Regarding the story of the three hikers who crossed the border from Iraq into Iran:
Note the headline: "Captured." As well as the word "hostage" in the third paragraph.
I presume the hikers are innocent of any deliberate wrongdoing and I hope they aren't held very long, whether as part of some political negotiation or not. But the media's choice of words is interesting. If three Iranians were to have been caught crossing the border in some remote area from Canada into the United States, I think the word used would be "arrested". And people would be freaking out about how they could be - probably are! - terrorists. In either case, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the U.S. or Iran to be thorough in investigating claims that those "captured" were what they said they were.
By using the word "captured" and referencing Mr. Fattal's "redbrick colonial" boyhood home, the Inquirer is trying to heighten the tension and draw a parallel to the embassy hostages - innocent Americans who were kidnapped. Part of this tension is placing pressure on the Obama administration to react as if Mr. Fattal and his friends were hostages, with all the attendant diplomatic and military drama. I guess that sells papers, but it's hardly an evenhanded way of describing the situation.
Comments