The news media seems completely obsessed over the alleged torture of terrorists by the U.S. Government, but they rarely seem to get around to investigating the many reports of even more serious atrocities around the world. For example, Voice of the Martyrs reports:
“An Iranian Christian convert was kidnapped from his home in northeastern Iran last week and stabbed to death. His bleeding body was thrown in front of his home a few hours later. Ghorban Tori, 50, was pastoring an independent house church of converted Christians in Gonbad-e-Kavus. Within hours of the November 22nd murder, local secret police arrived at the pastor's home, searching for Bibles and other banned Christian books written in the Farsi language. According to one source, during the past eight days representatives of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) have arrested and severely tortured 10 other Christians in several cities, including Tehran. (Click here for original story posted on 12-05-2005, for most recent update, click here.)”
“An Iranian Christian convert was kidnapped from his home in northeastern Iran last week and stabbed to death. His bleeding body was thrown in front of his home a few hours later. Ghorban Tori, 50, was pastoring an independent house church of converted Christians in Gonbad-e-Kavus. Within hours of the November 22nd murder, local secret police arrived at the pastor's home, searching for Bibles and other banned Christian books written in the Farsi language. According to one source, during the past eight days representatives of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) have arrested and severely tortured 10 other Christians in several cities, including Tehran. (Click here for original story posted on 12-05-2005, for most recent update, click here.)”
The December 7 Religious Liberty Prayer Bulletin reports that in Sangla Hill Pakistan,
“A Muslim falsely accused a Christian of desecrating the Koran during an argument over gambling remittances. Exploiting the situation, Islamic clerics called Muslims to the mosques and incited them to 'defend Islam' and attack the Christians. The subsequent pogrom involving more than 2000 Muslims drove some 450 Christian families from their homes. Three churches along with manses and libraries were razed, as well as a convent and two church-owned schools. According to an editorial in Pakistan's Daily Times (28 November) the mob, armed with 'sticks, stones, big hammers and bottles of chemicals' went out to attack the churches. 'They raised cries of "Allahu Akbar" (God is great) and "Asai kuttay hai-hai" (Down with the Christian dogs).”
I don’t want my government torturing prisoners and I think the news media is entirely justified in investigating these allegations. I often wonder, however, why the reporting is so unbalanced. The stories above are not even the tip of the iceberg and yet they never seem to make the network news. Muslims in Sudan were kidnapping, enslaving, raping and torturing large numbers of Christians for years before the major networks even noticed (and then only briefly). Or, in a different illustration: In news reports that seemed to go on for weeks, if not months— the news media falsely implicated Christians in the tragic murder of the gay man, Matthew Shephard, yet atrocities committed against large numbers of Christians hardly make the news at all. Why is that?
“A Muslim falsely accused a Christian of desecrating the Koran during an argument over gambling remittances. Exploiting the situation, Islamic clerics called Muslims to the mosques and incited them to 'defend Islam' and attack the Christians. The subsequent pogrom involving more than 2000 Muslims drove some 450 Christian families from their homes. Three churches along with manses and libraries were razed, as well as a convent and two church-owned schools. According to an editorial in Pakistan's Daily Times (28 November) the mob, armed with 'sticks, stones, big hammers and bottles of chemicals' went out to attack the churches. 'They raised cries of "Allahu Akbar" (God is great) and "Asai kuttay hai-hai" (Down with the Christian dogs).”
I don’t want my government torturing prisoners and I think the news media is entirely justified in investigating these allegations. I often wonder, however, why the reporting is so unbalanced. The stories above are not even the tip of the iceberg and yet they never seem to make the network news. Muslims in Sudan were kidnapping, enslaving, raping and torturing large numbers of Christians for years before the major networks even noticed (and then only briefly). Or, in a different illustration: In news reports that seemed to go on for weeks, if not months— the news media falsely implicated Christians in the tragic murder of the gay man, Matthew Shephard, yet atrocities committed against large numbers of Christians hardly make the news at all. Why is that?
11 comments:
I'm not really sure what the media not reporting atrocities against Christians has to do with media reports of Americans torturing prisoners. Are you saying that the media is using up time and space to report on torture that could be going to reporting on atrocities against Christians? If that is what you are saying, why pic this particular story and not dozens of other stories that really are relatively trivial that the media spends much more time and space reporting on from Michael Jackson to the murder in Aruba? I think you specifically chose this story because you would rather the media not report about this story despite your protestations to the contrary. It's a common rhetorical device that the Al-Jazeera and other Arab media use all the time: "Why does the Western media spend so much time reporting on suicide bombers and ignore the atrocities the Israelis commit against us." It's very interesting that you would adopt their tactics. You are clearly uncomfortable with the issue of Americans committing torture (as you should be) but instead of wanting to stop it you seem to want to downplay it.
The other thing I wonder about is why you only seem to want to write about atrocities that happen to Christians when there are many atrocities happening to many different people around the world every day that the media doesn't write about. For example, there is relatively little media coverage of the genocide in Darfur in the Sudan, where 400,000 people have died and where 6000 people a week die and 500 women are raped every week. In papua New Guinea last month three children as young as nine were murdered by the police. In Iran two young men were publicly hanged last week for being gay. A few months ago two teenagers were also hanged for being gay. There are atrocities that occur around the world every day that the media does not report on. Why do you think atrocities against Christians are all that is worth reporting on? I guess the lives of gay teenagers in Iran or children in Papua New Guinea are not that important to you.
Finally, I don't know what you mean when you say the "media falsely implicated Christians" in the murder of Matthew Shepherd. I believe the men who confessed to the crime and were convicted were Christian. Are you referring to them? Are you referring to the climate of homophobia created by anti-gay preachers? In an earlier post you implied that he wasn't murdered because of homophobia, basing this allegation on a single report that appeared on 20/20 and was entirely based on the claims of one of his murderers who was trying to lighten his sentence (despite the fact that he escaped the death penalty because of the intercession of Shepherd's family, who are opposed to the death penalty, unlike many so-called Christians). I guess it also makes you uncomfortable that while some homophobic people confine their bigotry to opposing gay civil rights other take their hatred a step further.
I would think that you would agree with me about the media, at least in part. I mean, don’t you think the media should spend more time reporting on the death of 400,000 people in Sudan than they do on Michael Jackson or even on one girl missing girl in Aruba? You wrote that “There are atrocities that occur around the world every day that the media does not report on.” I agree with you completely and that is precisely my point. I focus on atrocities committed against Christians because I am a Christian and I view many of these victims as my “brothers and sisters,” and their stories are not being told. But I agree completely that the other stories need to be told also and the media is not doing it. The media should not ignore America’s problems, by any means, but by focusing almost exclusively on America and ignoring (in your words) the “atrocities that occur around the world every day” the media leaves the impression that the United States is the world’s great Satan. Ahh, but maybe that’s part of the agenda of those who seem to want to demonize America (i.e. many on the left). After all, if Americans saw the big picture of what is really going on in the world, America might not look quite so bad after all.
I agree with you that the media should focus on more important things. By using torture as an example you gave me the impression that you did not think it was important. I think also that you completely misunderstand the motives of the people you generalize as being from the "left." It's not that we (if I am indeed a member of this amorphous group) want to "demonize" America. It's that we constantly see America failing to live up to its ideals and it troubles us greatly. Just because you criticize something or someone doesn't mean you don't love them. I believe in what America stands for and it breaks my heart that its leaders so often fail to live up to our own ideals. Throughout the Cold War I saw us siding with dicatators who oppressed their people in the name of fighting communism and now I see us detaining people without charges, torturing prisoners, invading countries under false pretenses and frankly I'm disgusted by how we seem to be falling farther and farther away from the principles that make this country great. So please don't demonize the people on the left. We love this country too.
After all, if Americans saw the big picture of what is really going on in the world, America might not look quite so bad after all.
If Americans saw the big picture of what is really going on in the world, they would probably beg Fox News and CNN to keep running news about Natalie Holloway and Michael Jackson and who does and doesn't say "Merry Christmas". Newsatainment is much easier to digest.
The modern media's objective seems to be to report stories of events that are resolvable or that create controlled controversy. Controversy that someone can get really mad about, but go home and sleep at night and not feel so confused or uncomfortable that they don't also think about purchasing the news station's calendar or the luxury car they advertised during the break from the breaking news. Part of this controllable controversy is ideologically driven. Newsatainment people have a particular perspective on the world and that perspective influences how they report on a particular story or how they select the stories that they report on. They also, in an effort to appear to be objective, bring on "experts" who will each choose a particular side of the topic and argue about it. The logic here is that by arguing, shouting, and presenting all types of illogical arguments and misdirection the general public will be more informed... or possibly the general public will be confused enough that they can adopt a simple and safe view of the world and not be concerned about taking out a 6-year loan on that brand new Lexus.
Anonymous, I think most Americans are very uncomfortable with the idea that America would establish a policy of prisoner torture. Even though I believe our enemies would see anything less as weakness, torture is surely immoral. However, the problem I have with the left (yes, I'm generalizing) is their incessant focus on the negative. I know we can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend there are no problems, but the left tends to go too far the other way. When your whole being is focused on finding the negative, you are going to find the negative, even if it doesn't exist. You will believe anything, as long as it's negative. For example, you made the statement: "invading countries under false pretenses". This is simply not true, but you are so intent on finding something wrong you are repeating this lie. You have believed something, just because it's negative. The truth is both the left, the right, and much of the free world received faulty information and we went to war. Yet, you make it sound like the American people were intentionally deceived by our leadership. Talk about not living up to great principles. What is this constant focus on the negative, is it an elitist or superiority thing? Do you think it’s somehow progressive or noble? I’d like an honest answer, not a politically correct answer. Like it or not, mankind is not perfect, never will be in this life. I choose to not let that fact defeat my spirit.
The reason the Left may appear to be negative is because they are not in power. When Clinton was in office the Right seemed just as negative, if not moreso, relentlessly attacking him to the point where they tried to impeach him. Democrats, however, stood with Bush after 9/11 and went along with him on the war in Iraq and they got slapped down for it. Unfortunately, with all three branches of government and the media now in the pocket of the right wing, the left has no choice but to play defense.
As far as going to war under false pretenses, more and more it is becoming clear that the Bush administration knew the intelligence was faulty and they did not share that with members of Congress. The Valerie Plame affair is about their attempts to cover that up. To say Democrats in Congress had access to the same intelligence is a lie.
You gave me the political answer I expected; I was hoping for a personal response. Anyhow, Democrats stood with the president after 9/11 because, for a brief time, the whole nation was united and angry. Once the shock and anger subsided, Democrats went back to business as usual which is sad because if ever there was an issue that should transcend party boundaries, this is it. By the way, how did they get slapped down?
As for the media, maybe Fox and talk radio belong to the right, but the rest of the networks, cable outlets, and the vast majority of newspapers and magazines in this country are clearly left. Next, I expect to hear that CNN and NPR are fair and balanced. No, the left still holds the advantage in the media.
In the Valerie Plame affair, the prosecutor filed charges against Libby for Obstruction, perjury, and making false statements. No charges were filed for outing a CIA operative. Allegations that all of this is somehow related to Bush feeding the nation false information in order to go to war is a bit weak, so far. But again, the allegation Bush knew the information was faulty overlooks the other players in the decision to go to war. What about the UN's intelligence, or Great Britain's? Your asking us to believe that the rest of the world didn't get the information Bush had confirming the intelligence to be false. By the way, I knew from the beginning that WMD's were not the primary reason we went to Iraq. Why do so many choose to forget the other reasons? Besides, the returning soldiers I've heard from believe we need to be there, and they have more right to an opinion on this than the rest of us.
What do you mean "the Democrats went back to business as usual"? They supported Bush on the Patriot Act, they even supported him on the War in Iraq. Then in the election of 2002 Bush went around the country saying the Democrats were soft on terrorism, his people even morphed a picture of Vietnam veteran Max Cleland into Osama Bin Ladin. It's Bush who has continually used 9/11 to partisan political advantage and used terrorism to divide this country. Even at the Democratic Convention Kerry asked Democrats not to attack Bush personally, while at the Republican convention swift-boated Kerry and even mocked the wounds he received in Vietnam. Bush had a unique opportunity to bring this country together and the world together to fight a common foe and he not only squandered it, he spit in the face of every Democrat and every one of our allies abroad.
The myth of the "liberal media" really needs to be retired. The New York Times and the Washington Post were the biggest cheerleaders for the War on Iraq and they helped spread the Bush administrations lies. CNN devotes its prime time schedule to right-winger Lou Dobbs' rants against immigrants. NPR has ten times as many right-wing guests as Fox has left-wing guests. PBS has a shows like the one with the all-right-wing Wall Street Editorial board. Give me a break.
The Valerie Plame affair began as an attempt to attack Joe Wilson's unmasking of Bush's lies on Iraq's WMDs. It's not that people "forget" the reasons we went to war with Iraq, it's that Bush did not reveal them and then kept changing them. First it was WMD, then it was mythical ties to al Qaeda, then we were stabilizing the Middle East and bringing "democracy" to Iraq (some democracy--a pro-Iranian religious government that excludes the Sunnis), then we were fighting so that the people who already died wouldn't die "in vain." And now it turns out that Bush knew that all of his reasons for going to war in Iraq were lies and he told them anyway. And even as he claimed that no one was wiretapped without a court order he was actually bypassing the courts to spy on American citizens. Even Nixon did not have the contempt for the Constitution that Bush seems to have. Even Nixon did not have people arrested and detained without charges and without a trial. Even Nixon did not order people to be tortured in secret prisons. So, yes, I believe we were intentionally deceived by a man who swore to uphold the Constitution and has trampled on it.
Yes, they supported the Patriot Act and the war option immediately after 9/11 becuase the nation was fearful and furious; the country expected an aggressive response from both parties. But as time went on, democratic support waned, especially as the election approached. Democratic supporters had no problem calling Bush stupid, and other derogatory names. Of course Kerry said let's don't go personal with the campaign attacks on Bush, all politicians say such things, they just don't stick with it and neither did Kerry, or his wife. The attacks on Bush have been relentless since he took office; everything was Bush's fault, even hurricane Katrina.
I'm not sure what you mean by spitting in the face of our allies and dividing the country. If you're referring to allies that were in bed with Saddam Hussein in the UN oil for food scam, I'm O.K. with spitting in their face because we are a sovereign country that's entitled to do what's right for our own safety. As for dividing the country, I suspect what you mean is that Bush divides the country as long as he takes positions that don't agree with yours. Democrats and the liberal media are just as divisiveness. You can say liberal media bias is a myth but just saying it does not make it so. Whether it's print or TV news you seldom hear tough questions asked of liberals, but they have no problem being aggressive with conservatives. Their hypocrisy is astounding. For Example, James Risen, a writer for the New York Times, wrote an article last week causing all the hullabaloo about the National Security Administration (NSA) spying on callers. The article was titled: "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers without Courts." Apparently Mr. Risen also wrote an article about the NSA and their spying activities back in 1999, when it was under the Clinton Administration. Mr. Risen did not condemn NSA spying under Clinton, so why condemn it now under Bush? I could go on with statistics supporting the assertion there is a liberal media bias so I guess it all boils down to where we get our information.
As for Bush's so called "lies" about WMD's, Joe Wilson can make the claim over and over again, but that does not make it a fact, just an opinion.
Bush has never changed the reasons why we went to Iraq, go back and listen to his speeches since 9/11. Sure, WMD's were a big reason, but not the only reason. We all know one unspoken reason was to demonstrate to Islamic extremists that we possessed the military expertise to pull off such a large endeavor right in their own backyard.
As for the Constitution, the left seems to honor the Constitution when it supports their opinion, but they distort it when it does not suit their purpose.
If you really believe Bush intentionally lied in order to go to war then you have probably entered the ranks of the conspiracy theory fanatics. No, I think the truth is that you disdain Bush and conservative values so much that you are willing to believe anything. See, I'm willing to acknowledge that Bush is merely a man, capable of error and unethical decisions. I don't value all conservative values; I know that some of their values are unethical, if not evil. The problem I see with the left, and some on the right, is that they will stick with their man no matter what. I know in my heart that even Bill Clinton did some things right. Can you say that about Bush?
But you still have not answered my question as to why you guys on the left can see only negative stuff in the world around you.
I did answer your question about why the Left "seems" negative. You apparently didn't read what I wrote. It is because they are out of power and have little or no chance to introduce their agenda in Congress. The right certainly seemed negative during the Clinton Administration and even today people like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh constantly attack liberals. But if you listen to people like Barak Obama, to cite one example, there are plenty of people on the Left with a positive vision of America. Maybe you don't hear them so much on Fox News.
Like most Democrats I supported Bush's actions in Afghanistan to give one example of something I think Bush did right. But then he let Osama Bin Ladin get away and seemed to lose interest in promoting democracy in that country and returned power to the warlords. His attention from almost the very beginning turned to Iraq which had nothing to do with September 11, though he said they did.
I don't know why you put "lies" about WMD in quotes. It's clear now that Bush had access to intelligence that showed the "evidence" of WMDs was false and did not share this evidence with Congress or even Colin Powell.
I gave examples of why the media is not liberal. You gave no examples of why you think it is.
The reason Risen's article did not denounce Clinton for spying on Americans is that he didn't spy on Americans. But every day more and more information is coming out about a massive program ordered by George Bush personally to spy on Americans' telephone conversations, email communications, and political meetings in violation of U.S. law far beyond anything Nixon ever did and for which he would have been impeached.
And if you need more examples of "negativity" from the right, take a look at this truly sickening assemblage:
http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/12/headhunters.php
Post a Comment