TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!

Josh Marshall posts an email from an American visiting overseas. The e-mailer comments on the difference in press coverage from CNN and BBC. CNN is treating the terrorists attacks as proof that the end is near, while the BBC is keeping their wits about them:

I am in the last day of business meetings in Bangkok, and have been watching the media response with great interest. My hotel TV offers both CNN and BBC news coverage, and the difference between them is remarkable. When the Glasgow attack became known, CNN offered non-stop coverage which preempted all normal programming. The attackers were defined in no uncertain terms as Al-Quaeda members, despite any conclusive evidence of same.

In stark contrast, BBC offered quite detailed coverage of the attack, but continued with normal programming covering weather, sports, international affairs, etc. BBC was quite careful not to ascribe any specific Al-Quaeda membership, and seemed to be more comfortable describing the attackers as "influenced by other Al-Quaeda types". CNN created the image of a major world crisis, while BBC presented an isolated but obviously troubling event.

What is the coverage like in Norway, Pork Rinds?