Posted on 04/15/2014 9:37:35 AM PDT by DanMiller
Being respectful toward the sensitivities of Islamists should be easy for the "legitimate" media. They are normally more than respectful toward the sensitivities of the Obama Administration.
An April 15th post by Jonathan Turley argues, gently, against catering excessively to Islamic sensitivities.
Lawrence Pintak, dean of the Washington State University’s Edward R. Murrow College of Communication, has written a controversial guide for journalists on how to cover stories without insulting Muslims. “Islam for Journalists” is an effort to educate reporters on the sensitivities of Muslims to avoid triggering protests or violence. Pintak writes that “Across the Muslim world extremists are wielding their swords with grisly effect, but the pen . . . can be just as lethal.” That line captures the controversy because it seems to suggest that reporters are a cause of violence when they fail to adhere to the demand of religious values or orthodoxy in their publications. [Emphasis added.]. . . .
My concern about the “how to” guide is that it is part of a quiet move in the West to accommodate religious demands while publicly declaring fealty to free speech. For many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. For recent columns, click here and here and here.
Much of this writing has focused on the effort of the Obama Administration to reach an accommodation with allies like Egypt to develop a standard for criminalizing anti-religious speech. We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard. (Emphasis added)
In a satirical video posted back in 2011, Andrew Klavan explained how and why not to offend Islamists.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKerbOi_mrI?feature=player_detailpage]
Dean Pintak and Mr. Klavan take slightly different approaches, but the results would be little different.
A similar tendency of the "legitimate" media to avoid offending the sensitivities of the Obama Administration, by investigating and reporting on matters that might be seen as offensive, is well expressed in this recent video of an interview with former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfrtNaXGai0?feature=player_detailpage]
If less than the desired respectful attitude were shown toward the Obama Administration by investigating and reporting matters it hopes to conceal, the response might well be injurious to the wealth of the guilty media. Integrity? What's that? Appeasement requires less effort than investigative reporting, will not precipitate charges of "racism" and is better for the bottom line. Appeasement through reporting propaganda as fact has become the accepted answer.
Do the legitimate media believe that the Obama Administration must, like Islam, be treated with great deference because otherwise the consequences would likely be adverse? Might the problem go even beyond that? An article posted on April 9th by Gatestone Institute offered this:
The president made this really quite remarkable statement in his Cairo speech: “I consider it as part of my responsibility as president of the United States is to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” [Emphasis added.]
Think about that. It’s really quite astonishing. I would say that if a president made that comment about Judaism or Christianity most of us would say, “That’s really quite bizarre. It is actually not his job.” [Emphasis added.]
To pick out and isolate Islam as the one religion, criticisms of which he has the responsibility to correct, is actually amazing. [Emphasis added.]
Assuming that President Obama was candid when He said that “I consider it as part of my responsibility as president of the United States is to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear," did He thereby advise the legitimate media to be respectful toward Islam? Or else?
There's at least one more point to be made. On April 13th, in an article titled Truth, lies and conspiracy theories, I dealt with the media tendency to appease, rather than investigate and report candidly concerning, the Obama Administration. My thesis was that since the Obama Administration lies more far often that not, and the legitimate media regurgitate its lies for us to swallow, even far-out conspiracy theories gain relative credence. If, some happy day, the Obama Administration were to advise us candidly on a matter of political significance, would we believe it? Remember the story of the boy who cried "Wolf!"? Who could trust him? Who, for the same reason, can trust President Obama or His legitimate media?
...educate reporters on the sensitivities of Muslims to avoid triggering protests or violence.
Now this just goes to show you how differently I think from these people. I say insult the bastards so that they can riot, so that we know who to pack up and ship back to Sand Maggot Land.
Cool GIF. I wonder if one could use one of those micro-printers to print the entire text of the koran in pigs blood onto a pigskin? It might make a great dogs’ bed cover
1. Never call the Christian Bible “holy” but always refer to the Koran as “the Holy Koran”. Apply this principle generally to all religious relics, persons and places.
2. Avoid creating cultural misunderstandings by omitting unnecessary details about Islamic demonstrations in which little girls are kidnapped from their Christian homes to be gang raped and tortured in forced conversions to the religion of peace. Instead, emphasize the real cause of violence which is Christians trying to proselytize or making criticisms of Islam when they know these things are offensive and illegal.
[Great job so far, but please read the new, additional guidelines below.]
3. Always begin your Islam-related story by declaring “Allah is great”.
For a bunch of murdering, seventh century barbarians Muzzies sure get their delicate feelings hurt easily, eh?
Tagline:
They claim and practice zero tolerance on little white boys for pointing their finger like a gun, drawing a picture or sneakin a kiss WITH little Suzy.
I think we should put into place a zero tolerance policy for ANYthing Muslim because it is not a religion ... IT IS NOT A RELIGION !!!
Remember the Moonies?
Now THERE'S a 'religion" that came and went, but left it's mark in a lot of religious/political areas. They SEEM to at least have been somewhat benevolent in their activities whereas the Muslims are nothing but .... NOTHING BUT blood, gore, murder and assassination, intent on capturing a land.
zero tolerance for Muslims is MY cry.
Bull$h!t!
Their sensitivities deserve nothing but scorn. When they start acting like civilized humans, I’ll start caring about their sensitivities.
Range time, my FRiend, range time.
If the muzzies want hot jihad in America, let it begin right here in the South.
911 was planned by islamics within the halls of muslim religious institutions.
911 was initiated by islamic holy men.
911 was financially support by islamics
911 was logistically supported by islamics.
911 was carried our by only islamic people, at every stage.
911 was completed with the murderous deaths of over three thousand Americans by islamic men. 911 was celebrated in the streets by millions of islamic people all over the world.
I find nothing honorable in any of this. I find islam at fault. I find muslims at fault.
The islamic people should be treated with only the respect, or disrespect that they earned in 911.
I do not for a minute think that our president has forgotten his muslim training. I believe he makes his decisions every day in full compliance with those radical beliefs.
What we need to know and remember.
911 was planned by islamics within the halls of muslim religious institutions.
911 was initiated by islamic holy men.
911 was financially support by islamics
911 was logistically supported by islamics.
911 was carried our by only islamic people, at every stage.
911 was completed with the murderous deaths of over three thousand Americans by islamic men. 911 was celebrated in the streets by millions of islamic people all over the world.
I find nothing honorable in any of this. I find islam at fault. I find muslims at fault.
The islamic people should be treated with only the respect, or disrespect that they earned in 911.
I do not for a minute think that our president has forgotten his muslim training. I believe he makes his decisions every day in full compliance with those radical beliefs.
Why would anyone in his or her right mind want to be tolerant and/or sensitive to evil?
How about we IGNORE Islamist “sensitivities”, and focus on AMERICAN “sensitivities”??!?!
Think of them as your crazy aunt.. Or uncle.. Ya know, the one ya always avoided mentioning certain topics around them.
What has this nation become?
Muzzled by Mohammed
4. Mohammed is to be titled “The Prophet Muhammed.” Mandatory “PBUH” to be introduced with next set of guidelines.
5. Jesus of Nazareth is to be described thusly: “thought by Christians to be the Messiah” or “thought by Christians to be the son of God,” never “Jesus Christ.”
‘There are some races who's toes you must continue to step on until they apologize.’
Now admittedly he was referring to non-humans rather than sub-humans; however this tactic has NEVER been tried with the muslims. It certainly couldn't have worse results than the tactic of giving them respect that they don't deserve or show.
Respectful? No. It’s a violent world-domination movement cleverly disguised as a religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.