"A Tale of Two Media," by Joel Mowbray in FrontPage (thanks to EPG):
To see a classic example of the divergence between “mainstream” and “alternative” media coverage, consider the portrayal of the Saudis this past week.The “respectable” daily newspapers and news wires have reported that the Saudis, though still subject to some criticism, are finally getting serious about fighting terrorism. The blogosphere—the universe of “blogs,” short for web logs—and talk radio, however, have been buzzing over the murder of a family of Egyptian Christian immigrants in Jersey City and the report on Saudi-funded jihadist propaganda found in American mosques that might help provide some context for that horrible crime.
What most Americans will never know is that last week human rights group Freedom House put out a first-of-its-kind report documenting, in excruciating detail, the poisonous venom found in Saudi-created and funded “religious” materials available at prominent mosques across the United States.
A Lexis-Nexis uncovered just five—count ‘em, five—news stories in “mainstream” outlets on the Freedom House report. But the number is actually worse than it looks.
Four of the five are not traditionally part of the “mainstream” mafia: the Washington Times, the NY Sun (a new conservative paper), the Dallas Morning News (also right-of-center), and the Wall Street Journal (in its “B” section). Somewhat surprisingly, the fifth outlet covering the Freedom House report was the Washington Post....
The former imam at the El-Tawheed Islamic Center in Jersey City, Alaa Al-Sadawi, was convicted in 2003 of attempting to smuggle more than $650,000 to the terrorist organization Global Relief Fund in Egypt.
One of Al-Sadawi’s former spiritual followers murdered in the name of Allah. Alim Hassan, then 31, killed his pregnant wife, her mother, and her sister on July 30, 2002. He reportedly stabbed the women more than 20 times each because they refused to convert to Islam. According to reports, Hassan prayed regularly at El-Tawheed.
Radical Islamists may or may not be behind the recent murder of the Armanious family—though the mainstream media’s impulse is to favor the latter scenario—but what is clear is that it would not be surprising, both in light of what’s happened in Jersey City and nationally, as shown by Freedom House.
Just don’t expect the mainstream media to make that connection.
Alim Hassan, then 31, killed his pregnant wife, her mother, and her sister on July 30, 2002.
Maybe some of the "Islamophobe!!" criers can point out a case where a non-Muslim did this.
A sad ending to this story: when Hassan gets to prison, he'll be treated like a prince by his fellow mohamedans.
Am I an Islamophobe? You're damn right I am. But at least I'm not an Islamofascist.
As long as Keith brought it up, this is as good a place as any to discuss an alternative to the "islamophobia" designation. I may post this at JW also, so forgive the repetition.
A few of us at JW/DW have had discussions about how to replace the "islamophobia" term, which is grossly incorrect, as by definition it denotes an IRRATIONAL fear of islam - for those truly afraid, that fear is rational and indeed completely justified, characterized by NORMAL, not abnormal psychology. What we need is a term that denotes utter hatred of and contempt for the "belief system" which is islam, without the connotation of a fear-based approach.
Someone in a post awhile back suggested "islamomisia" based on the Greek "misos", but this is usually applied in English as a prefix (misogyny, for example) and I can't find in my rudimentary searches whether or not this is a correct construct, and how those who would embrace "islamomisia" would be designated.
Any Greek or Latin experts out there that could help with this? Any and all suggestions are welcome - the point is that we need a label that we have assigned ourselves and embraced rather than one derogatorily thrust upon us by the enemy. Letting them define us is unacceptable.
One negative won't properly replace another, I think, but the whole idea is right that we have to take the initiative from the opposition and aggressively pursue our own goals through propaganda. Anti- and Mis- won't do it. I suspect they'll only recast us as negativists. I offered the term "pro-aporia," perhaps obscure, meaning in favor of inconclusion in the search for answers, even simple answers such as, what are the differences between knowingfrom experience and knowing intellectually?. I took the idea from Socratic dialogues, pre-Plato, in which Socrates does not decide this is true or that but that we should continue the discussion. I offered that neutral but positive term because most of us do not have much in common here. We might all agree here that we don't have the ultimate answers to everything, and that it's in the interests of all of us to pursue those questions rather than to demand that others obey our dictates. We might agree to that. Some of us feel that revealed religions reveal the truth according to God; but when we look at different religions we see they disagree among themselves and among their sects. Let us then be, if not reasonable, at least cautious in our judgements. We might find out tomorrow that the family we yesterday, a family who contradicted us, actually had something interesting to say. We might even find that killing itself is a bad idea. We have differnet opinions, but we can agree not to be homocidal in our defense of them. We can disagree and still get along, secular or religious. We here are a plurality. We have in common not-Islam. What else? What are we as a group? Regardless of how we define ourselves, and within this group of writers it must be broadly, we must be positive in our definition of our over-all activities and goals.
We have to get our positive message out to the public, and I can't understand why anyone would rely on the New York Times to express their opinion for them. To rely on the press is to be negative in the sense that we are passive in the face of our own requirements. We rely on others to speak for us, and we complain if and when they don't.
Our oposition, in the meantime, is holding conferences, conventions, cabinet meetings at the State Department, and cuddling with the French government. Our opposition have taken over the Religious Studies dept.s of our colleges and universities, practice dawa in our schools, and have co-opted our religious leaders and institutions. The average man on the street is in danger of imprisonment for speaking out against Islamic fascism, girls are in danger of gang rape, and none of us are happy with the way of our world as it is. I don't blame the Moslems, I envy them their success. And more, I wonder why we in the West can't organize ourselves better than we do.
I have no interest in blaming the Left for our lack of success in propaganizing. Why on Earth wouldn't the Left support its own causes? What kind of sense would it make for the Left to promote things and ideas they are against? Why blame them? If we have an agenda it's up to us to put it into the marketplace of ideas and see if it sells. There is no idea, someone said, that is too stupid not to find a following. If we can't sell our ideas of freedom and liberty, of tolerance and equality among all people, then I don't see how it is we can blame others for our ineptitude. The Moslems and the Left have very little to sell to the Human collective, but they do it very nicely. I'm envious. I want to cut off their heads.
I have argued many times that we are the media. I'll do that again. We are the media. We have access to printers and photocopy machines, we can download leaflets and stickers from co-jet and babypasta. We can talk to our neighbors, we can photocopy jacket covers from Spencer's books and pass them around the office. We can stop complaining about the success our oppenents have and we can make our own. We have all the tools and talent we need to do as good a propaganda job as anyone else. We have more writers here than does the New York Times at its office. Many of ours are better. But we aren't working effectively.
I suggested some time back that we form the Planned Action Co-ordinating Committee, (PACC,) to give us a chance to work together in a unified and coherent fashion. We've done that, to an extent. But not enough of us have stopped complainiong long enough to do some work in conjunction with the rest to make ours a united and effective struggle. That's not a bad thing at all. It's good that we struggle, and in that struggle leave behind those who can't make the effort required. Susan P. is still leafleting the state of Georgia. If we find another 49 people like her we'll have covered the entire United States, and as well as does the New York Times.
We made a plan to produce some leaflets, we acted together in a co-ordinated fashion, and our committee now has some holes in it. Nevertheless, we have a group committed to action and propaganda to counter the relentless efforts of our oppostion. We are that medium. We are the Free World Times.
Who will let out the word to the world about the Aramious family if we don't? Spencer, Hugh, Ali Sina, DC Watson and others risk their lives for this cause daily, and we too can do some small part in this fight for Human liberty and justice. You can do that yourself. Don't waste your time waiting for the collaborationist Coptic heirarchy to come to the aid of the world. Don't rely on the New York Times, the State Department, the French Republic, or Karen Armstrong to promote your opinions. Why would they? If you have an opinion put it out yourself. Sneak some leaflets into public places. Let the world know you're here and fighting back.
For now, if nothing else forget being an Islamophobic kafir. Think of yourself as a PACC propagandist: You have a plan, you act, you are co-ordinated, and you have the backing of the rest of the group. We might not be able to b.s. as well as the Jersey City, New Jersey police dept. but hey, give us some time. Start spreading the news. Make your own difference. Be positive. Plan your action, and co-ordinate with your peers. It can only get better.
What's far worse is the silence of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (forget the American Civil Liberties Union) on the Freedom House report.
Take a look at where these organizations' priorities lie:
HRW
http://www.hrw.org/advocacy/index.htm
AIUSA
http://www.amnestyusa.org/activism/campaigns.html
Fascinating, given that Terrorism is one of the foremost human rights concerns of our day, that neither HRW nor AIUSA have not prioritized this issue whatsoever. On the other hand, AIUSA considers "The War on Terror" an important human rights topic and HRW concerns itself with "Opportunism Watch: Repression in the Name of Anti-Terrorism".
How AIUSA and HRW deliberately choose to ignore the report yet prioritize combatting anti-terrorism initiatives is a damning indictment of where their priorities and agendas lie. It is obvious that the dhimmitude of the media is only exceeded by the "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" attitude of these NGOs that permits the Saudis to perpetrate their violations against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights without even a passing reference. AIUSA and HRW have abjectly failed to defend the human rights of non-Muslims in the United States in this case. Once again, their silence has been deafening.