Monday, February 15, 2010
Barry / Media NewsChannel 5's 'Islamville' Report: Bad Journalism? Or Good Journalism Badly Packaged?
Posted by Bruce Barry on Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:33 AM
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.If she knew this to be true, then why tease the piece and label the story video as an inside look at a "secret Muslim community"? It was fundamentally dishonest to have your reporter discover that there is nothing secret about it -- the sheriff made it clear that its existence has been known for years--and then promote it as a report on a "secret" community. It was also poor journalism for the station in its own reporting on the mosque vandalism to ignore the substantial local conversation and controversy about whether the NewsChannel 5 story might have played a role. As Pith reported, one of the mid-state's major immigrant rights groups issued a statement to the press noting that the vandalism was "particularly troubling as it comes on the heels of a sensationalist report by NewsChannel 5." Blaming the press for imbecilic actions perpetrated by idiots who may or may not have had specific knowledge of some particular news story is a tenuous business, one that risks chilling aggressive reporting on hot-button issues. Even so, in this case NewsChannel 5's irresponsible approach to packaging and promoting the report made reasonable people sense a connection, and so the station unavoidably became part of the story. Its ensuing failure to acknowledge and report on that angle, and to seek to dispel its own culpability publicly, was a further journalistic whiff. Bottom line: This was a reasonable story to pursue, and one worth airing to dispel ugly rumors circulating in area churches. The reporting itself that made it on the air was for the most part even-keeled and informative. The promotion for it, on the other hand, was anything but. Once the station's reporter learned first-hand in the field that there was no 'there' there, a responsible and professional news organization might still have run the piece but would have moderated the emotional volume associated with it, not amplified it into something calculated to whip up nativist fury.
Comments (35)
Showing 1-35 of 35
So, if the reason for doing the story is to debunk the "rumors circulating in area churches" why then didn't the story focus on the video and the allegations rather than the community itself? And why weren't other Christian religious leaders interviewed about the allegations rather than Murray Davis, who they knew would offer a sensationalist response? The entire story was structured to give credence to the "wingnut" allegations with no critique of those allegations, nor analysis as to the backgrounds of those making the allegations. The story also suggests that the tape had been circulating through area churches and viewed by area pastors, but offers no support beyond Davis's comment to that supposed fact.
Let's be honest here Bruce. This is a story based in innuendo with little effort to seriously address the issues at hand. The research involved driving to Steward County, and doing two quick interviews, painting the allegations as credible without any sense of the folks behind the allegations. It was a quick and cheap shot which has just enough veneer of "balance" to slide under the wire.
Perception is reality for most folks, and the perception left in many folks minds is that there is something inappropriate for Muslims to create their own self segregated community. If we are going down that road, then it may be time to do a few stories on reconstructionist Christian communities that are far more inflammatory than Islamville.
like
dislike
Since Nashville is a Neilsen metered market and doesn't rely completely on sweeps months for ratings, we will be treated to stories like this throughout the year. Oh joy!
I was interviewed by reporters from Channel 2 and Channel 4 on the day of the clean-up. In both interviews, upon being asked why I was there to help in the effort, (both reporters led with the question) I responded that I felt their competition had run an irresponsible piece and that it had infuriated many Nashville residents.
Alas, both quotes were cut. I'm hardly surprised...
"-and for the story's possible role inciting vandalism at a Nashville mosque." - from article
That's ridiculous. Of course the Muslims "vandalized" their own property to get sympathy from the clueless Nashville "Infidels."
The "cross" drawn was specifically an East African Christian cross, commonly found in Eritrea and Ethiopia - neighboring countries of all-Muslim Somalia. Please - it's so obvious THEY did it. No Nashville "Infidel" is going to draw an East African cross, end of story.
There have been several hoaxed "hate-crime" incidents in the U.S. in recent years in which it was proven that a Muslim or Muslims perpetrated the hoax themselves. One I recall took place at a small college in Illinois, Elmhurst College, where a female Muslim fabricated being assaulted by a white male. Proven that the assault never happened. I remember that she was booked and awaiting trial. Look it up.
In 2008 there was the Dayton, OH, mosque hoax. Look that up, too. So, you see - it's not far-fetched at all to speculate that the Somali Muslims did this themselves. There is precedent. And I believe they did do it. Funny how no windows were broken, isn't it? I guess the Muslims didn't want to break their own windows.
The investigation into this "vandalism" has most probably already revealed to experienced LE that this was an inside job. But, in our ridiculous and self-defeating climate of political correctness, will the investigators have the balls to report it as a hoax? That's a legitimate question. Will their personal integrity overcome the lockstep of political correctness?
This is good commentary, except I think that the actual report deserves some criticism for the way in which innuendo was fostered even within the story. Three examples come to mind:
1 - The continued use of the word "compound". "Trailer Park" would have sufficed. The word "compound" suggests some sort of military use, and implicitly connects the community to aggressive, conspiratorial activity.
2 - The way in which the girls were described as "running away," as if they had something to hide. Perhaps they didn't want to be on TV? It was quite ridiculous, considering that the report found nothing of note otherwise.
3 - the comment that the reporter "did not look into every building," as though an in depth cavity search of the trailer park would be the only way to be certain that no nefarious activity was going on. By this logic, any story on any community/house/building in the state should be prefaced with the following statement: "Because we could not check every room in this building, we can not be sure illegal activity was not going on." In other words, the story continued to play on the fears of its viewers, even as it was supposedly proving that there was nothing to be afraid of.
I agree that the claims of this extremist documentary needed to be put to rest. But I don't think the report itself is beyond criticism.
That being said, I'm 100% on board with your comments about the ad campaign.
Bruce:
The rule when I was a News Director was that each story of a multi-part series had to be fair and accurate. You don't load all the sensational stuff into one story and then "make up" for the sensationalism by setting the record straight later.
The reason for the rule is simple: People didn't (and don't) watch TV news as if it were an old Saturday morning serial - eagerly awaiting the next installment after each cliffhanger. Folks who watch on Sunday night may miss or skip Monday's broadcast, or, God forbid, might even watch the competition.
Front-end-loading a series with all the crap you plan to debunk in succeeding stories creates too much of a chance that people will hear the "crap" and miss the "debunk." It's lazy writing, and it's inherently unfair, given the hit-or-miss nature of TV news viewership.
You're right, and Channel 5 was wrong. And they should have known better.
I am disappointed that Newschannel 5 decided to run such a blatantly sensationalist piece that caters to hate-mongers. As a World Geography teacher, one of the field trips that I found most rewarding and enriching for my students was the trip to the Islamic Center. In addition to a fascinating discussion with members of the Islamic community, students were treated to snacks (very important for any middle schoolers). No other facility on our religion field trip welcomed us this way. I applaud the Islamic community in Nashville for demonstrating the tact and dignity that the C.B.N. and Newschannel 5 lack. It's unfortunate that productive, generous citizens of our city must suffer defamation by the ignorant.
Bruce, I hear your points, but methinks you're being a little too magnanimous to Channel 5. I'm with commenter jv here. The story wasn't this Muslim community, it was the video and the asinine churches who were propagating the lies.
I think it's possible that after living in Nashville for a while, it's easy to get immune to just how terrified the mainstream media is of every pointing their finger at a Christian church. In New York City or San Francisco, for instance, there's little doubt that the story would have been, "Are some local churches fanning the flames of intolerance with anti-Muslim propaganda?" After all, that's the real story.
Channel 5 has EVERY RIGHT to investigate Islamic compounds, mosques, and Muslims in Tennessee as Muslims are and have been perpetrating Islamic mass-murdering Jihads worldwide since and including September 11, 2001. Channel 5 - Thank You for investigating the Muslims.
The "hate-mongers" are the Muslims. Muslims, following their hate-filled ideology of Islam, have been globally mass-murdering non-Muslims in the 21st century since 9/11:
"Kill non-Muslims wherever you find them. Lie in wait and ambush them, seize and capture them using every stratagem of war." Q 9:5
Investigation of Muslim activities and mosques is not "ignorant." In fact, it's intelligent as all-get-out, considering that mosques are the primary hate-spewing places where followers of the "religion of Terrorism" congregate.
Thank You channel 5! Keep investigating the Mohammedans, as they follow an ideology that says to "Kill the Infidels" and "Slay the Unbelievers." IOW - us.
I'm 100% convinced that the Muslims vandalized their mosque. As I wrote above, it remains to be seen whether LE will have the balls to publicly expose it as an inside job, or conform to the lockstep of political correctness.
I can tell that "Dissapointed" (sic) above is most probably a Muslim, and also not a teacher, as he/she misspelled "Disappointed."
You say you're a "teacher" and you misspelled "Disappointed?" Yeah right. What you are is a liar.
A few points as an observer from outside the area.
Having viewed channel 5's report it was fine to both try to look into the compound and look at the allegations and who was making them. I think it fell down a little on the allegations and who was making them - and why. While there was some decent journalism within the two pieces, as a package they were bad journalism - misleading promos, use of images, audio, and teasers to try to paint the story in one direction, only to debunk it later.
Second, First Amendment needs to do a little more research into the Islamic faith and do some comparative research into various religions to discover that there are hateful elements within most all religions, including Christianity, and that most religions have been used to justify the killing of innocents throughout the past few thousand years. Shall we start comparing verses and historical slaughters in the names of various religions? We can hate in ignorance and live in our own smug self-assurance that we are superior.
I also took issue with their reporting (or lack thereof) of the "Homegrown Jihad" video. There was no reporting on the group who produced and distributed the video, no looking into the wackjob that is the group's Nashville representative whom they interviewed, nothing to indicate that this video is an anti-Muslim fear campaign propagated by a radical Zionist group whose founder has written books about Muslims with titles like "Why They Hate" and "They Must Be Stopped." I mean, really.
How about for their next trick they do a two-part series on the Christian extremists in Middle Tennessee stoking hatred of the immigrant community, many of whom are refugees I'd like to add. Seems like it might be a little more accurate.
And I forgot to add:
Someone needs to ask Cornerstone Church and every other church which screened this video if THEY feel responsible for the mosque vandalism.
"First Ammendment," you are 100% positive that Muslims vandalized their own mosque? Really? 100%? There's NO WAY it was anyone else?
Wow, man, you must be crazy psychic. I guess it's just really naive of me to believe people actually vandalize buildings out of a dislike for a group of people. There's no way it could have just been racist rednecks, eh?
I'm not saying they DIDN'T vandalize it themselves- maybe they did. But I think you have to be a pretty ignorant, hateful person to be ABSOLUTELY certain it went down like that.
I think the REAL story here is that the same reporter who pushed ethical bounds on the Islamville story is the SAME reporter who pushed ethical bounds by voicing the infamous Spring Break story using video obtained of high school and college kids in various forms of unsavory behavior (which painted kids engaged in both licit and illicit behavior with the same brush) and wound up getting the station sued.
Why is it when NewsChannel 5 needs a reporter to cross the ethical lines, it usually goes to the same reporter?
"First Amendment," you really are a bigot, aren't you? You jump all over a Geography teacher for misspelling a word? And use that as proof that they are some kind of secret agent Muslim, spreading lies? Hahaha! What a joke you are. Whoops, I accidentally misspelled "amendment" in my first post. I'm probably a secret Muslim, too. Let me get back to my compound and report back to my superiors!
Racist jerk.
For me, I think the bottom line is, there was NO story so they, NewsChannel 5, sensationalized the story to get people to watch. William Randolph Hearst would be proud.
The real story is the christianist extremists in the Tennessee legislature. Why no story on that?
Charlie -
You know all of the hate-filled idiocies you called me?
Back to you, you ignorant PC Idiot.
Muslims are the Bigots. Read the KKKoran, the Jew-Hating "Mein Korampf," you ignorant PC Idiot. Imbecile.
You're a crazy nutcase. An utter fool. And, you're "ignorant and hateful," just like the mass-murdering Mohammedans. YOU are the joke.
Oh Yes, a "teacher" should not misspell that oh-so-difficult-word, "Disappointed." LOL! That's a no-brainer. No wonder you have a GED.
You're a racist jerk! You pitiful, pathetic, pos, IDIOT IMBECILE.
Why don't you just become a Muslim! LOL! Enjoy yourself, you backward, retrograde, imbecile BARBARIAN!
THE MUSLIMS DID IT. And you're too brain-damaged by political correctness to know that. Man, you are dumb. How's that GED working out for you?! lol!
"The real story is the christianist extremists in the Tennessee legislature. Why no story on that?"
Because Christians aren't mass-murdering people, that's why.
Muslims are. Or, do you live in a cave like the mass-murdering Mohammedans? You stupid PC Imbecile. Why don't you just become a 7th century AD Mohammedan? Enjoy yourself! And make sure your female relatives "cover" themselves in Black Hefty bags with eyeholes. Say, why don't you do the same? Move to Yemen. Good Riddance.
I can tell that "Dissapointed" (sic) above is most probably a Muslim, and also NOT a teacher, as he/she misspelled "Disappointed."
You say you're a "teacher" and you misspelled "Disappointed?" Yeah right. What you are is a liar.
That's such a hard word to spell! Especially for a "teacher!" So on to you and your lies, Mohammedan.
Because Christians aren't mass-murdering people, that's why.
LOL.
Someone needs to remind this idiot that our "Christian nation" is involved in two wars right now.
With some internet commenters, you can almost feel the spittle flying when you read their posts.
I love how so many people believe that flinging "PC" at someone is the ultimate epithet. As if being sensitive to how other people, not like yourself, might feel or think is a bad thing.
As many posters will note, I have been attempting for several days now to offer guidance to First Amendment as to how he can make a more coherent argument based upon logic and facts. However, I have grown tired of his resistance to logic and have decided that perhaps embarrassment is a better solution than correction. For whatever reason it seems to work well for middle school students and so, perhaps, it will work well for him.
That said, what First Amendment claims leads to some very interesting conclusions:
Claims:
(1) First Amendment claims that Muslims vandalized their own mosque.
(2) He claims that only Muslims were present, and that no non-Muslims were present.
(3) He claims that he knows both (1)&(2) conclusively.
Conclusions
(1) To conclusively know something, one has to have first person knowledge of the events.
(2) In order to have conclusive first person knowledge, First Amendment must have been at the mosque at the time of the vandalism.
(2) But if only Muslims were present at the time then First Amendment... must... be... a... Muslim.
Hence, if we take First Amendment at his word, he is an Muslim mosque vandal. Alternatively, if we take his comments to be false, he is just be full of it.
That said, @ First Amendment: Are you a Muslim who has betrayed your faith community or are you full of it?
We await your response with baited breath as it will surely included (a) baseless assertions, (b) the word "Jihadist" or a similarly pejorative term, and (c) a steely resistance to logic and common sense.
That is all.
It would seem to this non-involved observer that the issue here is “packaging and promoting.” And after some amount of contemplation it also seems that channel 5's technique varies little from local fleshpots – 'tittie bars, gentlemens clubs, etc'. Should this be surprising?
Each is designed to suck viewership(!) to a basically, disappointingly, sometimes frustratingly, ordinary scenario which must be viewed, in the flesh as it were, to disperse erotic, sometimes lewd teasers. All Channel 5 has done is just played the game. It's simply what pays the bills. And I've always considered any accompanying, occasional set of blue-balls not to be something of cosmic importance. Rather, just to be part of the price of titillation.
I noticed that I accidentally left the final (3) a (2) when revising. Please substitute appropriately.
I didn't see the program discussed in this article, but if Islamville is connected to Sheik Gilani's outfit, Jamaat al Fuqra, it probably DESERVES a thorough investigation -if not by these folks, then by someone with the money and integrity to do it right:
"Sheik Gilani's American Dsciples"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/996lxfmd.asp
Anonymous:
I'd be careful about citing an article in the Weekly Standard as an authoritative expose on the undercover Islamic threat in America. Rupert Murdoch, Bill Kristol, and Fred Barnes, the founder and editors, are hardly unbiased. The magazine has been aptly described as "the neocon bible."
More specifically, the five page article to which you cite makes a single two-word reference (page 1, paragraph 3) to the community in Dover, Tennessee, and does not disclose any source for asserting the community's connection with Sheik Gilani. Mira Boland, the article's author (and former head of the Anti-Defamation League's Washington office), once dismissed (in the Wall Street Journal) the existence of violent racism in America as "a paranoid fantasy."
In short, the article to which you cite provides no basis whatsoever to justify an investigation of the Dover community.
"First Amendment" is one of those guys who surrendered in 1865 and is still kind of butthurt about it.
One of those totally racist internet tough-guys who wouldn't dare say what he says on the internet in real life, for fear he would get his ass beat (as is probably deserved).
It's a sad, sad lot when bigots like him still lurk around among sane and reasonable people.
The South is dead, First Amendment. Deal with it.
YEAH we need to run these Muslems out of town. You never know they might be tied to mister CIA boogyman himself. Keep in mind these people hate us because of the freedoms we used to have. The Muslems are out to take over the world and we must be very very afraid of them.
I feel so much safer now that we are a police state. Dont you???
A refresher course in our Terms of Use, which lists the many reasons a post may be deleted at our discretion:
"Transmitting any information, data, text, files, links, software, chats, communication or other materials that is unlawful, and in particular, that is harmful to minors, physically threatening, invasive of another's privacy, defamatory, obscene, or that contains hate speech...."
The full list is available here:
http://www.nashvillescene.com/about/terms
"I'd be careful about citing an article in the Weekly Standard as an authoritative expose on the undercover Islamic threat in America. Rupert Murdoch, Bill Kristol, and Fred Barnes, the founder and editors, are hardly unbiased. The magazine has been aptly described as "the neocon bible."
Are you in the habit of discounting, out of hand, the work of anyone you consider "conservative?" Are you alleging that other media outlets are unbiased? If so, that says more about you than them.
"More specifically, the five page article to which you cite makes a single two-word reference (page 1, paragraph 3) to the community in Dover, Tennessee, and does not disclose any source for asserting the community's connection with Sheik Gilani."
So, we agree: if the group is connected to Sheik Gilani and Jammat al Fuqra, there may be some cause for concern? That confuses me a bit, becasuse, as far as I can tell, the group was clearly established by Gilani and openly accepts him as their leader.
_____________
"Mira Boland, the article's author (and former head of the Anti-Defamation League's Washington office), once dismissed (in the Wall Street Journal) the existence of violent racism in America as "a paranoid fantasy."
Now this angers me. What is it about the left that makes them believe they can silence any opponent by waiving around accusations of racism . . . ? But I digress. So, it appears the basis for rejecting the Weekly Standard article rests on three pillars: 1). "they' are conservatives; 2). "They" are racists; and 3). "they" have not sufficiently established a connection with their founder - a founder that the group itself openly accepts and venerates.
Whatever.
Good Lord, Mark. Did you even look at the group's website?
http://www.holyislamvillesc.org/
from the opening paragraph:
"Holy Islamville is a Muslim village in South Carolina, established by His Eminence, El-Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani, in 1983 as Islamville, SC. Upon the event of miraculous manifestations (Karamaat) of Allah Ta’ala, the Baitun-Noor Holy Khanqah (the very first Islamic shrine in America) was erected and the village renamed to Holy Islamville in the holy month of Ramadan al-Mubarak, 1423 AH (2002 AD)."
____________
. . . And you have the gaul to assert that the Weekly Standard article " . . does not disclose any source for asserting the community's connection with Sheik Gilani?"
WHAT ABOUT THEIR FRECKIN' HOMEPAGE?
Okay, I see the Islamville I linked to above is located in South Carolina while the Islamville discussed in the article is located in Dover, TN - but honestly, is it reasonable to believe the two are unconnected? They both appear to be off-shoots of Muslims in the Americas with further associations through the Open Quranic University project. It just doesn't seem plausible to suggest that the group in SC venerates and follows Gilani while the one in Dover doesn't. Consequently, I stand by my original post:
" I didn't see the program discussed in this article, but if Islamville is connected to Sheik Gilani's outfit, Jamaat al Fuqra, it probably DESERVES a thorough investigation -if not by these folks, then by someone with the money and integrity to do it right:
"Sheik Gilani's American Dsciples"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/996lxfmd.asp
Hey, Barry: Is it a coverup or an oversight on your part? See this article, Islamvillegate—A Tale of Media Cover-up
Apparently my linking skills in the Scene's comment editor leave much to be desired. Here's the link: http://kumarforcongress.net/2010/02/24/islamvillegatea-tale-of-media-coverup.aspx
