FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 01/14/2003 6:53:23 AM PST by H8DEMS
A group calling itself International A.N.S.W.E.R. is not happy with CNSNews.com.
Otherwise known as Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, International A.N.S.W.E.R. is upset because we chose to report on the remarks of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the headliner at the group's January 8 news conference who said people "could call Jesus a terrorist."
I learned that International A.N.S.W.E.R. was upset when I called their Washington, D.C. office Monday morning to do a little research for this piece.
The purpose of my Monday call to A.N.S.W.E.R.'s press office was to find out how many members of the media attended the January 8 news conference besides us, the idea being to draft a commentary asking "how could xx media organizations ignore remarks such as those made by Clark?"
Instead of learning this number, I was confronted by a man who fielded my call only to make erroneous accusations and scold me before abruptly hanging up on my call.
Without discussing the merits of employing PR tactics that went out with Joe Goebbels, I can report that my scolding consisted primarily of accusations that our article about Clark, which was published one day after an article about the International A.N.S.W.E.R. event, was "not serious journalism" and that we reported Clark's comments "out of context."
Perhaps somebody at International A.N.S.W.E.R. with enough manners to not hang up on callers in mid-sentence should tell that to Sayyid Syeed, the secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America.
Syeed told us that "Muslims would be angered" by Clark's remark, and he said, "This is an insult to prophet Jesus."Syeed apparently found the report serious.
The same might be said of Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. According to Mr. Hooper, "we would object to any slur against the prophet Jesus." Mr. Hooper didn't seem to find our coverage of Clark's comments to be taken out of context.
By the standards of International A.N.S.W.E.R., serious, in-context journalism is apparently determined by those who ignore Christian-bashing remarks. While I don't know all the reporters present to hear Ramsey Clark's inanity, we do know some of the big-name media covering the anti-war group's January 8 event.
Among them were journalistic stalwarts like the New York Times and the Washington Post; the Associated Press and Reuters; local and national radio and TV; and various foreign media representatives. CNSNews.com Staff Writer Michael Betsch, who attended the event and recorded Clark's comments, estimated that as many as a couple dozen media representatives heard what the former attorney general had to say.
None of the news organizations represented at that event found Clark's comment newsworthy, so it appears anyone who did cannot be serious which, of course, is hogwash.
The whining protestations of International A.N.S.W.E.R. are reminiscent of defenders of Sen. Trent Lott's remarks last month about how America wouldn't have had "all these problems" if only voters would have elected former segregationist Strom Thurmond to the presidency in 1948.
Some argued that Lott's remarks were taken out of context because the senator was referring to the body of Thurmond's legislative career, not just the fact that he heartily endorsed segregation as a presidential candidate 55 years ago.
But that particular comment by Lott, uttered as one of many comments by many speakers that day, was seized upon by the news media, including CNSNews.com, all of which fueled his fall as Senate Republican Leader.
The question for us to ask is how so many news organizations could jump on the racially questionable comments of Lott while ignoring the no less questionable comments of Clark.
Seeking the answer to this question may be an academic exercise, but my suspicion is that it reflects the increasingly common attitude that it's okay to bash Christianity, and I submit that this attitude is prevalent in many quarters of the news media.
Consider Jerry Falwell's October 6 remarks about Mohammed being "a terrorist" and a "man of war."
Falwell's remarks earned him global news coverage, making it clear the establishment media won't stand for bashing Islam. So why is it the media appear more apt to cut slack for those who bash Christianity?
Perhaps it's less a question of covering the bashing as it is covering the basher. Falwell is an easy target among many in the liberal media, while Clark is something of an icon among leftists, so this may be the real driving force in determining which comments to cover and which comments to ignore.
Regardless of precisely what is driving such editorial decisions, it's clear there's a double standard in play. It's this type of double standard that International A.N.S.W.E.R. apparently defines as "serious journalism." We define it as nonsense.
Scott Hogenson is executive editor of CNSNews.com.
Ephesians 6
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Ephesians 2
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
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.