Has anybody else noticed the change in London coverage today?

[Goldmund]

Yesterday, it was "THIS is why we're fighting these MONSTERS, LOOK what carnage!!! It may be coming here to the US!!!". Today it's "Meh, this was an unsuccesful attack, not that many dead, they're weakened", and there's been a lot less coverage today than one would expect.

I wonder what happened. Was it the liberal (and sane non-liberal) commentators and bloggers throwing at them a perfect 5-second soundbite of their own making: "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here?" -- oh really? -- exposing the blatant hypocrisy?

Did they take some flash polls and realize that the propaganda wasn't working?

Or am I just tripping about the change?

[Old and In the Way]

1. Initial feeding frenzy.

They seem to go after these stories with a pack mentality, each trying to upstage its rivals. They tend to the melodramatic, extreme hyperbole, and way too much conjecture on "what it all means". After the initial news cycle (feed frenzy) is completed, they appear to regain some semblence of objectivity.

That's my opinion. I watched yesterday for about a 1/2 hour...that's all I could take. Turns out that was pretty much the story and everything else was a repetition of the same thing, over and over..

[dooner]

2. I noticed it too

But thought it was perhaps because it was "over there" and didn't involve Americans so we can't give it the full "Aruba" treatment.

[hedda_foil]

3. I'll betcha it was the flash poll option

Nothing else would have stopped them from feeding their talking points to their puppet pundits so suddenly.

[brettdale]

4. Noticed that also

When it first happened they were saying the terrorists have struck aagin, its al al-Qaeda they train in Iraq.

Now they are saying its homemade bombs, we have undermined them.

[oldtime dfl_er]

5. maybe it's because Londoners are reacting with calm

and it just isn't sexy to report that. Hysteria, screaming, empty threats, thunderously delivered platitudes, us-against-them bellicose rhetoric with a bullhorn, now that's entertainment!!

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/654252

[dooner]

7. yes, I think that's part of it also n/t

[Richard Steele]

6. Their POLLS showed people felt that "Strong attack = B*SH Failure"

So they quickly changed their story to:
"Hey, look how much we've weakened them"

I think it's a good sign that the B*shCabal's "Smear and Fear"
tactics just aren't working well anymore.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. I go with 1) flash poll and 2) Londoners shaming Americans

for their ridiculous responses to 9/11.

And 3), the bombing, relative to the Madrid, Bali, and NYC/DC/PA jobs, were in fact pretty amateurish and caused relatively little damage.

Flash poll: Americans seem less secure and less confident in Bush's "leadership" in the war on terror, with a good number blaming the asinine Iraq policy for increased terrorism...bad for conservative sabre-rattling, and so story decreases in value,

Londoners Shaming Americans - New Yorkers acted appropriately after 9/11. Unfortunately, the rest of the country seemed to go into a bizarre trance-like state, replete with bad poetry, cable-TV based PTSD, and stuffed animal memorials up the wazoo. It's embarrassing. So with the Brits not convulsing in self-pity and eschatological verse, we look like a pack of pussies in comparison. Well, not me. I'm a New Yorker, and I was in Lower Manhattan 9/11, and I still can't believe that fuckers in Plano Texas were stocking up on water the next day and carrying on like a club of pollyannas. Still, you don't want to expose pussies to their general pussy-osity, so the London bombing is no good.

3) Bombing too Amateurish - Probably some of the coverage about the bombing being amateurish results from...gasp!...the bombing being amateurish. Yeah, it's true. This was a hack job and starting to be pretty clear that it was a hack job. This was the Stephen King of terrorist attacks, where 9/11 was the William Shakespeare. So...

[cprise]

9. Who is 'they'?

Let me guess: CNN and FOX.

What a waste of time.

[Goldmund]

14. Rush, Sean, CNN, FAUX, MSNBC, etc

I read about their coverage here.

Hardly a waste of time, you can learn so much from propaganda.

[goclark]

10. Question:Why did Rudy G "just happen" to be in London nt

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

13. Yeah. I heard he was actually quite close to one of the blasts. Why?

[goclark]

19. Rudy is a magician, he "Just happened" to be in London town

That made it so nice for GWB. Rudy can give him the first hand play by play and make $$'s here in the US.
Doesn't he have a "Security" company?

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

20. Yes, he does have a "security" company: Giuliani Partners

www.giulianipartners.com.

Giuliani is also in bed with Bernard Kerik, whom Bush nominated as Secretary of Homeland Security before he withdrew his name in disgrace.

[Fluffdaddy]

11. The Brits know how to react to this crap..........Well done UK

They are showing us how NOT to let MONSTERS change the way you live.
The right wing-nut over here are 100% disappointed in the Brits calmness


Edit to add: The BBC covered this stroy like the Pros they are. This is why I get all my world news from the BBC

[Junkdrawer]

12. ...or it may not be "Al Qaeda" after all..

LONDON, July 8 - Investigators have concluded that the bombs that ripped through three subway trains and a bus on Thursday were relatively crude devices containing less than 10 pounds of explosives each. That finding supports a theory gaining momentum among the authorities that the plot was carried out by a sleeper cell of homegrown extremists rather than highly trained terrorists exported to Britain.
....
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/international/europe/09intel.html?hp&ex=1120881600&en=7142e1911bf51909&ei=5094&partner=homepage



Oh, and that message on the Islamist website claiming responsibility...
...
But MSNBC TV translator Jacob Keryakes, who said that a copy of the message was later posted on a secular Web site, noted that the claim of responsibility contained an error in one of the Quranic verses it cited. That suggests that the claim may be phony, he said.

"This is not something al-Qaida would do," he said.
...
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3242

[insane_cratic_gal]

15. Brits handled it so well

It's a personal FU to the TerrA hysteria drum beating by the right.

Their reaction is why the media can't milk it.

Bravo guys! we love you for it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. No you are not

it is not playing well in Peoria...

[mr blur]

17. Front page of today's UK Sun:

Loathe as I am to push this usually-sleazy little rag, they got it right.

[ngGale]

18. The UK has had their share of real terror attacks ...

IRA, etc. in their history, have always dealt with it. I used the same soundbite myself, Blair & Bush fighting them there instead of here. It's obvious, this can used against them as it's very true. The people in the UK have always been more active than we in the states. More power to them, instead of allowing our media to define the way they should deal with this issue. They choose to not fall for the 'gee we need even less freedom now.'