Thursday, February 11, 2010
Around Town / Media / Phillips Updates on the Mosque Vandalism Story
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:06 PM
Comments (17)
Showing 1-17 of 17
See below the form email that Boonstra is sending to viewers that complained. See also the email I sent on Sunday night complaining about their inflammatory advertising. Feel free to note the fact that Boonstra's response is essentially immaterial.
EMAIL FROM BOONSTRA:
[Redacted],
There are certain topics that promise to create controversy… abortion, the death penalty, political correctness, tolerance of race/religion/sexual orientation, etc. The stories we did on the Muslim community in Dover were certainly ones that challenged religious tolerance. We did the stories because of the videotape that was circulating about so-called terrorist camps…one of which was said to be in Middle Tennessee. This video was getting wide distribution among several churches in our area. We wanted to see why this group of people were being targeted in the video and whether there was anything to substantiate it. So, we asked to go inside. We did not find anything that seemed to indicate there was something “sinister” going on. I stand behind the reports. I do not believe we put anyone in danger because of our stories. The community has been there for more than 20 years. People know where they are. The local authorities know where they are. The FBI knows where they are. I also do not believe that a two part report from NewsChannel 5 is going to incite violence in people because they just woke up after seeing our stories and suddenly decided they are anti-Muslim. I would hope that any opinion someone may have on a topic would be based on something much deeper. I believe our reports were fair and informative. And everyone we talked to in our stories from the Muslim community felt the same way. I am sorry you were disappointed.
Sincerely,
Sandy Boonstra
News Director
MY EMAIL TO BOONSTRA SUNDAY NIGHT:
Dear Channel Five Journalists, Managers, and Producers,
Tonight I watched your station's promotional trailer for a news story entitled "Islamville." I then watched the portion of the story that aired tonight at 10:00. Both the trailer and the portion of the story aired tonight suggest that Muslim persons living in Dover may be terrorists. This, of course, is a heavy charge in our country.
It appears that the entire story is based upon the allegations of an underground video that makes a bold assertion about the Dover group, yet offers no evidence that would substantiate it. Clearly this video can not be considered a credible source by your news team, and so it surprises me that your journalists would choose to base a story upon it, and that your station would invest substantial resources in a story based upon it.
What is even less understandable though, is the fact that your advertising of the story clearly implies that these people may be terrorists. Let's be honest here for a moment: your helicopters have flown over the compound, and your cameras have entered into these peoples' settlement. The story is already written, and your station's journalists know whether these people are openly linked to terrorists. If your station had discovered terrorist activity, I cannot doubt that you would be proclaiming is loudly (as would other news agencies). However, no such trumpeting has occurred, which leads to the conclusion that no terrorist activity was found.
This, then, begs the question as to why your station would choose to advertise the story as they have. After all, if the people are terrorists, then your tag line should declare that loudly, and someone should call the FBI. On the other hand, if they are not, then the story's advertising should not carelessly invoke the specter of terrorism against a group of people already suspect in the public eye merely because of their religious affiliations. Certainly, no ethical journalist would publish or advertise a story that implies one thing when he knows the other to be true.
Why then would your station choose to produce and market a story in such an inflammatory and misleading way? If I were more cynical, I would assume that your station's conduct is merely due to a need to increase ratings, and that such half-true advertising and inflammatory rhetoric is merely a ploy to gain viewers and the accompanying advertising revenues. However, I think such an explanation is overly simplistic.
What I wonder instead is whether your journalists have perhaps lost their way and forgotten their duty to the public. When we look at some of the great journalists of our time--Murrow, Cronkite, Woodward--we see an unfailing allegiance to the truth. Such journalists stirred the pot only when the facts of a story were such that the public needed to be informed. Your journalists, in this case, fail to live up that standard. Rather than inform, they have chosen to inflame, and such inflammation is a betrayal of the trust placed in them by the public. Could ratings perhaps be to blame? Sure. Is it more likely that in a time of increasingly caustic and misleading social discourse your journalists succumbed to the temptation of engaging in that type of discourse? Yes.
Whatever the causal factors may be, the reality is that your station's style of advertising and story production lead not to the exposition of facts related to the Muslims involved, but rather to unsupported implications and innuendo about these people. It is a shame that an organization entrusted by the public to shine light into darkness would choose to muddy waters rather than clarify them.
I do recognize that the full story has yet to run, and so it is tempting to think that perhaps all will be made clear in the end when the final installment is shown. However, this line of reasoning falters on two fronts. First, it fails to account for the thousands of people who will watch your station's "Islamville" advertising, fail to watch all pertinent parts of the story (or fail to consume it critically), and then go about their day thinking that there are, in fact, Muslim terrorists living here in Tennessee. Second, it fails to recognize that news advertising is, essentially, promotional sound bites and that as a result such sound bites need to be exceedingly accurate and fair in order to convey a true message that meets the ethical requirements of your profession.
It also might be tempting to think that the station's viewers will be able to see through the promotional language for what the story really is: an investigation into whether the video's assertion is accurate. However, this line of thinking leads us to a very scary place. Obviously, if a viewer has to see through anything to get to the truth, then a news program is failing to accurately present the news. Another way of thinking about it is that if journalists expect media consumers to view their stories with the same level of critical thought as they would a sales pitch, then the journalists have ceased to be reporters and have, in fact, become salespeople themselves--selling what the public wants to hear, not what it needs to know.
In sum then, I respectfully request that your station examine its decisions about advertising and production with a more critical focus upon the implications of your advertising and production on the perceptions and understanding of your viewers on the world around them. Perhaps this requires the station to change its advertising tone with regards to "Islamville," or to change some of the story that will air tomorrow to be more fact-intensive and less speculative in nature. At a minimum though, your station should consider the fact that advertising which involves fear and suspicion of the conduct of others is only ethical when the facts of the story support the fear. It is the duty of journalists to extinguish the fires of ignorance with the water of knowledge, and I hope that is a duty that your station holds more dear than your Islamville advertising and production suggests.
If you would like engage in a spirited social discourse regarding this topic--or others tangentially related--I will gladly respond to emails.
Regards,
-[REDACTED]
like
dislike
We wouldn't have this controversy if whiney-voiced Phil Williams had done the story. I suspect many are like me and simply can't stand to listen to him more than five words.
Ms. Boonstra, stop apologizing. You did nothing wrong. The "vandalism" is an obvious hoax perpetrated by the Somali Muslims themselves.
The cross is an Ethiopian Orthodox cross that would be common in Eritria and Ethopia. Funny how it ended up on a Somali mosque, and Somalia right next door to the aforementioned countries.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that: Somalis would be most familiar with East African Christian symbols. Anyone still think a Nashville redneck did this thing? lol!
The reason Muslims don't get away with their fabricated "hate-crimes" is because they're not smart enough. A 10-year-old could see through this obvious hoax.
Now, let's have that "hate-filled letter" published! We'll be able to tell instantly who wrote it by the syntax and spelling. Publish the "hate-filled letter" so we can ALL see that the Somalis wrote it. And then do a big story on the Somalis' hoax.
Wow. Channel 5 should totally do an expose based on all the evidence you just provided. The ads would lead most viewers to conclude that it was indeed a self-inflicted hoax, but part two of the story would show that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was anything other than what it looked like in the first place: anti-Mulsim vandalism by ignorant bigots.
Ha-Ha! You're amusing, Mr. Duthie!
"ignorant bigots!" That's hilarious!
I say it's an obvious hoax. So, let's just wait and see what happens, eh?
Oh, and you want "bigotry?" Read the Jew/Christian-Hating Koran. Islam's main theme is "Kill the Infidels," and they certainly do do that, don't they? Just look at that Islamic bigotry! They hate everybody but Muslims.
You're the ignorant one. Stupendously so.
First Amendment, not only are you an idiot, you apparently fail to realize that people can look this shit up for themselves and see. The Crusaders' cross (also called the Jerusalem cross) which was painted on the building is a cross with all lines the same length and then four smaller equal armed crosses, one in a quadrant, like you see painted on this mosque.
The style of cross Ethiopian Orthodox Christians often use is an equal-length armed cross with stout arms and elaborate decorations at the ends of each arms.
Other than having equal arms, the two crosses don't resemble each other.
You're going to have to work harder on you "obvious" evidence, I think.
Columbia Journalism Review has more on the Channel 5 aspect of the story.
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/tonight_on_channel_5_some_say.php?page=1
You're an idiot, aunt B. A PC know-nothing blithering idiot.
The Muzlims did it. It's obvious.
Now, will LE have the balls to report this as an inside job, because allah forbid we should "insult" Barbaric Islam and it's Thug followers.
Why don't you just put on a Black Tent with eyeholes, B? Hey - it would look good on you, you imbecile.
Oh, and Columbia U?
It's become a pathetic PC joke that defends the Barbarians and their Barbaric ideology at all costs. They hosted insane Iranian despot Neanderthal Ahmadinejad, remember?
So much for your pathetic PC idiotic reference.
@First Amendment:
You apparently have failed to do your homework about Columbia and CJR. If you take the time to watch the Columbia University Ahmadinejad speech, you will notice that prior to Ahmadinejad saying anything, the president of Columbia gives him a rather scathing introduction, showing that Ahmadinejad's track record is despised at Columbia.
In the future, please consult the relevant primary source documents on a given topic prior to making commentary about the supposed thoughts of certain people. You'll find that your commentary becomes much more informed as a result, and your errors much less of an embarrassment. Alternatively, if you haven't the time or will to investigate a subject fully, please refrain from speaking.
To SW: - LOL! You're funny!
YOU refrain from speaking, dearie.
Especially as you didn't really say anything.
In the future, try to be less of an arrogant prig, less of a self-aggrandizing pompous ass, and you will notice that your commentary will become more interesting and relevant. As it is now, your commentary is not only extremely embarrassing, but also highly uninformed, as well as boring as all-get-out. But, that's because you're a bore.
I strongly urge you to find a muzzle, the kind used for vicious dogs, and muzzle yourself. The world will be ever-so-grateful!
Columbia has become a pathetic PC institution. The Dictator/Islamic Terrorist/Murderer Ahmadinejad should have never been permitted to speak there, at all.
@ First Amendment:
It appears that a bullet pointed summary of your response format would be as follows:
1) Use insults rather than address prior comment.
2) Make a baseless assertion devoid of factual support.
Your failure to use factual information to support your position continues to undermine your credibility.
That is all.
SW -
You are wrong.
That is all.
Now, please leave me alone, I want nothing to do with you. Thank You.
@ First Amendment:
It appears you have raised the white flag.
Your request to be left alone shall be honored.
On Friday, members from the local churches, Jewish community, Belmont University, Vanderbilt School of Divinity, as well as the media showed up at the Mosque to help clean up the vandalism.
It is clear to me from the big turnout that members of the Nashville community are against the atrocious crime. Their presence, help, and support made us realize that the community in Nashville is supportive and caring.
To First Amendment:
If you want to read and analyze the “letter” you are welcome to come to the mosque and we will gladly let you look at the letter and make copies of it for your keeping.
@First Amendment
Even if your attempt was to further incite hate towrads muslims, you should do more research so that you would have adequate support. Merely making random conjectures about the "koran" and mulims is not sufficient. I encourage you to put more effort, perhaps when at leisure, into learning about Islam, and not solely about "muslims." Also be mindful and careful about who it is that you are getting information from. The best place to learn about Islam is the mosque (make appointment with some1), and not from those considered "moderate" or even "secular" because they'll either paint a rosy picture or are themselves making assumptions. Also, you can read the "koran" as a whole rather than looking at it outside of context.
Best wishes; Respects.
