News bias fuels anti-muslim bigotry

[Alonzo]

This is a perfect example: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html

The title on cnn's front page is: "Radical Muslim: We drink our enemies' blood"

The title above the article itself is: "Radicals vs. moderates: British Muslims at crossroads"

Now, just as with any article, there are always two ways to read them. One is to take a checklist and look through it and mark off points they made. For example, in this article they point out that such extremists are a tiny minority, that islamic experts don't agree, that the man who said that was verbally opposed by many in the crowd.

Then there is the more realistic way of looking at is, as an average reader. You don't take a checklist to news articles, you simply read them straight through. When done this way news articles often fail miserably, this being a perfect example.

Muslims at a crossroads? Sounds like you have two relatively equally powerful camps.

Muslim man claims they drink their enemies blood? One guy says that, claims to speak for all muslims, gets denounced by many in attendance, and that becomes the headline? That becomes what everyone sees, regardless of whether they actually click the link, and that violent image is what many come away with.

There are few better examples of the problem than this article. It makes the right points, but gives a grossly disproportionate voice the the tiny minority, places them front and center, and relegates anything opposing it as an afterthought, just something to be checked off to say "See, we pointed out that not all muslims are like that". The extremists get all the publicity, and everyone else is sidelined.

[Labrocca]

Qadir is trying to get mosque leaders, many still practicing the tribal traditions of Pakistan, to communicate with the younger generation. But he says it is an uphill battle when radicals like Choudary dominate the debate, getting their faces -- and their message -- out in the public.

That's why. Sure it's a headline but that's the problem..in a Mosque and in the Muslim streets it's the radicals that are speaking the loudest. The war is coming and if you don't see it you are blind. When an earthquake is in the Ocean it creates a Tsunami that no one sees for possibly days. The earthquake is happening and soon a Tsunami of muslim anger and violence will hit us. Those prepared will survive. America MUST prepare.

[Alonzo]

Umm....... nowhere in that quote does it say anything about them being loudest in the mosque. The article points out that the experts and leaders aren't typically the ones doing this. The part you pointed out is pointing out that they aren't familiar with western society, they can't communicate with the youth and don't seem to understand the importance. They're running the mosque the way they did in pakistan.

And, they speak so loud because we practically hand them a mike whenever they want one. You get no publicity as a muslim if you're not a radical.

Here's a video of the blood drinking comment: http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/bestoftv/2007/01/17/the.war.within.the.debate.cnn

The guy is laughed at when he says it.

As for a war against islam, that's not happening unless nutcases take over the u.s. and start nuking people, or invading multiple middle eastern countries.

[Labrocca]

"loudly dominated the public debate" is the EXACT quote from the reporter in that clip. It's a good clip though.

If you think that inside the Mosque the radicals aren't even louder you are deaf. This is the battle for moderate muslims. They are not being as vocal as the radicals.

[Alonzo]

If they are allowed a role in the mosque. Radicals like that typically aren't. They're loud in their mosques only if their mosque is friendly to that, which is rare. Look at past suicide bombers in the west, their beliefs were typically unknown to mosque members, especially the degree.

Walk into your local mosque, you're unlikely to find anything remotely close to what radicals like that are saying.

[Pookie]

Perhaps it is our choice to see and support either the radicals or the moderates. I think here, in this case, it may be wiser to listen to the moderates, although the radicals perhaps may be louder. Just like Christianity, the people who attacked abortion clinics and injured or killed nurses and doctors made a huge loud noise, but those who are pro-life without resorting to those tactics are the ones we are listening to.
Hugs,
Pook

[slappy]

If the Muslim communities in each city could get together and form a more coherent whole, they'd have a start on a solution to these radical imams and troublemakers.

The irony of the so-called "crossroads" is that Islam is actually too democratic, in one very real way: Any nut can set up a religious centre in a plaza storefront and call himself a cleric. For the most part, Islam lacks great, unifying bodies to which large populations look for authoritative readings of the Qur'an. There is no Islamic version of the Roman Catholic church, certainly no Islamic version of Martin Luther and no large organization speaking authoritatively on his behalf. Instead, each immigrant community brings its own brand of Islam to its own little corner of London or New York or Toronto or wherever. The children in these communities usually attend mosque with their parents, but they see their religion depicted in many ways by many people.

The media gets the same mixed messages. I agree with Alonzo that there is a desire to sensationalize the frothing radicals, but surely a more organized moderate Muslim community could go great lengths toward marginalizing these nuts. Why are the fringe wackos allowed to speak in front of these community leaders at all? Why aren't the mainstream moderates releasing regular, unequivocal condemnation of anyone who would twist their religion into an excuse to blow up subway trains? My answer is that they lack the coherence as a moderate movement. Such a movement could start at the local (municipal) level, if they had the will to do it. So far, in my city at least, I see very little indication that the will exists. And that worries me.

[BoogyMan]

This is a perfect example: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html

The title on cnn's front page is: "Radical Muslim: We drink our enemies' blood"

This is appropriately attributed to radicalism.

The title above the article itself is: "Radicals vs. moderates: British Muslims at crossroads"

Now, just as with any article, there are always two ways to read them. One is to take a checklist and look through it and mark off points they made. For example, in this article they point out that such extremists are a tiny minority, that islamic experts don't agree, that the man who said that was verbally opposed by many in the crowd.

Your commentary in this regard seems reasonable Alonzo.

Then there is the more realistic way of looking at is, as an average reader. You don't take a checklist to news articles, you simply read them straight through. When done this way news articles often fail miserably, this being a perfect example.

You have now jumped from reason to unfounded conjecture. I consider myself to be the "average reader" and I see this as an article that points out the nuts who are out there and that there are those who oppose them. Pure and simple.

Muslims at a crossroads? Sounds like you have two relatively equally powerful camps.

No, it sounds like there are muslims grappling with a radical faction that must be dealt with if there is ever to be peace.

Muslim man claims they drink their enemies blood? One guy says that, claims to speak for all muslims, gets denounced by many in attendance, and that becomes the headline? That becomes what everyone sees, regardless of whether they actually click the link, and that violent image is what many come away with.

Those who read will see that it is one man. You are making a mountain from a mole hill here.

Rather than trying to demand an obfuscation of the danger of the radical muslim faction why not denounce it and demand its excision?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I don't need new fuel for my bias towards Islam, it's fueled past full on my gage, and has been every sense and before really, than 911.
2. I have been able to see Islam for what it is sense around the year 1990.
3. I see no way out of dealing with Islam other than banning the religion, and putting to death any and all that claim to be a Muslim.
4. As the saying goes, * Kill em all and let Gawd sort em out *.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

3. I see no way out of dealing with Islam other than banning the religion, and putting to death any and all that claim to be a Muslim.


What do you think guys, does Chess represent Christianity or what? I will take the silence as a general agreement of the Christians of this board with Chess. :D

[Alonzo]

Don't know el, but I think we should spend our time denouncing him, instead of denouncing those who argue that he's representative of christianity. That way, we'll be extra sure to make his message heard throughout the world. And we'll be certain that his views represent 80% of what the media hears about christianity.

This is appropriately attributed to radicalism

But is it newsworthy? Especially considering when the guy got laughed at for saying it?

[BoogyMan]

Don't know el, but I think we should spend our time denouncing him, instead of denouncing those who argue that he's representative of christianity. That way, we'll be extra sure to make his message heard throughout the world. And we'll be certain that his views represent 80% of what the media hears about christianity.

This is appropriately attributed to radicalism

But is it newsworthy? Especially considering when the guy got laughed at for saying it?


Of course it is newsworthy, it shows how some of the radical islamists think and what they are capable of.

[Alonzo]

So whenever a christian advocates killing muslims or putting them in camps, or a pro life person advocates bombing clinics or killing doctors, or an animal rights activist advocates bombing and destroying labs and businesses, or when white groups advocate race war and killing blacks (like in the previous thread I posted, which was not in any mainstream news source), they should all get on the front page as well?

But the same force is at work here as when a person states "My car got hit" And "My car got smashed". People will walk away with a different impression of what they were told, even though they were told the same thing.

[BoogyMan]

So whenever a christian advocates killing muslims or putting them in camps, or a pro life person advocates bombing clinics or killing doctors, or an animal rights activist advocates bombing and destroying labs and businesses, or when white groups advocate race war and killing blacks (like in the previous thread I posted, which was not in any mainstream news source), they should all get on the front page as well?

Zo, you and I have had this discussion before. If a christian, atheist, muslim, or any other person advocates such practices, you know that I am for exposing it and dealing with it under the law.

You seem however to expect us to ignore such incidents. I will not do that either.

But the same force is at work here as when a person states "My car got hit" And "My car got smashed". People will walk away with a different impression of what they were told, even though they were told the same thing.

There is nothing you can do about this kind of scenario Zo.

[Alonzo]

Yes there is. That's the whole point of this topic. The way the media phrases, and the way the articles are arranged, is the problem. What parts of the article recieve emphasis is the problem. The section of counter opinions is usually in the background and typically short, particularly when it comes to articles on muslims.

Zo, you and I have had this discussion before. If a christian, atheist, muslim, or any other person advocates such practices, you know that I am for exposing it and dealing with it under the law.

You seem however to expect us to ignore such incidents. I will not do that either.


But such incidents are ignored, unless of course they're an evil muslim.

[slappy]

I think it's very newsworthy when nuts like Brooks and Choudary demand the attention of Muslim youth in the same community that produced the 7/7 bombers and the 7/21 conspirators and the transatlantic airline plotters and Richard Reid. Why they're allowed to walk around free men is beyond my comprehension, and UK taxpayers ought to demand action of their police and justice officials. Any anti-west jihadis born in Britain should be locked up for good, and those born elsewhere should be deported.

[BoogyMan]

Yes there is. That's the whole point of this topic. The way the media phrases, and the way the articles are arranged, is the problem. What parts of the article recieve emphasis is the problem. The section of counter opinions is usually in the background and typically short, particularly when it comes to articles on muslims.


I don't know that I have seen any articles which blatantly attack the whole of islam when dealing with these topics.

Every article I have read uses modifiers such as "radical" to focus the commentary.

[Alonzo]

Well I didn't say articles blatantly did it (though there are opinion articles in mainstream papers, or conservatives news sites, that do that).

In my initial post I made the point that, if it was a checklist, all the points are there. The issues is how its put together.

[Anti-Racism]

This is a perfect example: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html

The title on cnn's front page is: "Radical Muslim: We drink our enemies' blood"


I totally agree. This isn't the only incident, either. The news tends to distort statements from Islamic leaders like Adhmadinjead and others to make them seem more radical, just like they distorted what European leaders said in the last century. It's like war is gonna be profitable so everyone in business is behind it, including the media.