Ramona's picture

    What's the matter with the Media? Or, What if they gave a Quran-burning and Nobody Came?

    By Ramona on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 2:00pm |




    A wacky preacher in a tiny "church" in a rinky-dink town comes up with the idea to burn a dozen or so Qurans, the Islamic holy book, and chooses the rife-with-symbolic-symbolism of September 11 as the date for his glorious bonfire. Somebody gets wind of the story and thinks it would make good copy. Christians burning the Muslim holy book!  It can only mean that Armageddon is next.

    That was a few weeks ago. Today, three days before the ritual burning of the books, the media circus is outdoing itself in a rending-of-the-garments, frothing-at-the-mouth, what-does-it-all-mean yakkity-yak.

    All it means, when all is said and done, is that a wacky preacher in a tiny "church" came up with a really dumb, irrelevant idea for drawing attention to 9/11. It goes without saying that burning holy books is disgraceful and disrespectful and blasphemous and sacrilegious. But it's one wacky preacher in a little, tiny "church" and. . .yeah.

    The little story surfaced at the same time as fuss was being made over the building of a supposed "mosque" right exactly ON the Twin Towers site (or so it was reported early on), and the tie-in was just too delicious to pass up. So now it's gone international and every politician who can get near a megaphone is weighing in and everybody is apalled, just appalled, but freedom of speech and all that--and now comes the wringing-of-the-hands.

    What to do, what to do?  The president needs to do something! (And while we're at it, what's he doing about anything?  More talk, few answers, so let's get back to the real story:  The wacky preacher in the tiny "church". )

    Meanwhile, every mortal media personality is running after the wacky preacher to see if he can't be dissuaded from burning those holy books.  But God has answered his prayers!  He's on TV!   So, no, he hasn't changed his mind.  Because if he changes his mind he's just another wacky preacher in a tiny "church" and his 15 minutes are up.

    Now, because the story has grown to humongous proportions,  the religious leaders of all faiths are asked to weigh in, and if there's anything good about this story, it's that:  There is a place for conversation about religious tolerance and it can't be discussed enough these days. But--I don't know--it feels like gathering the best of the best and setting them up in a trash-strewn alley.  Their reasons for being there might make sense, and of course we want to hear what they have to say,  but, really--you couldn't find a better room?

    Much has been written about the excesses of the 24-7 controversy-driven media and their lust for juicy media-driven stories, and none of it really bears repeating, but am I alone in wanting enough to finally be enough?

    How many stories have pounded us day after day that started out as nothingburgers and should have stayed that way?  This man Terry Jones and his idiotic hate message would have wafted into the wallpaper and disappeared if not for the gossip-lust of an entire industry that originally took pride in reporting and analyzing the news.

    Unbelievable that today what should have been a non-story has grown into an ugly international incident and could have ramifications for years to come.  So please, illustrious members of the Fourth Estate, guardians of a free and honest press, graduates of the best J-schools in the land--do a little soul-searching here and drop this story like a hot potato.  I'm begging you.

    Do your best to wake up on Saturday morning and pretend there's no such thing as a wacky preacher at a tiny "church" preparing to burn the holy books of another religion.  Do not get dressed in your best, do not write impassioned copy designed to further enrage, do not deliver it in your usual breathless fashion.  Do not go there.

    I'm begging you.

    (Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices here.)

    Comments

    I have a friend whose father ran a prep school in Saudi Arabia, a few decades ago, where he had young Saudi boys being taught by non-Saudi, non-Muslim teachers. I gather the teachers butted heads with teachings of the Quran fairly often. One fellow lost his temper and threw a Quran on the floor. They had to fly him out of the country that day.

    Essentially Muslims have drawn a line, not in the sand, but around the world, threatening death to anyone that disses their religion's founder, book and reputation, if the fatwa against Rushdie is any indication. Why does anyone take them seriously? Because they're sitting on oil, we're busy trying to secure it for ourselves, and therefore our troops are at risk in the middle of Muslim countries.

    So do we censor our citizens to protect our troops? or not? It is a pretty little fix we've gotten ourselves into.


    by Donal on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 2:48pm

    Yeah, let's burn their Koran. That'll show those intolerant Muslims.

    PS I believe that Ramona was not advocating government censorship, which is unconstitutional, but media self-censorship or rather good judgment, which is not only legal but admirable.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 2:49pm

    I wasn't implying that Ramona was advocating any such thing, nor was I advocating burning the books, but her post did lead me off on tangents.


    by Donal on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 3:42pm

    I was always taught to respect people's religious symbols because they have been created to represent people's deepest feelings about the meaning of life, and the identity they confer on those who believe in them and love they profess for them is vital to them. To say that treating those symbols with contempt hurts their feelings is a massive understatement: it is life threatening. That we seem to no longer feel deeply or believe in much of anything anymore doesn't mean that others don't.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 2:51pm

    Oh, Donal, I don't want to censor anybody, and I don't write this because I fear Muslim retaliation.  I write it because I'm sick of the press building up a story out of basically nothing.

    It's embarrassing to think the press will be all over those church grounds on Saturday night watching the burning of books and reporting back every goofy thing they can come up with, even though the pastor is nuts and the church, if you want to call it that, is tiny.  I feel the same about giving Fred Phelps any airtime, as well.  Or any other nutcase who feels the need to get our goat in order to get their 15 minutes.  Why give them the satisfaction?

    Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.


    by Ramona on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 2:52pm

    That's a pretty good angle, Ramona, even though it smacks of scapegoating the media, which is all too easy.  However, in this case the analysis pretty well stacks up.  No one really would be paying much attention to this guy without the media frenzy.  A similar statement could be made about Park51, evidenced by the fact that they've been trying to build the center for years without all of the sturm and drang.  Or by the fact that there are other Muslim religious centers in the same vicinity and have been for decades.


    by DF on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 3:18pm

    I understood that, Ramona. But the media won't change as long as people react to them.


    by Donal on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 3:37pm

    Ramona's point was about the media's lemming-like embrace of news-as-entertainment, the overall result of which is to sensationalize and trivialize at the same time. This is just one egregious example of that journalistic failure.

    As for the other stuff you bring up, Donal: Much as I agree with Gen. Petraeus that Quran-burnings don't help America's image abroad (and not just in Muslim countries, by the way), it's bizarre to argue that this puts U.S. troops at risk.

    As you note, those troops are in Muslim countries basically to sit on their oil and their oil-pipeline routes, and make sure we in the West get first crack at it. But it's the Quran-burnings that are going to spark anti-American violence, right? Because they're all such religious fanatics, right?

    Look, the desecrations are just the cherry on top of the steaming pile of resentment the United States has deposited in the Greater Middle East. They already have all the reasons they need to hate America.

    My advice: don't censor your loony preachers. Let them burn all the holy books they want. Just pull out the troops instead, and let the locals pick their own leaders and run their own economies for their own benefit. I bet that will help some.


    by acanuck on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 3:21pm

    It's an odd position to take indeed to that the major PR problem America faces with the Middle East lies with cartoons and hillbilly preachers.


    by DF on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 3:31pm

    It isn't a major PR problem, but it is a rallying point that the Muslim man-in-the-street can really get excited about.


    by Donal on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 3:39pm

    I'm not saying that's inconceivable.  What I'm saying is that I think it's an odd analysis to assume that it's a major point of concern when compared with the way the U.S. relates with the Middle East generally.  I'd also be shocked if the average Muslim-in-the-street will ever even know about this.

    A good of friend of mine spent some time in the Middle East recently as a journalist.  We can rest pretty well assured that they aren't very concerned with this story over there.  However, they are concerned with decades of enduring military presence, support for despots and other assorted interference on the part of the U.S.  Those things are most certainly being covered and are massive rallying points.

    Seriously, hillbillies burning books isn't even on the radar for the young men in places like Lebanon and Yemen who lack economic opportunity and are targets of extremist recruitment efforts.  Many of these young men aren't even literate.  To imagine that one hick preacher is going to be the tipping point seems nearly narcissistic.  They've got other problems and, unfortunately, we're one of them.


    by DF on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 3:52pm

    Well, it isn't the top story, but it is in the news:

    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/201097164418445973.html

    The picture is of an anti-burning rally in Indonesia.


    by Donal on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 4:12pm

    Indonesia isn't the Middle East, so that doesn't really even go to the whole "putting our troops in danger" argument.  It also doesn't really address what I wrote, which was primarily about the actual conditions we might expect people to be living in when they're being actively targeted by or are seeking recruitment in extremist groups.  Or that it's a comparatively big concern when keeping the general nature of American foreign policy in mind.


    by DF on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 4:28pm

    One place in the Greater Middle East where Quran-burnings and Muhammad cartoons already tend to spark headlines and mosque sermons is Pakistan. Why? Because the country is under semi-occupation by the U.S. military, and that fact is almost universally resented. Repeated civilian deaths in drone attacks already fuel support for the Taliban, if not for al-Qa'ida. It should be no surprise that their sympathizers will latch on to this latest provocation as a godsend. But it is the military-political situation that provides the fertile ground.


    by acanuck on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 4:18pm

    I don't see a word about it on the News International, but I expect that the real transmission of this story will be oral, not written.


    by Donal on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 7:32pm

    Burning of Holy Qur’aan will go ahead: US church

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/09-09-2010/World/3861.htm


    by Donal on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 9:14pm

    I don't know why, but this is the funniest line I have read in days:

     

    One fellow lost his temper and threw a Quran on the floor. They had to fly him out of the country that day.

     

    haahahahahah


    by Richard Day on Sat, 09/11/2010 - 2:14pm

    Ramona,

    Great post. I am a Brit and did not know anything about this until today but the story has gone international and blogs all over Europe are now exploding with it.

    Yes, the media, yet again, has gone into overdrive over an incident that was better left unreported. And, there are now lots of Muslim leaders around the world saying how 'offended' they are. And, politicians all over the world are adding their voices. It is a sign of the truly crazy times that we live in. However, there are some serious issues at stake. Whilst it is not pleasant when someone decides to burn a religious text in public, a gauge of just how 'peaceful' that religion is, is how its followers react. Terry Jones has now, apparently, received hundreds of death threats. Hmm. Very peaceful. A little like when that Danish cartoonist a couple of years ago 'offended' Muslims by drawing satirical cartoons of Mohammed. The cartoonist subsequently needed to live in a safe house with 24/7 police protection. Very very peaceful. And, the Danish embassy came under attack in Muslim countries. And, what about when Dutch writer Theo van Gogh wrote disapprovingly about Islam a few years back and....well...found himself being stabbed to death on an Amsterdam street with a note warning others not to offend Islam pinned to his chest with a dagger. Extremely peaceful. Should not citizens of western democracies accept that some people who do not share their beliefs might offend the beliefs of others? Should not American politicians be stating their belief in the ascendancy of freedom of expression as a cornerstone of democracy rather than apologising for it and trying to prevent it?  Or has the US (and the UK) got itself into such a complicated mess in Iraq and Afghanistan that its political leaders need to try to censor freedom of expression at home?


    by David (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 3:30pm

    David, you're right that the politicians ought to be celebrating freedom of expression, but, as with every straightforward thought, it's more complicated than that.  It's politics, after all, and how would it look if they ignored a public burning of a dozen holy books? Announce to the country that you are going to burn a dozen bibles and suddenly those pages become far more than just fuel for the fire.

    You cite the terrible and horrendous responses by radical muslims to any effort at free expression, and I understand where you're leading.  My focus here is on the excesses of a constantly hungry press, but I haven't forgotten the stories you cite.  It would be easy to think about them and just let the pyromaniacal preacher have his way, but everybody knows somebody who is muslim and who had nothing to do with 9/11 or al queda or did anything to deserve having to tolerate a circus while their holy book is being torched.

    We allow these freedoms but that doesn't mean we have to like it when they're abused.  We also have the freedom to protest the abuses.

     

     


    by Ramona on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 9:36pm

    I'm just hoping these damned fools have their little fire right in the sanctuary.  It would serve them right to have realization dawn on them just a few minutes too late.

    And I'm sorely tempted to torch a King James Bible, record it, and post it to YouTube just to annoy the fundies.  Except that I'd actually have to go buy one, which I'm probably not going to do.


    by Austin Train on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 4:18pm

    I have just heard that Sarah Palin has made the following comment:

    "Based on my experiences during many cold winters in Alaska, I can recommend firelighters rather than whole books as the best way to start a good fire".

    Can anyone verify whether this is true?


    by David (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 4:28pm

    The media loves a circus. A circus draws crowds and the media loves crowds because that means money.

    As far as the event goes. I find it interesting that both sides of this situation are so insecure in their beliefs that they would have such a major reaction to the actions of the other. It is a symbol nothing more and nothing less.

    Strange how neither one sees anything wrong with the action of their respective sides even the killing of those who are inocent in the whole thing.


    by cmaukonen on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 8:46pm

    This whole story reminds me of the playground and how my dad schooled me on playground psychology.  Pretty much everyone knows how kids pick on each other.  Kids are always testing boundaries and the way they relate to one another is no different in that respect.  So they push and prod and call names in order to see what gets a reaction.

    That's basically what this two-bit Lee Marvin lookalike down in Florida is up to (all respect to Lee Marvin).  He's totally flipping the bird to Muslims everywhere.  And calling them huge doodooheads.

    What my dad did was to illuminate the interactions at work here.  He explained that people like this were just trying to bully and intimidate and that the way they win is to get you to react on their terms.  The best possible thing to do was always to ignore them because then they had no power.  As long as you can remember that all of their posturing is just that, it's easy to remain in control.

    Of course, that becomes more difficult once a group has gathered to cheer on the bully, which is where the chattering class has come in on this one.  Controversies like this are profitable, what with the low overhead of endless editoralizing.  They help to elevate the profile of the bully and make him much more difficult to ignore.


    by DF on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 4:48pm


    “Freedom of speech is not free” and I can not believe so many people on forums, in the press and in everyday life are hiding behind a Constitutional tenet that (in my mind) is the exact opposite of what this fool preacher is proposing to do. He’s not only planning to yell fire in a crowded room but he’s pouring the gasoline and setting the match. What’s next? Will those of you who think he should be “free” to perform this act, also condone those that call me a nigger?

    Oh my, did this Black woman just spell out the “n” word…but hey, what’s the big deal, I’m simply exercising my right to speak freely.

    I don’t have to imagine how seeing that word spelled out feels, I know, the sound, smell and taste of the word and I also know, if a White person on this blog or anywhere else were to say, or even spell out the word, the condemnations would fly. There would not be any talk of freedom of speech or simply ignoring the poor foolish bastard. Yet, religious intolerance is an act of freedom?

    Everyday I’m watching this country and its people (from ALL sides), fall off a cliff. One side is stupid or simply cruel and or evil, the other side hides behind intellectualism. What the hell happened to us?

     

    Ironically I don't believe in religious dogma, but I know with every fiber of my being this proposed act is wrong. It scares me that more people are not in agreement. It scares me even more that the right to deliberatly cause harm to others, is seen as freedom.


    by havethoughtwill... on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 9:47am

    I have to take issue with the notion of defending the right to free speech as cavalier intellectualism.  For all of the noise its created, this guy is going to have nothing but a bonfire (if that).  He'll burn a lot of paper.

    He'll also succeed in showing what a fool he is.  But does he really do any harm to anyone?  No.

    The problem with the feeling that what he's doing is just wrong, and the ensuing conclusion that our idea of the right to express has become far too expansive and therefore should be somehow constrained is a dangerous one.

    Let the fool display himself for all to see.  He harms no one more than himself.


    by DF on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 10:09am

    "He harms no one more than himself."

    Next time someone calls me out of my name, I'll suppress my feeling and let my intellect tell me I'm not feeling hurt or insulted. How silly of me not to see how simple that is.

    Thanks


    by havethoughtwill... on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 10:14am

    Well, the alternatives are letting him have all of the power and/or canning the whole free expression project, which, given the history of black people in America, should send chills right down your spine.  Which option would you prefer?

    The only power this guy has is to run his mouth and burn paper.  Anything else he wields in the power department is yielded precisely by the people he's trying to intimidate.  And you can be as dismissive as you like of the notion, but it's up to you whether or not to actually feel intimidated.


    by DF on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 10:22am

    Where in this conversation did I speak about being intimidated?

    I can control how I react to a situation but controlling how I feel about that situation is a different story. Controlling ones feelings can be based on discipline and intellect but having those feelings is a gut and human reaction that really can't be controlled. It just is. You can suppress feelings, deny feelings, medicate them but they are still there.

     

    When you deliberately do something that will trigger negative feelings, it's wrong and all the well written words in the world will not change my belief.

     

    People inadvertingly hurt others everyday, my intellect can wrap it's pea size brain around that action and even understand how that act may not have been deliberate. Convince me this act isn't deliberate and you will have me at "hello." :)


    by havethoughtwill... on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 10:50am

    It's obviously deliberate.  So what?  You say you aren't intimidated.  Fine.  Then why do you care?  It's a fool and a bonfire.  He can't hurt anyone with it that doesn't want to be hurt.

    And you still haven't said what you'd like to do about it.


    by DF on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 11:39am

    In this day and age and to borrow a phrase from my mom, "signifying" seems to be the new flavor of the decade. Who cares about right and wrong as long as we can have intellectual converstaions about the concepts?

    I'm voicing my opinion about how wrong this act is and I'm not hiding behind the Constitution to make it seem otherwise. I'm one person and doing what I have the means and power, at this time, to do. Why not join me and then work with me to convince others to join in as well. Isn't that one of several ways to make a "change."

    If there is more I can do to get people to start listening to the inner voice in their hearts as well as those thoughts in their minds, I'm willing to do that as well if I have the means. Any suggestions?


    by havethoughtwill... on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 11:54am

    Again, are you proposing that something be done other than discussing?  If not, it would seem odd for you to deplore conversations on the matter.

    Voicing one's opinion is fine.  The thing about right and wrong is that people have differing views.  Where the rubber meets the road is where we decide to have agreement on what is and isn't allowed.  But if you're just voicing your opinion that you feel it's wrong without any proposed change to the rules, then how is that any better, or even very different, than the discussion you deride, curiously, as "intellectual"?

    As for joining you, I've done just that in voicing my view.  It's just that it's different than yours.  This man is being empowered by institutions that can raise his profile considerably.  I also find it interesting that this event is occuring directly on the heels of the Park51 controversy, where a First Amendment argument was obviously employed on behalf the project going forward.

    But this helps to show why it's actually cavalier to dismiss that discussion.  The purveyors of intolerance and bigotry seek to use similar arguments in insisting that Park51, while perfectly legal, is simply wrong.  They have no qualms with brushing aside First Amendment rights when it's convenient for them.

    But these rights should be upheld even when someone is expressing something we dislike or disagree with.  That's just part of living in a pluralistic society, which is why I suggest that the best thing to do is to give this guy the least amount of power possible.  That doesn't mean I condemn discussing him, but rather that I think it would be better if he were simply ignored.  At the same time, I don't generally see the need for condemning a discussion of the practical concerns of what we are realistically going to allow here as pejoratively "intellectual."


    by DF on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 12:31pm

    I agree that we all have different versions of right and wrong but that does not change the fact that there are some things that are decidley wrong. Deliberately harming others is one of those things and I'm hoping we can agree that an act doesn't have to always be physical in order to cause harm.

    This fool can talk from here til dooms day about his hatred for Islam and even though I will disagree, I will fight for his right to speak his mind but at some point one can cross the line with their speech and actions and (no pun intended) yell fire in a crowded room. Why are you intent on letting him cross that line and again, where does it end?


    by havethoughtwill... on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 12:48pm

    Listen, if someone walks up to me and slaps me upside my head and I slap them back, I think that's wrong on my part as well as the other person. Now I'm not going to get too upset about my wrong act and could give relative good and coherent reasons as to why I decided to relatilate but one thing I'm NOT going to do is lie to myself about what I did.

    Whatever the reason, causing harm is wrong, deliberately and intentionaly causing harm is worse in my book. Speaking out against such behavior are part of the principles I have grown to believe in. My opinon may not be shared by the majority but if I reach one person that "gets it" that's one less person willing to accept intolerance, bigotry and prejudice. I honestly don't understand why you or anyone would find that unaccptable.


    by havethoughtwill... on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 1:05pm

    I don't think you do quite agree.  Or at least I don't agree with you that some things are just decidedly wrong.  Decided by whom?  You either understand and agree that people disagree on what is or is not morally acceptable or you don't.

    And while he's deliberately burning books, the actual harm done in this case is absolutely debateable.  And "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is an argument that goes to time, place and manner restrictions on speech.  Restricting speech activity on a content judgmen is entirely different and unconstitutional.

    By all means, admonish him all you wish.


    by DF on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 4:25pm

    To put havethought's argument in the Constitutional framework that she seemed to be eschewing, the Supreme Court has ruled that there are limits to freedom of speech, specifically "yelling fire in a crowded theater". Whether or not this man's actions rise to that level are debatable, but such an argument is not easily dismissed. That said, if this man is "yelling fire", then the media, as you suggest, are aiding and abetting.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 12:58pm

    "That said, if this man is "yelling fire", then the media, as you suggest, are aiding and abetting."

    I agree but I also believe, allowing this preacher to hide behind the Constitution is aiding and abetting as well.

    Any "intelligent" person knows that defacing a religious book will have negative consequences. It doesn't matter the scale of those consequences.

    If someone wanted to burn the Bible it would not personally phase me one iota but I have sense enough to know that others would be offended, hurt, outraged and insulted by such an act. Why would I deliberately make it my buisness to engage such a reaction? Where is the logic in that?

     

     


    by havethoughtwill... on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 1:26pm

    that should read "faze"

    sorry


    by havethoughtwill... on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 1:32pm

    I asked, where is the logic in such an act but my bigger point is, where is the humanity in such an act?


    by havethoughtwill... on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 1:40pm

    Latest Comments