Koran Burning -- the left feeding the left?

[Pangloss]

The liberal side of the media loves this story and has played it up like the Second Coming. And it's payed off for them, producing world-wide reaction. This guy's a two-bit loser from a congregation that's lucky to produce THIRTY people for a typical service (filmed by ABC News last night), and yet the media play he's been given has produced VIOLENT RIOTS in Afghanistan, and even a response from the POPE. Well duh -- how do they think the Afghans and the Pope found out about this guy? Because THEY TOLD THEM!

 

This is exactly what frustrates main-street, red-state Americans about the left. The feeling is that the left generates the controversy in the first place and then produces the reaction it wants from the politically-correct centers of world politics. And then they wonder why conservative Americans have such a negative reaction to these things! Duh!

 

Some stories:

Vatican Condemns Koran-Burning

Impact on Politics of Afghanistan

[Mr Skeptic]

As I recall, Fox News does essentially the same thing. First one of their "non-news" folks starts a rumor, and then their news section comments on the rumor, and finally, the Daily Show mocks them for it. Anyhow, yes, the news is often self-feeding. It is slightly unavoidable, in that things that get reported on become bigger issues and therefore more newsworthy than before they were reported. Kind of like celebrities.

[Sisyphus]

That's pretty much the entirety of Fox's political coverage, no? It's just most of the time, it doesn't leak out of the echo chamber. Exceptions: "ground zero" "mosque," Terry Schiavo, etc.

[Pangloss]

And who do you think is responsible for the rise of Fox News? Rupert Murdoch just made the machine, he doesn't manufacture its ratings.

 

But sure, Fox News is part of the problem too. The right's answer to the media frenzy is... more media frenzy? What kind of sense is that? The right hasn't yet woken up to the fact that this only exacerbates the problem.

 

None of which excuses the left's behavior. Fox News is a reaction. It's just not a very good one.

[Sisyphus]

A reaction to what? The problem of sensationalized news coverage becoming the news itself is as old as journalism. Isn't it? I guess I just don't understand why you're framing this as a phenomenon of the left.

[ParanoiA]

Well it's funnier and more pathetic to watch the older kids copy the younger kids. Fox is but one outlet, and here we seem to have much of the leftie media jumping on this one. That's kind of like watching a room full of 40 year olds talk like teenagers wearing saggy pants, oversized shirts and the ever original sideways ball cap.

 

But that's ok, because if they haven't already, Fox news will come to his "rescue" and imply a lack of free speech using their "Question of the day" elusion technique...

[Pangloss]

A reaction to what? The problem of sensationalized news coverage becoming the news itself is as old as journalism. Isn't it? I guess I just don't understand why you're framing this as a phenomenon of the left.

 

We're talking about perceptions, here. It doesn't really matter whether it's sensationalism in the media accidentally feeding secular-progressives, or liberalism in the media deliberately feeding secular-progressives. Either way a major secular-progressive talking point has been fed a massive feast.

 

Do you agree or disagree that this is counter-productive to convincing red-state Americans to become more moderate, if that's one's goal?

[Sisyphus]

We're talking about perceptions, here. It doesn't really matter whether it's sensationalism in the media accidentally feeding secular-progressives, or liberalism in the media deliberately feeding secular-progressives. Either way a major secular-progressive talking point has been fed a massive feast.

 

Do you agree or disagree that this is counter-productive to convincing red-state Americans to become more moderate, if that's one's goal?

 

I don't know. Probably counterproductive?

[swansont]

 

Do you agree or disagree that this is counter-productive to convincing red-state Americans to become more moderate, if that's one's goal?

 

Is that the goal of the "liberal" media? How is this any different from the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue?

[Pangloss]

Is that the goal of the "liberal" media? How is this any different from the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue?

 

I thought I answered that question above? Did I miss something?

[CaptainPanic]

The problem is that there is a large part of the Western world (also in Europe) who seem to think that the Islam is the root of all evil now. None of these people knew that 10 years ago - but now these people are very convinced. After all, once a month there is a story about a woman being stoned to death somewhere in a Muslim country... the fact that America also kills people - although they use an injection - is beside the point. They're barbarians, and we should insult their culture to make our point!

 

And anyway - it's the Muslims who started with the airplanes on 9/11. Never forget.

 

Such a sad way of thinking... sad, sad, sad.

[swansont]

I thought I answered that question above? Did I miss something?

 

I don't know, did you? You painted Fox News as a "reaction" but the Koran-burning as "manufactured."

[CaptainPanic]

Ah... and it's Mission Accomplished. A bunch of Pakistanis have responded by burning an American flag.

 

So, summarized: 30 people will burn Korans. 200 people on the other side of the planet burned a flag. Wooohee! Now that's news.

 

I'm guessing that the effects of these fires on the climate are quite negligible... and the deathtoll due to burns is, eeh, zero. So I really wonder why I hear about this. Must be someone trying to tell me that the West and the Muslim world really cannot get along. I'll remember to tell my Muslim friends when I see them tonight in the bar.

 

Tsk. We have internet. Unlimited information. But instead of exchanging unlimited information, the entire world discusses some insignificant groups of radicals.

(On the bright side, the world must be a pretty safe place if this is the main headline for a whole week).

Edited September 9, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[ParanoiA]

I don't know, did you? You painted Fox News as a "reaction" but the Koran-burning as "manufactured."

 

So, am I correct in assuming that you believe the "Ground Zero" Mosque was purely manufactured and that the opponents of building idolatrous symbols worshipped by the 19 murderers that slayed thousands of people, were baited? Just pure manufactured nonsense that none of them would have cared until someone made them believe they should care?

 

If so, I could make that argument about any incident in history once it was reported. When americans didn't know Pearl Harbor was bombed, I doubt they wanted to war with anyone. It wasn't until the media "manufactured" Japanese hatred by reporting the freaking news - bunch of sensationalists.... And what if some Japanese americans wanted to build a Japanese community center anywhere near that area? Would americans be all for that until the media duped them into believing they shouldn't?

 

The Koran burning event is mostly interesting to liberals and democrats. It fits their bias confirmation models. Just like the conservatives loved to hear Phil Hare say "I don't worry about the constitution on this...". And, anyone who identifies with those groups will naturally shrug their shoulders upon defense.

 

The problem is that there is a large part of the Western world (also in Europe) who seem to think that the Islam is the root of all evil now. None of these people knew that 10 years ago - but now these people are very convinced. After all, once a month there is a story about a woman being stoned to death somewhere in a Muslim country... the fact that America also kills people - although they use an injection - is beside the point. They're barbarians, and we should insult their culture to make our point!

 

And anyway - it's the Muslims who started with the airplanes on 9/11. Never forget.

 

Such a sad way of thinking... sad, sad, sad.

 

Are you really going to blur a moral line between putting convicted murderers to death and women who are stoned to death for adultery? Is it that important to slam the western world that we're going to make believe we're just like them? Seriously? I don't agree with the death penalty either, but even I have enough sense to see the difference here. This moral equivalency is a scam.

 

How about we roll back our societal evolution and get women back in the kitchen? Let's take their vote away on the presumption they aren't smart enough or important enough to be heard. Let's do celebratory medical procedures to ruin sex competely for them and start owning them like sheep. Hey, let's stone them to death when they get gang raped at a party. Let's do that, and then I'll start taking these moral equivalency arguments seriously.

 

 

The Western world is claiming Islam is an evil religion. I've heard it over and over. I hear it in the callers on talk radio. Terrible, elementary logic at work there, with ridiculous inconsistencies and arguments. This false impression seems to be largely based on Muslims being largely, and weirdly, quiet about terrorism. Don't misunderstand though, because I've been asking for quite some time how exactly a Muslim is supposed to call a press conference so they can be heard - in other words, I think we're not listening as much as they're not talking. And I have a hard time blaming quiet members of a group for the actions of their louder members.

 

Remember all the creepy, lethargic behavior out of the Pope and the Catholic religion in general when they just refused to come down on child molestation the way the rest of us were? Remember how suspicious we all were about that odd hesitation to flat out condemn and fiercely punish one of the most heinous acts a human being could inflict on another? Let alone to be engaged in by priests on children, no doubt? Remember the anger directed at them for this?

 

This is entirely consistent with Islam and terrorism. Only worse, because we're at least familiar with the Christian faith, and Catholicism by extension - it doesn't carry a lot of mystery like Islam does, with us. You take a religion that is largely a mystery to most of a particular society, and add in this insulting formula of quiet, hesitant, measured condemnation of murderous nutcases who exploit the Islam religion to commit heinous acts on other human beings, and it doesn't take long for that society to get suspicious, and for sensibilities to break down.

 

We know this. We've experienced this. Why don't we act like we know this and have experienced this? Why do we always act like the other side has no reason to believe what they believe? We know damn well why they believe what they believe.

 

 

 

 

And then factor in how folks love to give the benefit of the doubt to Islam, but not to christianity. I've watched ardent athiests and opponents of organized religion completely trash christians on this site, equating it to murder in some cases. But Islam enjoys a more sympathetic judgement. For no better reason, apparently, than that some of their countries are being persecuted by modern armies, hurting people that haven't had a chance to be "enlightened" by modern thinking. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my guess.

 

Look at the statement in the post I quoted "After all, once a month there is a story about a woman being stoned to death somewhere in a Muslim country... the fact that America also kills people - although they use an injection - is beside the point." - here Muslims were defended by a moral equivalency argument. Would this have happened if Christians stoned women to death in the western world? Would you swoop in with this argument and defend snap moral judgements against stoning women by European Christians? You could have made your point about how the west thinks, without throwing in the moral equivalency of capital punishment - you appeared to really want to make that point.

 

It's a combination of these things, and probably others, that contributes to the whole of western perception - at least the american region of the west. And this Koran burning story is just more timber for that fire. At least that's what it looks like in my reality tunnel.

[Sisyphus]

So, am I correct in assuming that you believe the "Ground Zero" Mosque was purely manufactured and that the opponents of building idolatrous symbols worshipped by the 19 murderers that slayed thousands of people, were baited? Just pure manufactured nonsense that none of them would have cared until someone made them believe they should care?

 

Frankly, yes. Sure, maybe some people would be angry if they knew about it, or maybe not. After all, it isn't even at ground zero, and it's not even the first mosque in the immediate neighborhood, and the beliefs of its backers are directly opposed to those 19 murderers. I have a hard time seeing what someone looking at the facts rather than the discussion could find to object to.

 

And I'm sure a great many people would think a Koran-burning was stupid and offensive, had they happened to hear about it despite it not being reported on. But certainly in both cases it is the discussion itself that made it an "issue."

[ParanoiA]

Frankly, yes. Sure, maybe some people would be angry if they knew about it, or maybe not. After all, it isn't even at ground zero, and it's not even the first mosque in the immediate neighborhood, and the beliefs of its backers are directly opposed to those 19 murderers. I have a hard time seeing what someone looking at the facts rather than the discussion could find to object to.

 

And I'm sure a great many people would think a Koran-burning was stupid and offensive, had they happened to hear about it despite it not being reported on. But certainly in both cases it is the discussion itself that made it an "issue."

 

What about a box knife factory two blocks from the crater in the field where flight 93 crashed? Think Pennsylvanians will cheer for that?

 

If you can't see their argument, then I'm not sure you're really applying critical thought. Not saying you have to agree, but you appear to be refusing to notice the elephant in the room. Islam. Murderers. Murderers murdering for Islam. Fair? Shit, no. But, gee, let's build an Islamic thing down the street and pretend no one should notice the connection?

 

And what about the perceptions of other Islamic worshipping murderers? What if they view this mosque as a victory symbol and sign that the US is beginning to weaken to the pressures brought on by terrorism? What if they use it to spike recruitement and it dwarfs the numbers achieved by US wars in middle east?

 

My opinion is still the same. I don't care about the above issues and the mosque, community center should be built. Tolerance should win. But to pretend like the opposition is essentially baseless southern christian bullshit that was baited by media? No, I'm not buying it when 70% of americans agree with them.

[Sisyphus]

I don't know about "baseless southern christian bullshit," but I'm not going to pretend it isn't irrational, 70% agreement or no. It's not that I don't see the (extremely simplistic!) connection, it's that I think it's dumb. Just like I don't think burning an American flag and threatening violence is a rational response to hearing about a few dozen idiots burning Qurans, no matter how popular such a response might become, or how emotionally satisfying it might be for those who don't feel obligated to think. And yeah, I think making a big deal out of it in the media is a self-fulfilling prophecy, in both cases, perhaps deliberately so. And yes, I do think that someone who discovered the "ground zero" "mosque" on their own would be much, much less likely to be angry about it than someone who had it brought to their attention on Glenn Beck's terms.

 

And FWIW, I think objecting to a boxcutter factory in Shanksville would also be silly. (That doesn't mean I don't see the connection.) I don't think that would happen, though, despite the stated rationale being more or less equivalent, because I don't think the stated rationales are really what it's about. But that's a whole other can of worms, I guess.

[swansont]

So, am I correct in assuming that you believe the "Ground Zero" Mosque was purely manufactured and that the opponents of building idolatrous symbols worshipped by the 19 murderers that slayed thousands of people, were baited? Just pure manufactured nonsense that none of them would have cared until someone made them believe they should care?

 

 

Purely? No. Largely? Yes. Fox News reported on this story months earlier, and their position the was pretty much 180º from what has been happening recently.

 

To be purely manufactured, I think they would have had to have a hand in making the situation, like the rallies from last year that were organized and promoted by Fox.

[Mr Skeptic]

I too think the Koran burning and Ground Zero Mosque are essentially manufactured controversies. Yes, building the mosque might be seen as a victory for the terrorists, and they might use it for recruitment (hypothetically of course). They would likewise use our forbidding it as proof of our intolerance and use that for recruitment too. As John Stewart said, How about we try a new system where we don't give a $#!* what the terrorists think. And the folks burning the flag in response to the Koran burning, were also chanting "death to America". Just saying.

[jackson33]

To be purely manufactured, I think they would have had to have a hand in making the situation, like the rallies from last year that were organized and promoted by Fox. [/Quote]

 

swansont; With due respect, I think your giving the FNC a little more credit than deserved. The literal groundswell of opposition to building anything equal to a monument for those that attacked THE US on 9/11 came primarily from outside NYC and I'm not aware of any person that feels those attacks were directed at anything other than the American public, their culture and way of life. Whatever percentage of Muslims or any others that oppose Americans, that might feel this Mosque being build in the remnants of that attack, it's certainly more than the 19 highjackers.

 

As for the "Koran Burning"; THIS has been a MEDIA driven story and NOT all from with in the US, frankly very little. On any given day, any number of small groups will try and start something to achieve some agenda, political/religious hoping it will be picked up by local, national or the Worlds media. How this story got picked up is beyond me, as some pastor with a congregation of 50 (I hear many have dropped out) should have been ignored, no less than some burning of an American Flag, which probably does happen weekly.

 

I too think the Koran burning and Ground Zero Mosque are essentially manufactured controversies.[/Quote]

 

Skeptic; I'm not sure 9-11 or any story related to that event can be classified as manufactured, while I agree this Koran Story has been, then primarily from Muslim Media. Whether the burning occurs or not, the Taliban/Terrorist Groups/Muslim Brotherhood/many Imams and others are going to continue to try and influence any moderates in their flocks. None are going to hang up their weapons, dial down their rhetoric, or concede the Western Culture (Including Israel) has any business messing with their people, their cultures or their laws.

[Pangloss]

Yes, the right promoted and elevated the controversy on the mosque, just like the left drummed up controversy on the Koran-burning.

 

That was the point of this thread, to show that there's more than one participant in this unfortunate process.

[Mr Skeptic]

That was the point of this thread, to show that there's more than one participant in this unfortunate process.

 

OK, so we all agree then. What next? Is there a way to stop manufactured news?

[ajb]

I think the American pastor has every right to burn the Koran or any other book (mod any of real historical value etc) he sees fit. I don't know what he really wants to achieve in doing so, but I support his right to do so. However, it will mean some Muslim retaliation.

 

I think that Muslims should get over themselves and not allow pretty trivial acts upset them.

 

What is the point of reporting on this event?

Edited September 9, 2010 by ajb

[Pangloss]

Is there a way to stop manufactured news?

 

I think the best way is to engage. Support centrist and moderate candidates, avoid ideological generalizations, spread information, and plead for a return to sanity. Avoid fear, intimidation and ridicule as motivations, and focus on laughter and congenial discussion. All of these things we do here (with the occasional, human slip); the trick is to elevate the discussion out in the general public.

 

And that includes not just bake sales and boy scout meetings in the flyover states. It includes science communities, computer user groups, and big city coffee shops, too.

[swansont]

What about a box knife factory two blocks from the crater in the field where flight 93 crashed? Think Pennsylvanians will cheer for that?

 

If you can't see their argument, then I'm not sure you're really applying critical thought. Not saying you have to agree, but you appear to be refusing to notice the elephant in the room. Islam. Murderers. Murderers murdering for Islam. Fair? Shit, no. But, gee, let's build an Islamic thing down the street and pretend no one should notice the connection?

 

And what about the perceptions of other Islamic worshipping murderers? What if they view this mosque as a victory symbol and sign that the US is beginning to weaken to the pressures brought on by terrorism? What if they use it to spike recruitement and it dwarfs the numbers achieved by US wars in middle east?

 

My opinion is still the same. I don't care about the above issues and the mosque, community center should be built. Tolerance should win. But to pretend like the opposition is essentially baseless southern christian bullshit that was baited by media? No, I'm not buying it when 70% of americans agree with them.

 

 

Equating murdering for Islam with all of Islam is a lack of critical thought. Very few Muslims are terrorists. The reason there is a connection is because people have abandoned rational thought and are letting emotional arguments win the day. Good thing we have laws and rights, and for this very reason.

 

In 1963, a poll of Southern Whites showed that more than 70% felt racial integration was being pushed too fast, and more than 80% did not want to see a law passed that would allow all people to be served in hotels, restaurants, etc. In 1958, 96% of white Americans were against interracial marriages.

http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2010/08/this-is-why-i-support-majoritarian-rule.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws#United_States

 

So I don't think that it means anything special just because you have 70% of people on the same side of the argument. Intolerance and hatred is still intolerance and hatred, and if it exists, that makes it easier for the media to exploit the controversy.