The narrative has already been set by American mainstream media on how they’re supposed to handle the Sri Lanka terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday. There are certain things that can be said and others that must be avoided at all costs. With reporting that has spanned nearly 24 hours and included 67 updates to the story, guess how many times CNN blamed Islamic terrorists for the attack.

If you guessed anything higher than zero, you gave CNN way too much credit.

I scanned the entire series of live updates they’ve been doing since the news broke. It’s all within one long story, making it easy to search for individual words, so I did. The results were depressing but expected. Even at this late hour, they still have not acknowledged the possibility that the act was committed by Islamic terrorists.

The closest they came to blaming radical Islamic terrorists in their primary coverage story was a mention in a quote by Diplomatic editor Nic Robertson in which he notes the obvious – that it has the “hallmarks” of Islamic terrorism – but then quickly notes that there are no known radical Islamic terrorist groups in the area.

This last notion is absolutely untrue, of course, as we now know the Chief of Police in Sri Lanka issued a warning about the Nations Thawahid Jaman (NTJ), an Islamist group led by Mohomad Saharan.

The CNN report mentioned the word “Muslim” four times: twice to note the percentage of the population of Sri Lanka that is Muslim, once to warn against reprisals against Muslims, and another to note there have been attacks against Muslims by Buddhist groups. Not once was it even speculated the attacks were carried out by Muslims.

The leftist narrative must be maintained and CNN will not break their allegiances. This was just some people that did something. It may look like an apple, but CNN will scream “banana, banana, banana” for as long as they can.

Update: CNN still hasn’t acknowledge the possibility it was Islamic terrorism after 67 updates over the last 24 hours.

Original Story:

The dramatic shift in how mainstream media characterizes terrorist attacks over the years reached what I hope is the pinnacle of their obfuscation today. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka against Christian churches and areas where Christians were likely to gather were committed on Easter Sunday by Muslims in a city known for radicalization. This was a clear and unambiguous attack by radical Islamic terrorists specifically targeting Christians.

But you’ll have a hard time coming to that conclusion if all you’re reading or watching is leftist mainstream media.

The reporting today has been in stark contrast to the immediate labeling and narrative-building surrounding the terrorist attacks in New Zealand mosques last month. There was zero doubt based on media reporting that the attacks were targeting Muslims. But today, it’s hard to even find the word “Christian” in any of the posts or news reports. On top of that, there’s a stark difference when reading the Tweets of condolences from leftists who refuse to acknowledge this as an attack against Christianity despite the immediate and crystal clear labeling of the New Zealand mosque incidents as attacks targeting Muslims.

Some of this was noted by Brittany Pettibone:

What the heck is an Easter worshipper?

The term that these people are going to such painfully ludicrous lengths to avoid using is “Christian”. pic.twitter.com/9pXXB9kXye

— Brittany Pettibone (@BrittPettibone) April 21, 2019

OAN’s Jack Posobiec added that a new phrase has been coined by the media regarding the Notre-Dame fire:

Notice AP had same set phrase for Notre Dame “tourists and Easter worshippers” pic.twitter.com/iPciSsXq0O

— Jack Posobiec ✝️ (@JackPosobiec) April 21, 2019

Was this the same response they were giving following the Christchurch attacks? No. As Imam Mohamad Tawhidi noted, the differences were very clear.

Spot the difference (Part 2). pic.twitter.com/NiFvGREgtL

— Imam Mohamad Tawhidi (@Imamofpeace) April 22, 2019

Why do the media and leftist politicians do this? Why are they quick to label attacks against any other religious group exactly as they appear, but they’re so unwilling to call out any attacks against Christians as attacks against Christians?

This is the time we’re in, folks. The left has a narrative they want jammed into our heads and that narrative has no room for acknowledging violence and persecution is committed against Christians. The only stories that fit their narratives are stories that can blame Christians for wrongdoing. In those cases, the perpetrators’ status as Christians is broadcast loud and clear. But if Christians are victims, the left will go to extreme lengths to negate that fact from the record.

Of all the major news outlets, I was only able to find one that didn’t shy away from the truth. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board stands alone in declaring the intended victims of this attack as who they are and why they were targeted.

The intentional suppression of what happened, who committed it, and who was targeted is beyond insulting. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka are being framed by the media as some people did something.

Following the terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, the government blocked access to social media sites from within the nation. This was done to stop the spread of “fake news’ both to the people of Sri Lanka as well as to outsiders from within the country.

Is this really the right approach? The socialist nation is known for holding a tight rein over information in and out. At times like these, is stifling one of the best forms of communication to keep the people and world apprised of the developing situation one that helps or hurts?

The answer should be obvious, but unfortunately trends in technological policing have leaned away from the proper answer. Communication and sharing of information are integral to keeping situations properly handled. When the flow of information is suppressed, the negative effects greatly outweigh any perceived benefits of fighting “fake news.”

One of the reasons false reports get wings following media or social media blackouts is because the worst elements are able to go unchecked. At some point the governments of the world, even the socialist ones, should give the people more credit than to think any information that is false will instantly be believed indefinitely. We’ve learned plenty over the years about the ways of the internet and the spread of fake news. We don’t need to be protected.

The reality is this: when socialist governments (or any governments for that matter) block the media in any way, it isn’t for the protection of the people. It’s for control of the narrative. Sri Lanka is no exception.