan was born in 1965, Husam Badran in 1966 and Zahar Jabarin in 1968.
When you think of this age group, many of these guys were in their twenties when Hamas was founded, they were in their thirties during the Oslo years and forties during the Second Intifada. That's when they were able to take over Gaza. They were still relatively young. Some of their peers were killed such as Rantisi and Sheikh Yassin. Yassin was much older than the rest.
One of the elements to pay attention to in Israel’s new Gideon’s Chariots offensive in Gaza is the fact that many of its key players are new to their positions. A different chain of command than on Oct. 7 and in 2024. Here are the key figures: 🧵
The Defense Minister Israel Katz took over from Yoav Gallant in November 2024. Gallant was fired by the Prime Minister after a year of tension. Katz comes from the world of politics as opposed to Gallant who came from the world of the IDF
The IDF Chief of Staff assumed command in early March 2025. Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir comes from the armored corps and served as Director General of the Israel Ministry of Defense in 2023 and 2024. He was key to enabling the IDF to procure more weapons during the war and secure the supply train and logistics and power behind the IDF. He was considered for Chief of Staff in the past but lost out to Herzi Halevi
The IDF released a report on the failure of October 7 to defend Kibbutz Nir Oz. The report is worse than expected. It shows the IDF didn't defend this community at all, and only arrived at 13:10, more than six and a half hours after the attack began. Hamas and other terrorists had already come and left, they had complete control of the place and could do basically whatever they wanted. There was a small local security team from the community, but it was overwhelmed.
The small community was massacred; 47 people murdered, 76 kidnapped.
Jpost; "October 7 probe: IDF only arrived in Nir Oz after Hamas terrorists left because it was 'far away'" jpost.com/israel-news/ar…
The Golani Brigade's 51st Battalion was defending the sector, but it was understrength. The IDF completely failed to plan for or even apparently think about how to defend this community. It's strange because one assumes the IDF wouldn't have behaved this way in the north or the West Bank. Something about Hamas in Gaza cast a spell over Israel and its defenses such that this border was almost treated like a peace border.
According to Ynet "The battalion had 182 combat soldiers and 57 support personnel in the northern Eshkol region, prepared for an infiltration scenario from a single point without warning. Near their base, Judy and Gadi Weinstein were preparing for their 6:06 a.m. morning walk, unaware they would be Nir Oz’s first victims that day."
Articles like this illustrate the corrosive nature of how media use the term “disinformation” as a stand in for actually covering things on the ground or reporting what happened
Here you have an entire article that admits 800 people were killed, the article claims that some old videos were repackaged and some people falsely reported that others were killed…but where is the evidence that the “disinformation” led to “intensified” violence? Do they mean the information that was provided to SNA-backed militias who went on a rampage in Latakia? No. They don’t even mention them
The one place that rumors and propaganda did influence killing was in the attacks by the militias in response to the pro-Assad attacks. But this article doesn’t seem to unpack that or discuss it. It doesn’t even seem to interview people on the ground. Because western media have been encouraged to discuss “disinformation” as a stand in for actual reporting
This became their main talking point the day before the Bibas children were buried. This is what these people came down to.
No words.
Note, they don’t say they will do the minute of silence, they just want to add the whataboutism. There is a reason they trotted him out the day before the burial to do this.
Never forget
A quick thought on this. Where was this talking point on October 8 when there were 38 dead children as a result of the Hamas massacre? What was Daniel Levy's talking point on that day?
The thing is that on October 8 you don't see this talking point about a minute of silence. It's only a day before the Bibas funeral that they trotted this out. And note they don't include the other 38 children killed on October 7. It's all about doing "whataboutism" because the Bibas funeral is in the spotlight. For a year they never mentioned the Bibas family, only now, in order to downplay and whatabout the tragedy.