Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.
Even though Reuters seems to be using the term "protest" in captions [like this one], I'm still pretty sure that what we're looking at would more formally be described as a "riot."
Indian policemen clash with Kashmiri [Ed.:—Muslim, in this case.] protesters during a protest in Srinagar August 7, 2008. The Indian army is deploying around 10,000 extra soldiers in Kashmir to quell weeks of protests over land for a Hindu shrine that had sparked some of the state's worst religious riots in two decades. REUTERS/Danish Ismail (INDIAN-ADMINISTERED KASHMIR)
There's still quite a bit of that old-fashioned "civil unrest"
going on. And, as far as I've always known, it continues to be the duty
of the government to quell such unrest.
So why is it that we're trying to downplay the actions of the rioters, thus undermining the Indian government's duty to end the violence?
Could it be that Reuters is so in love with the mythology
of protesting for "social justice" that it can't recognize a genuine
riot when it sees one?
Or does it think that newsreaders around the world won't know the difference?
Tags: danish ismail