In his latest column, Nicholas Kristof poses some important questions that undermine the myth of "fair and balanced" journalism. He recounts the story of the photo above, taken by Portland Press Herald photographer Gregory Rec on Friday, September 10, showing local Muslims gathering to pray for Eid al Fitr, marking the end of Ramadan. It appeared on the front page -- the kind of image accompanied by a feel-good story about "faith and forgiveness" (as the headline said), that has provided the traditional, benign, pro-religion front-page news-feature in American papers for decades. No problem there.
The problem was the date of the paper.
The day of this issue's publication, was September 11. And some readers were outraged that these images of American Muslims praying should appear on the anniversary of a deadly attack by radical avowed Muslims nine years earlier. If they'd waited for the next day's (September 12) paper, with coverage of the memorials that took place on September 11, they might have found the balance they were looking for, but on September 11 the paper was bombarded with complaints.
The next day, Richard Connor, the editor and publisher, issued an apology "to those offended":
We made a news decision on Friday that offended many readers and we sincerely apologize for it.
Many saw Saturday's front-page story and photo regarding the local observance of the end of Ramadan as offensive, particularly on the day, Sept. 11, when our nation and the world were paying tribute to those who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks nine years ago.
We have acknowledged that we erred by at least not offering balance to the story and its prominent position on the front page.
What you are reading today was the planned coverage of the 9/11 events. We believed that the day after the anniversary would be the appropriate occasion to provide extensive news coverage of the events and observances conducted locally and elsewhere.
He also quoted one of his personal responses to an offended reader:
"Our editors believed that 3,000 persons marking the passage of a religious observance and congregating in Portland to do so was news. I believe that decision was correct but I also believe we should have handled it in a more sensitive way."
He did not elaborate on what "a more sensitive way" might have been. He didn't have much chance to, because in the deluge that immediately followed his apology he realized he needed to issue another apology to apologize for the first apology. In this one, he said he wished he'd just stuck to this simple statement:
Our coverage of the conclusion of the local Ramadan observance was excellent and we are proud of it. We did not adequately cover 9/11 on the 9/11 anniversary, which also should have been front-page news, in my opinion.
OK, so you see the dilemma. We're back to recognizing the feelings of those who were offended -- just as we were discussing at another post on this very blog September 10. (And, by the way, Hitler adopted a dog he named Fox -- a factual non sequitur that offends my feelings and therefore needs to be balanced by something that's not offensive to me.)
One way or another, the Portland Herald Press will have to figure out how it wants to deal with the sensitivities of offended readers of all stripes. And this is where Nicholas Kristof comes in. After recounting this story in his column ("Message to Muslims: I'm Sorry"), he reports:
I called Mr. Connor, and he seems like a nice guy. Surely his front page isn't reserved for stories about Bad Muslims, with articles about Good Muslims going inside. Must coverage of law-abiding Muslims be "balanced" by a discussion of Muslim terrorists?
Ah, balance -- who can be against that? But should reporting of Pope Benedict's trip to Britain be "balanced" by a discussion of Catholic terrorists in Ireland? And what about journalism itself?
I interrupt this discussion of peaceful journalism in Maine to provide some "balance." Journalists can also be terrorists, murderers and rapists. For example, radio journalists in Rwanda promoted genocide.
Given that there are more than one and a half billion Muslims in the world, and a handful of them were responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001 -- and none of the killers was from Maine, or anywhere in the USA -- you might think that celebrating Islam on the front page every day for the last nine years still wouldn't "balance" what those 19 hijackers (all but four Saudi Arabian) did on that one morning. (And Ramadan, which is held in the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, was in November in 2001 according to the Gregorian calendar, so that wasn't related to the events of 9/11, either.) We could go on and on...
Chances are, any single account that attempts to present itself as "fair and balanced" isn't. Reporting that one spokesperson said "yes," while an opposing spokesperson said "no" constitutes neither fairness nor balance. Even the FCC's much-hated-and-debated Equal Time Rule for broadcast television and radio stations (abolished by Ronald Reagan's 1987 veto) was intended to allow the public access to different points of view over time:
In 1949, the first clear definition of the fairness doctrine emerged. The FCC said, in its Report on Editorializing, "[T]he public interest requires ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views, and the commission believes that the principle applies ... to all discussion of issues of importance to the public." The doctrine had two parts: it required broadcasters (1) to cover vital controversial issues in the community and (2) to provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints. In time, additional rules were added. The so-called personal attack rule required broadcasters to allow opportunity for rebuttal to personal attacks made during the discussion of controversial issues. The "political editorializing" rule held that broadcasters who endorsed a candidate for political office had to give the candidate's opponent a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Some (who shall be nameless) have found this responsibility an infringement on corporate "free speech" rights. As part of Fox News's promotional slogan, the words "Fair and Balanced" have become rather meaningless. But at least the "and" indicates that "fairness" and "balance" are separate and distinct qualities.
So, where does it end? Kristof writes:
Radicals tend to empower radicals, creating a gulf of mutual misunderstanding and anger. Many Americans believe that Osama bin Laden is representative of Muslims, and many Afghans believe that the Rev. [Yosemite Sam] (who talked about burning Korans) is representative of Christians.
Many Americans honestly believe that Muslims are prone to violence, but humans are too complicated and diverse to lump into groups that we form invidious conclusions about. We've mostly learned that about blacks, Jews and other groups that suffered historic discrimination, but it's still O.K. to make sweeping statements about "Muslims" as an undifferentiated mass.
In my travels, I've seen some of the worst of Islam: theocratic mullahs oppressing people in Iran; girls kept out of school in Afghanistan in the name of religion; girls subjected to genital mutilation in Africa in the name of Islam; warlords in Yemen and Sudan who wield AK-47s and claim to be doing God's bidding.
But I've also seen the exact opposite: Muslim aid workers in Afghanistan who risk their lives to educate girls; a Pakistani imam who shelters rape victims; Muslim leaders who campaign against female genital mutilation and note that it is not really an Islamic practice; Pakistani Muslims who stand up for oppressed Christians and Hindus; and above all, the innumerable Muslim aid workers in Congo, Darfur, Bangladesh and so many other parts of the world who are inspired by the Koran to risk their lives to help others. Those Muslims have helped keep me alive, and they set a standard of compassion, peacefulness and altruism that we should all emulate.
I'm sickened when I hear such gentle souls lumped in with Qaeda terrorists, and when I hear the faith they hold sacred excoriated and mocked. To them and to others smeared, I apologize.
34 Comments
With 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, most sane people don't think they are ALL terrorists. In fact, I don;t think people have a problem with Muslims but they do have a problem with radical Muslims. In Sydney yesterday, there was a protest by Muslim women against the recent banning of the burqa in France and they don;t want the same to happen here in Australia. Fair enough. Everyone has the to protest in a free democracy. However, this is what their representative had to say at the rally:
''Despite the intense negative propaganda against Islam and in particular the lies about its treatment of women, the number of Western women embracing Islam continues to rise at a rapid rate. 'By turning their backs on this flawed way of life, it is testament of the superiority of Islamic values over Western values.' Because to use freedom of choice as a justification, then we are also accepting of women who undress out of this same freedom of choice, and we can never do this as Muslim women. We dress like this because it is the command of Allah, not any man.The Western secular way of life, which robs a woman of her dignity, honour and respect, where she is considered little more than a commodity to be bought and sold, or the option of Islam, where a woman's dignity, respect and honour are priceless.''
So she goes on about western society's "flawed way of life" and continues to denigrate western secular way of life. Not surprisingly, people are fed up with this attitude by Muslims which seems to be widespread as we have heard such attitude to the west by Muslims living in western democracies a lot more. We understand not all Muslims have this attitude but when you hear ti so often from them, it makes you wonder how widespread it is.
Yes, it's important to consider that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the man who actually conceived, planned and implemented the attacks of 9/11 (unlike Osama bin Laden, who learned about them only after the fact), was inspired not so much by Islam but by the time he spent in college and university in Murfreesboro, North Carolina. What he experienced was appalling to his sensibilities. He saw the US as a corrupt, racist, materialistic society based primarily on selfish, superficial, individualistic values. This parallels the experiences of Sayyid Qutb, the founder of radical Islamic thought in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, after his time spent in the US in the 1940s, who was also a great influence on bin Laden. They were the "Tea Partiers" of their day, seeking to "restore honor" (as they saw it) to human civilization. Their rhetoric is shockingly similar.
I don't know what will be made of the French decision to ban the burka (if it stands up in court). What if a western government chose to ban the yarmulke? How would people respond to that? It's hard for some people to understand, but in the US we don't even ban the most offensive and hateful garb -- like, say, Ku Klux Klan robes and pointy hats. Does that mean we endorse what the KKK stands for? No, it does not. We allow people to (literally) wrap themselves in material made from US flags, even though such treatment of the flag is not in keeping with federal codes. Sarah Palin can use the flag as a prop and protestors are allowed to burn it -- both in violation of statues regarding the treatment of the flag. Are many humans capable of understanding the distinctions/similarities? Evidently no, they are not.
Being from Australia, I am not too familiar with the exact nature and wishes of the Tea Party but I doubt they will be flying planes into buildings and arranging suicide bombings aimed at mass casualties.
True. As I said, it's their rhetoric and thought processes that are similar. Not necessarily their tactics. Both are radical theological movements, vehemently against secular government. Radical Islamist philosophy was around for half a century before people started flying planes into buildings. We'll see if modern self-proclaimed Tea Partiers have that kind of longevity. (BTW, "taxation without representation" is not where today's Tea Partiers are coming from...)
"Radical Islamist philosophy was around for half a century before people started flying planes into buildings."
Yes, true. However, it was mainly confined to the Middle East. Muslims have been murdering their own people for centuries. The real problems began with the Islamic Revolution in the late 1970s where you will find that thousands of people fled Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan to western countries. They feared what radical Islam would do to their country and their fears were well-founded. It is now when these radical Islamists migrated to the west that we are having assimilation problems. There were no problems with assimilation of Muslims in the west in the 1970s and 1980s when they fled their own countries due to radical Islam. They assimilated quite well and prospered because they did not have radical islamist views. They were Muslim but more moderate. It's the radicals who now live in western countries who are the problem.
I agree with you Jim. Most radical movements start in mere thought process and ideas and then after a passage of time assume a more violent avatar. Hence the only correct way to eradicate this is to oppose the idea at germination rather than dropping bombs at will after the destruction has happened. It is really funny to see the kind of reactions an image of a religious celebration invoke from large sections of people. India (my country) has its share of radical ideologues from different religions, we have borne the brunt of innumerable terrorist attacks but very rarely do we see such an outpouring of hatred among the common people in times of religious celebration.
I think the question relies on the need to eliminate sexism, by stopping the suppression of women's voices. Of course, with this philosophy, a true anti-sexist will work to allow women to be priests, rabbis, and imams. And their right to choose who to appoint will be weighed against the almost timeless history of sexism. We must all examine our own religion and admit where flaws lie.
If the people who voted against the burqa don't do that, then the vote was based less on anti-sexism and more on good old-fashioned xenophobia.
Actually a tea party member, or at least a person who strongly shares their ideology, have already flown planes into buildings with the intent of mass casualties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html
No, you see them park a truck full of explosives in front of a federal building and set it off.
You can easily equate a lot of the anti-government rhetoric coming from tea party activists today with the anti-government rhetoric coming from people who were opposed to government power and actions in the aftermath of Ruby Ridge and Waco.
And then one of them parked a U-Haul full of explosives in front of the Murrah Federal Building in OKC and blew the place up.
But, somehow, even after that, we were able to differentiate the actions of Timothy McVeigh and those who helped him from people who shared his skin color or ethnic background or military background or religion. We don't even lump everyone who hold similar political views in with McVeigh. We are able to separate the terrorist from the larger group he belonged to.
On a similar note, we're able to separate the Catholic Church from the widespread pedophilia committed by leaders of their church. We don't think twice about Catholic Churches being located near public playgrounds, but if we used the same kind of transference we use with Muslims, we'd be outraged that so many pedophiles are able to live and work and build new places of worship in our communities.
We seem to be able to separate the extremist from the larger group when the terrorist or pedophile looks like us, but when the terrorist or pedophile (or illegal immigrant or African-American criminal) doesn't look like us, we lump all of the larger group together with the extremists.
The Tea Party might not arrange suicide bombings, but they are more than happy to promote the use of artillery, cruise missiles, land mines, laser-guided ordnance, and cluster bombs. Precisely why are suicide bombings so much more heinous than any of these? The number of people killed by Americans using such methods over the past decades makes 9/11 look like a drop in the bucket.
There's a reason the rest of the world rolls its eyes at Americans ranting about 9/11: America has exacted a FAR higher price from the rest of the world for 9/11 than it suffered on 9/11. Its reaction to 9/11 was not an eye for an eye; it was the whole neighbourhood for an eye.
None of this diminishes the evil of what was done on 9/11, but I do believe it takes the wind out of the moral righteousness of Americans using 9/11 as a banner. Or at least, it does for those of us who are not American and don't buy into American exceptionalism.
"Being from Australia, I am not too familiar with the exact nature and wishes of the Tea Party but I doubt they will be flying planes into buildings and arranging suicide bombings aimed at mass casualties."
Except none of the Muslims in Australia have flown planes into buildings either. This does not justify anti-Islamic bigotry.
BTW, there are plenty of Christians who consider the Western way of life to be flawed; the Pope for instance. It's unfair to just single out Muslims.
"However, it was mainly confined to the Middle East. Muslims have been murdering their own people for centuries."
I hate to tell you, but murdering one's own people is not specific to Islam. Furthermore, most of the Muslims (and non-Muslims) who have been murdering their own people for centuries have not done so for religious reasons, but generally more mundane reasons such as power.
"It is now when these radical Islamists migrated to the west that we are having assimilation problems."
Nonsence. People always talk about assimilation, but what does that mean? Not wearing the burqa or hijab? Why can't people be more tolerant and accepting of Muslim immigrants (most of whom are not Islamists)?
"There were no problems with assimilation of Muslims in the west in the 1970s and 1980s when they fled their own countries due to radical Islam. They assimilated quite well and prospered because they did not have radical islamist views."
I'm not sure if you've met any recent Muslim refugees/immigrants, but to say that current Muslim refugees/immigrants have radical Islamist views is simply false. If you take Iran for example; most of the Iranians who come to the West come here precisely because they don't have radical Islamist views. That's why they want to leave Iran!
"They were Muslim but more moderate. It's the radicals who now live in western countries who are the problem."
I hate this 'Muslim but more moderate' talk. Part of the reason it annoys me is the use of the term moderate; it implies a diluted form of Islam. I've met quite a few 'moderate Muslims.' They are all fiercely proud of being Muslim, and they are as tolerant and as 'moderate' as Muslim refugees of recent years.
Finally, while there are radicals who are a problem, part of the problem is when people in the host country are intolerant. So don't push the entire problem onto the refugees/immigrants.
There is overwhelming evidence that radical Islam has been on the rise in AUstralia, as it has in other western countries like the UK, France and the USA. Radical Islamist imams have been migrating from overseas and taken over the local mosques spouting their radical jihadist views. A recent example in Sydney was when a local Sydney mosque was taken over by radical imams and thrown out the local imam. More local Muslims who were born here are also taking up radical jihadist views with many dismissing local laws as meaning nothing as they are only answerable to Allah. Groups of Muslim men have already been arrested on both Sydney and Melbourne for allegedly planning terrorist attacks. Now, people are not stupid to think that every Muslim is a terrorist but there is a rise in radical Islamic views including jihadist views, in Australia.
"There is overwhelming evidence that radical Islam has been on the rise in AUstralia, as it has in other western countries like the UK, France and the USA."
Yes, but they are still only a minority. The current immigrants/refugees are not, as you suggested, mainly radical Islamicists.
"Radical Islamist imams have been migrating from overseas and taken over the local mosques spouting their radical jihadist views. A recent example in Sydney was when a local Sydney mosque was taken over by radical imams and thrown out the local imam."
Again, it's the minority. Extremists tend to dominate the airwaves, but we are still talking about a minority.
"More local Muslims who were born here are also taking up radical jihadist views with many dismissing local laws as meaning nothing as they are only answerable to Allah."
That is extremely debatable. When you say 'more', more than what? And what does more mean? 10 as opposed to 5 before?
"Groups of Muslim men have already been arrested on both Sydney and Melbourne for allegedly planning terrorist attacks."
Yes, extremists, but still a minority.
You know, you talk about how radical Islam is on the rise, and how more local Muslims think this, but you provide no statistics.
The words that you use mean nothing. If I said that more people over the age of 10 believe in the tooth fairy than 10 years ago, it's meaningless as only a few people over the age of 10 believe in the tooth fairy.
You want to paint all, or many, of the Muslim refugees/immigrants (and local Muslims) as radical Islamists, but you have no evidence for it.
"Now, people are not stupid to think that every Muslim is a terrorist but there is a rise in radical Islamic views including jihadist views, in Australia."
Yet another example of using a word like rise and not presenting any evidence. BTW, the overwhelming of Muslims are not terrorists.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that you have to treat this like a uni paper, however using words like 'more' and 'rise' don't really much if we don't know what they were a rise from and to and how more people have these views etc...
An anti-government Tea Part type has ALREADY flown a plane into a building--a federal building with the intent of killing the workers there. It happened in my home town of Austin Texas in February 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html
Those carrying signs proclaiming "If ballots don't work, we'll use bullets" don't believe in democracy. They're thugs, bullies, and terrorists.
I very much hope the French decision to ban the burka does not stand up.
Can I just say that I have been loving these recent blogs in sensitivity and the role of the media? Brilliant!
"When you hear it so often from them." You do not hear it so often from "them." You hear what's presented by this "fair and balanced" U.S. media. Maybe spend your life in a Muslim country to hear what one really hears so often. I suspect the two hearings won't match.
Very thoughtful, Jim, but as my posts don't seem to go through here, just testing.
It is plain that Fox News does not hold a monopoly on unfair and unbalanced.
The left has once again utilized the predictable tactic of shutting down the discussion via equating the criticism of an ideology with racially motivated hatred. Even if the vast majority of Muslims were born into their faith, it is still a system of beliefs that must be consciously embraced at some point, not an inborn physiological trait.
The backlash that Muslims face today is not without a rational cause, namely the inherent problem within the faith itself that effectively forbids any meaningful dissection or argumentative debate of the Koran text, demanding instead that it be regarded without question as the infallible word of God.
That has not prevented a slew of "interpretations" from taking root, some openly hostile to each other.
Religion contains within it an inherent propensity for violence in that it rejects rationality in favor of revelation. When reason ceases to be the foundation of human interaction, violence is inevitable. Islam is particularly stunted in this regard as mentioned above, which is why it is all the more vital for ALL Muslims to face the fact that an ideological reformation is essential if the Islamic world and the west are to achieve any equilibrium.
P.S. I may be wrong, Jim, but you seem to insinuate that the fairness doctrine is a valid piece of legislation insofar as the rights being violated are those of "corporate" entities. Given your stated commitment to rational thought, I hope I misunderstood.
The steadfast demand within the Baptist church that the text of the Bible be accepted without question as the inviolate, infallible word of God hasn't caused much of a public backlash against them.
Ugh, this is my local paper so I was aware of this story before it went national and I immediately thought of some of your recent blog entries, Jim.
The fact of the matter is that it's just really not a good paper anymore (I stopped reading entirely when they referred to tea party protesters as "Patriots" in the front page headline back in April). Readership and advertising is in massive decline and you can practically hear the death rattle coming from the building when you walk by. So I think this has become a big story on sensitivity when the real story is that it's just a sad paper with a subpar editorial staff that is flatly terrified of losing its last little bit of readership (likely older, conservative people at this point).
Plus, they don't use local film critics and I have a policy never to trust a local newspaper that doesn't use local film critics!
This is a good point. A lot of local newspapers are suffering readership declines, and what readership remains tends to be a fairly narrow demographic: white older folks. As a result, these papers must take special care to keep that demographic happy, and to coddle their prejudices if that's what it takes.
I discovered years ago that being offended is a complete waste of time and energy. There's much more value in exploring the people, cultures, ideas, opinions, or whatever else that we don't understand or agree with than there is in having a knee-jerk reaction that ends with being "offended" (which I see as a state of mind that allows for no possibility of personal advancement). Of course I'm a white, American male who comes from a middle-class home; I'm acutely aware of the fact that I haven't been presented with a whole lot to be offended about.
The phrase "fair and balanced" presumes that it is fair to be belanced.
Sometimes, a fair treatment of two opposing arguments leads to the inescapable conclusion that one of them is much stronger than the other. This is the case with (for example) evolution versus creationism.
Unfortunately, a "fair and balanced" approach would inherently presume that both sides have equal merit: it is a metastasis of Aristotle's Golden Mean principle, which was intended to describe character traits but which is currently (and sadly) popular as a method for evaluating the validity of arguments.
Just look at the derisive connotations associated with the word "extremist": a practice we have learned from discussing religion, where extremists tend to be dangerous, but which has now metastasized into a ridiculous belief that it's always unreasonable to say that one side of ANY argument is wrong or right. I've been personally accused of "extremism" for declaring unequivocally that the scientific method is a better knowledge-gathering method than "personal revelation".
Again, a key point that cannot be emphasized enough:
If seeing pictures of praying Muslims on the front page of a paper dated 9/11 "offends" you because you conflate Al-Qaeda with mainstream (or any other kind of) Islam, YOU ARE TOO IGNORANT OF ISLAM TO BE TALKING ABOUT IT.
I just don't understand why there are so many apologists for Islam. With regards to Catholicism, my own religion, I have read countless negative, skewed, and absurd articles in mainstream media in the past year. The same publications are the first to provide an apologia for Islam.
If the mainstream media is to be believed, then one could assume that the Catholic faith is a terrible, Nazi-like regime ruled by Pope Benedict "Palpatine" XVI, and it poses a serious risk to all modernity. But Islam? It is the most compassionate and peace-loving religion in the world.
Get real.
Yes, that's what one would think ... if he grossly exaggerated what's going on. In reality, most of the "apologists" are merely saying that you can't treat all Muslims as if they are members of Al-Qaeda, which is hardly the same thing as saying that Islam is the best religion in the world. Similarly, most of the people attacking the Catholic Church are attacking the church hierarchy, not the faith itself.
It seems to me that you are merely being hypersensitive. When someone attacks the Catholic Church for covering up child abuse, you think it is an attack on you. When someone defends Muslims from the ridiculous charge that they are all closet Al-Qaeda members, you think it is praise of Islam as a superior faith.
Please read things for what they actually are.
Spot on, Patrick. I'm an atheist but even blind Freddy can see that whenever you say anything even slightly critical of Islam, people jump up and down. However, the same people are the first ones to criticise Catholicism and pedophile priests etc. Even if a small percentage of Muslims believe in a jihad against the west and are willing to kill for their beliefs, that still makes millions of people. There have been 35,000 violent attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Even if their view of Islam is skewed, they have to get it from somewhere because they all quote the Koran and their worship of Allah.
Just take a look at the feminists who go crazy at the treatment and depiction of women in western society but their silence is deafening about the way women are treated in Islamic nations in regards to stoning women to death for adultery and honor killings. Germain Greer was asked this same question and all she said was "well, that's their culture." WTF!
"I'm an atheist but even blind Freddy can see that whenever you say anything even slightly critical of Islam, people jump up and down."
Nonsence. People always say that, but I think the reason people jump up and down is when people villify Islam. There is a difference. Criticise religion, if you want, but people generally don't like racial/religious hatred.
There is a reason why Freddy is blind.
"However, the same people are the first ones to criticise Catholicism and pedophile priests etc."
Actually people generally criticise the Catholic Church. Also it's mostly Catholics (and Christians) who do much of the criticism. You won't find too many Jews, for example criticising the Catholic Church, except in regards to its anti-semitism. Similarly, none of the articles that I've read which have attacked the Pope were written by Muslims. Geoffrey Robertson, for example, is not a Muslim.
BTW, I have noticed that many non-Christians do attack Catholism; athiests.
"Even if a small percentage of Muslims believe in a jihad against the west and are willing to kill for their beliefs, that still makes millions of people."
Not true. There may very well be millions (I doubt it) of people who believe in a jihad against the west but, only a minure proportion would actually committ any crime. Look at the insurgents in Iraq; we are talking about miniscule numbers. So, no, I don't think we are talking about millions of people.
"There have been 35,000 violent attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam."
Most of the attacks launched have been done so for political, rather than religious, reasons.
BTW, where did you get this 'statistic'?
"Even if their view of Islam is skewed, they have to get it from somewhere because they all quote the Koran and their worship of Allah."
Nobody has said that religious extremism is not a problem, however too many people (such as yourself it seems), fail to see that the problem is with extremism, not Islam.
"Just take a look at the feminists who go crazy at the treatment and depiction of women in western society but their silence is deafening about the way women are treated in Islamic nations in regards to stoning women to death for adultery and honor killings."
The way they are treated is often horrible, but it is to do with culture, not Islam. You may dislike Islam (your right), but at least get your facts straight.
"Germain Greer was asked this same question and all she said was "well, that's their culture." WTF!"
You expect Greer to provide common sense?
Anyway, she is right, but not in the way she probably means. Women in these societies must absolutely be given support from elsewhere; the problem is that too many western feminists 1)think that these women should move away from Islam when it is the last thing they want, and 2)lack an understanding of these women's needs and wants, as well as their culture, and are only interested if these women make choices which appeals to western feminists.
Once again, it doesn't matter the religion, whether forcing women not to go outside, forbidding them from positions of power because the Bible,Qur'an,Torah says so. Unfortunately, the fight against sexism in religion seems derailed by motivations of xenophobia.
There is an extremely high probability all of our religion's (even atheism) has tenets that are shameful. Thus, we should admit our faults before trying to fix others.
Atheism doesn't have any "tenets" other than not believing in gods. Atheism doesn't tell you how to live, what to wear, what to eat, who to have sex with, where to live, how to live, etc. It has NOTHING to say on the subject, because it is only a single concept: that there is no reason to believe in gods. Asking for an "atheist" position on morality is like asking for a "mathematics" position on morality; it's simply irrelevant. That doesn't mean atheists have no morality; it just means that their morality is not defined by their atheism, just as a mathematician's morality is not defined by mathematics.
You are right for most atheists. Unfortunately, as Jim points out, people like Maher trumpet their lack of belief as the "right" answer and openly mock those who believe. I am positive that is not the case here. Atheism, like other religions, can be a problem when they allow someone to justify their id. All good belief systems (atheism is no exception) should be based on how to improve oneself.
Of course we should all aspire, no matter which religion, to the 'belief' of humanism
"I just don't understand why there are so many apologists for Islam."
So if someone supports or defends Islam, they are apologists? No, they simply have a different opinion to you. I have a theory that anyone who uses the term apologist don't deserve to be taken seriously. The reason being, that apologist is simply an absurd debate stopper used to describe anyone defending/glorifying/supporting something you don't like.
"With regards to Catholicism, my own religion, I have read countless negative, skewed, and absurd articles in mainstream media in the past year."
Most of the people criticising or attacking Catholicism (or more specifically the Catholic Church) are Catholics. Very few are Muslims or non-Catholics; and when non-Catholics do criticise the Catholic Church, it is because of the Church's attitude and treatment towards non-Catholics. For example, when Jews criticise the Catholic Church, we do so because of its anti-semitism.
"The same publications are the first to provide an apologia for Islam."
'Apologia'. Uh, nobody is 'apologising' for Islam (what an absurd term). We simply don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists.
"If the mainstream media is to be believed, then one could assume that the Catholic faith is a terrible, Nazi-like regime ruled by Pope Benedict "Palpatine" XVI, and it poses a serious risk to all modernity."
The mainstream media treats Islam much worst than it does Catholism. To suggest that the media demonises Catholism but glorifies Islam is ridiculous. You would be horrified if the things that have been said about Islam, have been said about Catholism.
Furthermore, as I noted above, most of the people who criticise Catholism (or more specifically the Catholic Church) are Catholics. I don't recall having read an article by a Muslim attacking the Catholic Church, but I have read numerous articles by non-Muslims attacking Islam.
You can't compare the media treatment of Catholism to the media treatment of Islam. The latter is vastly worst.
"But Islam? It is the most compassionate and peace-loving religion in the world."
Well, many believe that it is. Others believe that Judaism is; others believe that Christianity or Hindusim is. It's subjective.
You obviously believe that Catholism is the 'most compassionate and peace-loving religion in the world.' Well, that is your opinion; others are entitled to disagree. That does not make them 'apologists.'
"Get real."
Why don't you?
Nobody's observed that this problem is a little too complex to cure with indiscriminate technological manslaughter.
Considering the nationwide anti-muslim campaign preceding the rapes of Afghanistan, then Iraq (complete with Artificial President Unit disavowing through lip-service the government-assigned programs that infested internet & media alike), I'd say the program's on again, and rather than sticking one's head up a culture and religious tradition he doesn't know a god damned thing about, pull it out and keep an eye on other news that seems to be preparing you easily-agitated unwashed for a big uninvited f u c k i n g of Iran.
And I wouldn't believe a word the son of a CIA agent writes, but would question how he does seem to get ear-distance from supposed inner circle discussions. That's Bob Woodward. He's just presented us an oh-so-anti-war President with a ribbon on it. How he would regret having to kill another million people.
But what the hell, they're just Muslims. You know how evil they are. It said so in the news.
And as to the bigotry? You can keep your conscience smug pretending "Tea Partiers" did it.
Jim,
You know what I'd like to see? From you, I mean. I'd like to see a short series of posts analyzing political TV ads as short movies. Maybe you'd do it in two years, but maybe even better would be sometime before the next election cycle. I'm not interested in discussion of the truth value of the claims in the ads, or in the merits of any policy positions the ads espouse. (No doubt there'd be plenty of that sort of thing in the comments.) I'd just like to see 5 to 10 ads deconstructed in terms of how they use the tools of film-making to get done (or fail to do) what they want to do.
You're pretty good at making that sort of thing accessible for film and TV shows. Have you done something like that in the past?
-Shannon
Leave a comment