I realized that much NYTimes reporting on terrorism exposes a conflict between two of the doctrines of liberal reporting.
1. When the United States goes to war to protect it's own interests, the other side is given 'victim' status. This derives from the vestigial liberal idea that any action by the United States in it's own interests in inherently evil (because one Communist victory of the Cold War was to ingrain in the Left a reflexive belief that the interests of the US are evil). And in a simplistic narrative the people resisting to such US action must be intrinsically good. If they are savage, they are noble savages.
2. Reporting about 'victim' class people must be done in such a way as to improve the lot of said victims. That is, if the people are doing something the average American would consider good, trumpet their status throughout the piece. If the people are doing something that would outrage the average American, hide their status as much as possible. Ignore it or, if unavoidably part of the story, bury it at the end or mention it in passing. Example of people given this sort of preferential treatment: illegal immigrants; young, black, inner-city men; Palestinians
The problem with the War on Terror a.k.a., the War on Islamic Extremism, is that these two principles conflict directly with each other every day. And so the NYTimes constantly plays down the religion of the people caught plotting against the West. It is ridiculous and exposes the foolishness of trying to force the news to fit the traditional liberal framework, rather than simply reporting it.
Exactly.