I was thinking about the recent flap over the AP’s decision to call Sarah Palin racist for calling Bill Ayers a “terrorist.” The claim is nonsensical on its face. Here is Governor Palin calling a white ’60’s anarchist a terrorist and the AP labels the claim “racist.” However, if you look deeper at what the AP was getting at, it speaks volumes on how they think and how they view the world.
I was watching FOX News debate the issue today and one of the contributors, whose name I cannot recall at this moment, stated that according to the way the AP views the term “terrorist” is to immediately conjure a mental image of a dark skinned person of Arab descent. Their immediate, knee jerk reaction to the label “terrorist” is a stereotype; a stereotype many in the left find abhorrent (at least in public).
Now words don’t only convey thoughts. In many instances, words hold up a mirror to how the author sees the world. So if the AP says it is racist for Palin to use the term “terrorist” when speaking about Ayers, they are insinuating a value judgement. That value judgement is that all terrorists are Arab. Many would assume that this is more or less a statement of fact. Most terrorists today ARE from Arab lands. But why is that a negative value judgement? Not all Arabs are terrorists, right? The facts bear this out. Apparently, the Associated Press doesn’t think so.
The AP writer, or writers either independently or in a group came up with a value judgement that all terrorists are Arab, and underscored that linkage with the underlying idea that because they are Arab, they must be bad in some way. So calling Bill Ayers a terrorist is to link him to the Arabs that are causing chaos throughout the world.
If this is true, it’s a pretty petty way for the AP to think and it shows who the real racists in this story actually are.
What do you think? Am I on to something or am I bat s**t crazy?