Jenn Kepka
WaPo blames bloggers for “ground zero mosque” hysteria
Of course, the Post bears no responsibility for treating right-wing nuts as credible sources
Today, the Washington Post had a really terrible headline on its front page: “Bloggers turn mosque into national spectacle.” Here’s a shot:
Yessss. It’s bloggers who’ve turned this into a national spectacle, not at all the politicians and mainstream media reporters who’ve decided that there’s worth in repeating the drivel that fringe conservatives put up on the web without any due diligence. Take the phrase “Ground Zero Mosque” that’s so prominent here. Or, hey, let’s take a look at the piece that’s under that headline.
Long before President Obama waded into the vociferous debate over the so-called Ground Zero mosque, a group of conservative writers and bloggers critical of Islam had seized on the issue and helped transform it into a national political spectacle.
While some have dismissed them as bigoted attention-seekers, their attacks on the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan have gained currency in recent weeks among some Republican leaders. And their influence appears to be growing.
Did you catch that? Some people — don’t know who, but they sound disreputable — think that the people who write about the Park 51 Islamic Community Center being some kind of wellspring for birthing American-born terror babies are nuts. But not the Washington Post! The Post takes those bigots seriously, because they’re influential.
Sigh. There’s more:
They are organizing a Sept. 11 rally against the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan that will feature former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich. They advise the FBI and other government security agencies on the threats posed by Islamic radicalism, headline “tea party” events and attract millions of readers concerned or curious about Islam to Web sites with names such as Jihad Watch, Creeping Sharia and Stop Islamization of America.
“People on the Hill, their staff read these sites, they show their bosses. . . . They push these subjects into the spotlight, often at a time when major media isn’t doing that,” said Cliff May, a columnist and former spokesman for the Republican National Committee who runs a think tank focused on religious extremism and religious freedom.
So, they “advise” the FBI. Doesn’t that sound official? Strange how JihadWatch isn’t listed as an active partner on any of the FBI sites. I’m sure that the reporter, Ms. Boorstein, just failed to mention her source on that one, too. Surely it was someone at the FBI, not just an eager conservative who lists “advises FBI” on his resume because, once upon a time, someone at the field office picked up when he placed his eighteenth “THERE ARE MUSLIMS OUT THERE OMG!” call of the day.
But hey, don’t worry. This piece has all kinds of serious reporting going on. Boorstein took the time to talk to a real expert in the field, Daniel Pipes, about Robert Spencer, who runs Jihad Watch:
Jihad Watch is widely read in many quarters in Washington, particularly among conservatives.
Daniel Pipes, perhaps the most prominent U.S. scholar on radical Islam, said he considers Spencer a “serious scholar.”
“I learn from him,” said Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank, who writes a biweekly column for the National Review.
Hey, wait, is that the Daniel Pipes whose appointment to the U.S. Institute of Peace the Washington Post editorial board once called “a cruel joke” that should be “rescinded”? Oh, yep, it is. And Michelle Boorstein knows it: She even blogged about how Pipes is “certainly considered hostile to Islam by many Muslim-Americans and Arab-Americans” today, in a separate piece at the Washington Post. Of course, if I were just reading the front-page news, I’d never know that Pipes is raising money for the defense of a Dutch politician “who has advocated banning Muslim immigration to his country and the Quran,” or that Pipes sees “an attempt to impose Islamic law, sharia, in the West” as a major threat.
This whole piece is a disappointing, troubling mess. I’m willing to grant the premise that attention on some conservative blogs may have gotten the ball rolling on the Cordoba House initiative, but what’s kept it going is the absolute unwillingness of mainstream media writers and television reporters to call this what it is: not some movement of thoughtful, scholarly people, but an explosion of bigotry.
What the ruling against Arizona’s immigration law means
A breakdown of what parts of the law Judge Bolton enjoined and why
FILE - In this June 5, 2010 file photo, Judy Schulz, center, cheers as her husband Richard Schulz, left, both of Glendale, Ariz., joined hundreds supporting Arizona's new law on illegal immigration as they listen to speakers near the capitol in Phoenix. At the heart of the debate over Arizona's tough new immigration law is frustration with how the U.S. deals with the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants within its borders. The federal government says its policy is to focus on dangerous, criminal immigrants, not the average worker who is just trying to earn a living and keeps his nose clean. There is just no way the government can find, arrest and deport so many people, they argue. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File) (Credit: AP) Yesterday, a federal judge put a hold on parts of the Arizona Immigration law, known as SB 1070/HB 2162, that was scheduled to take effect today. Four sections of the 14-section law were ruled to have parts that were pre-empted (overlapped!) by existing federal law and have been enjoined (stopped!) pending further prosecution of the government’s case against Arizona and its law.
Continue Reading CloseJohn Edwards: The movie!
Is this really a story we need to keep hearing?
US Democratic presidential candidate and former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) speaks at a town hall meeting during a campaign stop in Conway, South Carolina January 22, 2008. REUTERS/Joshua Lott (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)(Credit: Reuters) Aaron Sorkin has apparently won the right to write and direct the John Edwards movie based on Andrew Young’s book, The Politician. Variety (via Wonkette):
Continue Reading CloseAaron Sorkin — best known for creating “The West Wing” — will make his feature directorial debut with a John Edwards biopic.
Sorkin’s adapting and producing Andrew Young’s “The Politician: An Insider’s Account of John Edwards’s Pursuit of the Presidency and the Scandal That Brought Him Down.” Project’s not yet set up at a studio.
Young, a longtime Edwards aide, gained notoriety during the 2008 presidential primary when he admitted — then later recanted — an affair with Edwards’ mistress Rielle Hunter and claimed Edwards’ child from that relationship as his own.
Court makes a $#%!ing cool ruling on free speech
The 2nd Circuit in Manhattan strikes down the FCC's ludicrously vague indecency policy
A federal appeals court has tossed out a government policy that can lead to broadcasters being fined for allowing even a single curse word on live television.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Tuesday found the policy to be unconstitutional. It says the policy violates the First Amendment.
That’s via the AP. You can also read the full opinion in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC at the Circuit Court’s decisions page.
Continue Reading CloseObama won’t live up to his word on immigration
The president's speech today called for reform, but the administration's efforts won't address the real problem
President Barack Obama speaks about immigration reform, Thursday, July 1, 2010, at American University in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)(Credit: Charles Dharapak) President Obama gave a major policy speech today encouraging immigration reform (without outlining what exactly he thinks that will mean). Speaking at American University (nice optics), he talked about finding a “middle ground” between expelling all illegal immigrants and granting them all amnesty, and about the need for border security. It sounds like the White House strategy will be to bring the bill up after November, when the lame-duck Congress won’t have to worry so much about getting re-elected (sure).
Continue Reading CloseAfghanistan has been artfully ignored
Two presidents and the mainstream media have worked hard to keep the war off our minds
United States Marines from Bravo Co. of the 15th MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unity) march into a barracks in full battle gear as they arrive early November 29, 2001 at the US Marines forward base in southern Afghanistan. [Already hemmed into a shrinking swath of mountain and desert by nearly eight weeks of U.S. bombing and ground offensives by their Afghan foes, the Taliban now face another threat, hundreds of U.S. Marines pouring into a remote desert airstrip within striking distance of Kandahar, their spiritual cradle.](Credit: © Jim Hollander / Reuters) I was asked Friday about why the McChrystal story, of all the tales of woe and misbehavior in Afghanistan, made the news. I had two answers: 1) It was in Rolling Stone, not Foreign Affairs or even The New York Times, and 2) Gossip is easy to understand. The war-weary American public doesn’t really get the ground game in Afghanistan — quick, point to the Helmand province on a map! — but they do understand gossip and back-talk, and they understand that’s not their picture of the American military.
Continue Reading ClosePage 1 of 5 in Jenn Kepka