This is how the Leftist media tries to hijack the narrative and fool people into ignorance and complacency about the jihad threat. “The possibility of radical Islamist threats against American outlets has received wide attention; there are media stories, solidarity rallies, and meetings of government officials….Meanwhile, the demonstrable and ongoing threats from anti-Muslim extremists — a well-known phenomenon among American journalists who write about Islamophobia or are themselves Muslim — has received next to no attention.”
Well, let’s see. Islamic jihadis just murdered twelve people who published Muhammad cartoons. Other Islamic jihadists have attempted to murder and plotted to murder other people who drew cartoons of Muhammad. I myself just got another death threat the other day for publishing the Muhammad cartoons here. Meanwhile, how many American journalists who write about Islamophobia as if it were a genuine phenomenon have been murdered? None. Physically attacked? None.
Even the death threats in this Vox piece are not unambiguous — the worst of them read more like the writers are wishing death on the “journalists” rather than threatening to bring it to them. Note how Fisher and Taub try to obscure this point by alluding to some emails that “directly threaten violence themselves,” but don’t actually quote those. If they really had had direct death threats, they would have quoted them.
So what is Vox trying to do here? Obscure the reality of the jihad threat, as the mainstream media always does.
“Vox got no threats for posting Charlie Hebdo cartoons, dozens for covering Islamophobia,” by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub, Vox, January 14, 2015:
We were glad that Vox decided to publish the cartoons of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Though their portrayal of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed has offended many Muslims, they are an important part of the story and readers have a right to see them. We were also glad that we covered the cartoons critically as well as sympathetically, praising them on the grounds of free speech and satire.
The decision of American media organizations to publish or not publish the cartoons has typically been framed of one of bravery or cowardice, based on the assumption that publishing invites physical risk from some number of the 2.6 million Muslim-Americans who will take offense and perhaps action.was praised on MSNBC for its bravery, even though this purported risk did not actually enter into our calculus, and other outlets have presented their decision to publish as a way to defy the Islamist radicals who threaten free speech.
Writers at Vox have indeed been bombarded with threats for our Charlie Hebdo coverage. But not one of those threats has come from a Muslim or in response to publishing anti-Islam cartoons. Revealingly, they have rather all come from non-Muslims furious at our articles criticizing Islamophobia.
The threats that we did and did not receive
Though we do enjoy a readership among Muslims inside and outside of the United States, some of whom have not hesitated to express displeasure or worse at our coverage of stories such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, none has seen the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as worth sending an angry email or even an annoyed tweet, much less a threat of violence.
The most common states a desire that jihadist militants will murder the offending writer: a recent email hoped that Muslims will “behead you one day” so that “we will never have to read your trash again.” Some directly threaten violence themselves, or imply it with statements such as “May you rot in hell.”
Others express a desire to murder all Muslims — one simply read “I agree with maher Kill them all” — also often implying the emailed journalist is themselves Muslim. One pledge to attack Vox writers begins, “Fuck you and any cunt who believes in allah.”
As is often the case, the strongest threats have been reserved for women. One writer received a message arguing that someone should “put a gun up your ass” to make her understand terrorism.
Ironically, these threats are typically couched in arguments that Muslims are inherently irrational and violent. Further, threats made with the explicit intention of silencing journalists from discussing Islamophobia are positioned as necessary “defenses” of free speech against the threat of Islam. The people making the threats seem unaware that they are themselves seeking to curb the very free speech they pretend to uphold….
The possibility of radical Islamist threats against American outlets has received wide attention; there are media stories, solidarity rallies, and meetings of government officials. This has included media praise specifically of Vox for our supposed bravery, though for our team at least that threat has fortunately not materialized even in the form of an angry tweet.
Meanwhile, the demonstrable and ongoing threats from anti-Muslim extremists — a well-known phenomenon among American journalists who write about Islamophobia or are themselves Muslim — has received next to no attention….
The discrepancy in what sort of coverage has attracted threats of violence matters for reasons beyond immediate constraints on journalism as well. There was a wide assumption that publishing Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the United States would produce a barrage of threats from Muslims; those threats have so far not materialized, for us at least, which perhaps speaks to the readiness with which many will assume the worst of Muslims.
Meanwhile, there has been next to no discussion of the threats of violence from Islamophobes, though in our experience those threats are rampant. That distance between the kinds of threats we are supposed to have received and the threats we actually did is a reminder of how easy it can be to misjudge our own society and its problems.