Athgarvan Musings

While that's factually correct, it's correct in exactly the same way that putting a ban on people from Vatican City could be argued as having nothing whatsoever to do with Catholics.

I'm referring to the way the media in general colours the news.

as the other reply indicates "who else?"
there are words that have no other meaning

(including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own)

these words are code for Muslim

just as words saying "those who believe in transubstantiation and they primacy of the pope" would be code for Catholic

the NY Times gave a complete report
a headline function is to give the gist of the story

very interesting interpretations.

Are the media providing 'facts' or 'fake facts'?

personally, I'll take the New York Times over anything said by the Trump administration.

who do you trust??
i trust the NY Times
i've seen their reporters interviewed - i've seen the reporters credentials
there are Fox News watchers for whom the NY Times is anathema
who do you trust?
a tv personality or a reporter out there getting facts?

The really odd thing is that none of them are countries from whence have come a single terrorist who has killed anyone on American soil.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, whose citizens carried out the 11th September attacks, but he hasn't banned them.

So what is the logic behind this move?