It’s a valid question–that is, if we lived in a vacuum where all media were viewed equally and all peoples and countries viewed along the same plane.  But we don’t and they’re not.  The Arab world is viewed with suspicion and distrust by most Americans, including diplomats sent to work in the region (as we’ve seen from WikiLeaks cables), and its dictators long supported–whether quietly or outright–out of fear of Islamist uprising.  Democracy in the Middle East is paid lip service, but never truly supported.

In a sense, then–and putting aside the fact that their reporting of events on the ground in Tunisia has been truly excellent–Al Jazeera can be seen as taking care of their own, in the same way the US media does.  Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage acknowledged that on the Charlie Rose Show last fall, in the midst of praise for the channel:

“I watch Al Jazeera every day…because it’s news.  I’m not interested in what Lindsay Lohan is doing…I’m interested in news…they’re still reporting news.  Do they have a slant?  Yeah, I think I’m round enough where I can realize what the slant is, but as I said, I’m not interested in the rehabilitation of Lindsay Lohan.”

Ginsberg on the other hand, who is no slouch when it comes to Arab media (he speaks the language fluently and is president of the–pretty cool–Layalina Productions), writes:

Americans should not underestimate the role that the ever popular Arab news channel Al Jazeera plays in challenging the Arab world’s status quo, using events in Tunisia to fuel its favorite political pastime of disgorging its anti-authoritarian editorial bias across all of its media platforms — much to the anger and hostility of most Arab rulers, particularly those Al Jazeera views as too pro-western (Al Jazeera gives quite a pass to the despotic Syrian regime as well as to its Qatari benefactors).

Key phrase: “Anti-authoritarian editorial bias.”  In another universe, or a country far far away, one might call that a “pro-democracy editorial bias,” or in other words, something possessed by every single mainstream American channel.  To put it bluntly, can you imagine MSNBC or CNN (the two “reasonable” and “mainstream” US news stations) ever taking a non-democratic stance?  No, you probably can’t.  On the other hand, why isn’t Ginsberg criticizing his own country’s Fox News, which surely throws gasoline on the fire of right-wing (American and otherwise) politics on a daily basis?  And have any major US stations ever reported fairly on the Middle East?  Do they criticize Hosni Mubarak or Ben Ali?  Or, for that matter, Israel?  The answer is an emphatic “no.”

It’s also worth noting here that Ginsberg is stretching the facts when he claims that Al Jazeera gives Syria a pass: Syrian opposition leaders are regularly hosted, with at least one individual, Habib Issa, arrested after appearing on the channel.  More recently, tensions between Al Jazeera and Syria grew after the station gave an appearance to Mohammed Riyadh Shaqafi, of Syria’s banned Muslim Brotherhood.

Ginsberg also notes that “Al Jazeera’s editorial and opinion commentators are having a field day mesmerizing how a similar spectacle could unfold across other Arab states.”  While I can’t help but note the truth in this, it’s not without good reason: Following the Tunisian uprising, no fewer than six youth self-immolated in countries across the Maghreb, from Mauritania to Egypt.  Social media–which may not have overthrown the Tunisian regime, but which certainly assisted the media’s coverage, perhaps more than ever before–is abuzz with talk of who’s next.  The “Arab street” is indeed talking about change, but should Al Jazeera really get the credit for that?  It’s not as if anti-authoritarianism is something that emerged in the past month.

Despite Ginsberg’s pedigree, it should be noted that he’s also a major AIPAC player, something most reasonable people would see as a conflict of interest to democratic ideals in the Arab world.  After all, staunch Israel supporters have little interest in disrupting the status quo, particularly in neighboring (and friendly) Egypt and Jordan.

All things considered, it would be irresponsible not to consider Ginsberg’s closing argument:

Let’s hope that Al Jazeera’s penchant for regional anarchy is tempered by cooler heads within Arab democratic dissident ranks who have far more to lose than audience share if they prematurely swallow Al Jazeera’s bait.

Though I think “penchant for regional anarchy” is a wee bit of a stretch (okay, an enormous stretch), but Ginsberg is not wrong to wish for “cooler heads” over the next few months, given the real risk in such protests (ask Tunisians if they really thought this would be the time it worked).  Nevertheless, take or leave Al Jazeera, it won’t be what gets Jordanians, Egyptians, or Libyans out in the street, the conditions of their countries–and the degree to which their regimes have become despotic–will be.

That’s why I was fairly surprised when, last night, NPR fired commentator Juan Williams, for bigoted anti-Muslim remarks made during an appearance on Fox News.  Before delving into a discussion of whether or not NPR’s decision was justified, let’s examine what Williams said:

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot.  You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

The first question is whether or not Williams’s comments were bigoted.  I would argue that yes, they were.  Surprisingly, I agree with Andrew Sullivan’s assessment:

What percentage of traditionally garbed Muslims — I assume wearing a covered veil or some other indicator and being of darker skin — have committed acts of terror? . . . The literal defense of anti-Muslim bigotry on Fox is becoming endemic. It’s disgusting.

What Williams has done is equate religiosity with terrorism which, as Sullivan describes, is the very definition of bigotry.  As Glenn Greenwald points out, Williams’s comments were “suffused with falsehoods, not facts.”  Every single Muslim who has thus far committed an act of terror on an airplane was wearing Western clothing, not “Muslim garb.”  And wearing traditional clothing does not necessarily imply putting one’s religion before other identifiers – hijab, for example, is (though there’s certainly plenty of debate around this point) prescribed by Islam, therefore, it seeks to reason that anyone wearing it is simply fulfilling their religious duty.  A Muslim woman wearing hijab is just as normal as a Jew refusing pork: a part of the religion, not the be-all, end-all.  Not the foremost identifier.

To those defending Williams’s comments, I also wonder where they draw the line.  One person argued to me that this was “different from racism,” because “Muslims choose their religion.”  I would beg to differ; the racialization of Muslims is an important concept to understand.  It’s why Arab Christians and Sikhs suffer the same treatment in airports as Muslims.  You can’t simply justify that by calling it “fear.”

I also have to wonder what would have been the reaction if a commentator had said they fear for their children in the presence of priests, or that they move to the other side of the street when they encounter a black man.

But in the end, was NPR still right to fire Williams, based on that single incident?  Greenwald hits the nail on the head:

I’m not someone who believes that journalists should lose their jobs over controversial remarks, especially isolated, one-time comments.  But if that’s going to be the prevailing standard, then I want to see it applied equally.

Over the course of the past year, we’ve witnessed the firings of Helen Thomas, Octavia Nasr, and Shirley Sherrod, all of whom were fired for sharing their personal beliefs, however controversial.  More recently, Rick Sanchez was fired from CNN for “criticizing his employer,” because of a suggestion that CNN was run by Jews (oddly enough, NPR called it a result of bullying).

The firing of Juan Williams is, in the broader context, justified.  Fundamentally, however, should any of these people been fired?  A few people, such as journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, have suggested that it would be better to talk it out:

Jarvis unfortunately wouldn’t answer my question as to whether or not he held the same opinion in respect to Thomas, Nasr, or Sanchez.

I think that’s a question worth asking: Would it have been better to have an honest discussion of the origins of Israel than firing the White House’s oldest correspondent?  Would it have been better to talk about why some people have respect for Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah?  Would it have been better to have a real conversation about whether or not Jews today are a persecuted minority?

Frankly, I would answer yes to every one of these questions.  Fundamentally, I don’t believe that firing Thomas, Nasr, or Sanchez was the right move (nor Sherrod, of course, but let’s stick to journalists for the purpose of this discussion).  It most certainly would have been better to hold honest discussions on tricky subjects, but every time, for fear of offense, there has been refusal to do so.

At the same time, I don’t believe for a second that we can have a productive conversation about the American fear of Muslims in this country, let alone one lead by anyone at Fox News.  Judging by Williams’s comments, I don’t believe he’s ever spent much time with Muslims, and I’m positive that O’Reilly hasn’t.  Even the more sensible of American television commentators, Christiane Amanpour and Diane Sawyer, have been criticized heavily for their recent framing of discussions about Islam in America from both sides of the line.  Many people saw Amanpour’s framing of the question (“should Americans fear Islam?”) as feeding into the hands of the Right, while those on the Right saw her handling of the debate as biased in favor of Muslims.

So where do we go from here?  How can we have a reasonable discussion about Islam and Muslims in America when so many Americans are unwilling to admit that Islamophobia is not so different from racism? More importantly, how can we foster better understanding when so many Americans are unwilling to open their minds?

I got to thinking about the intersection of these two points; if it’s true that my generation distrusts media (and I tend to believe it is), then it seeks to reason that we’re equally wary of the overuse of certain terminology, memes and phrases.  Just as “commie” was tossed around in the days of yore, “terrorist” has become grossly overused, applied unquestioningly to criminals of Arab, Muslim, or seemingly Arab or Muslim persuasion.

This morning I was watching a Good Morning America report on the recent assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh and noticed, with surprise, that Hamas was repeatedly referred to only as “a Palestinian group.” A quick Google of today’s headlines reflects a similar pattern.

I’m not arguing whether or not Hamas deserves the categorization, but let’s assume for a moment that they, and anyone on the U.S. State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations is, in fact, a terrorist group. Is the FARC subjected to the same media treatment as Hamas? A quick Google News search says no – in fact, the only times “FARC” and “terrorist” turn up in the same sentence are in reference to Washington’s designation. FARC is typically referred to in the U.S. media as a paramilitary or guerrilla group, whereas Hamas and Hezbollah are almost always designated terrorists. I’d be interested to discover whether or not “terrorist” is applied to other non-Arab/non-Muslim entities designated by the U.S. as terrorists.

There’s another, perhaps more important set of questions surrounding the use of the word terrorist: How is the term applied to a) Arabs and Muslims who commit crimes not typically considered “terrorist” activities? and b) Are non-Arab, non-Muslim people who partake in actual terrorist activities (such as bomb-making or murdering abortion providers) deemed “terrorists” in the media? (Racialicious has a good post on this)

The former question is one for which I have little to no evidence (which is not to say it doesn’t exist); the latter seems clear: Rarely are white terrorists referred to as such. Consider the 2009 shooting deaths of abortion provider George Tiller and Holocaust Memorial Museum security guard Stephen T. Johns. Tiller was the victim of a shooting by an extreme-right wing, Christian terrorist, who was part of a larger movement. Johns’ murderer was a well-known white supremacist writer. Neither murderer was deemed a terrorist in initial reports (unlike say, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab); and though a few subsequent reports may have used the term, by the time the news is out, it’s out…parroted reports hardly seem to matter in terms of influencing public opinion.

Another open question is whether or not the word “terrorist” (and for that matter, “al Qaeda,” often broadly used to refer to terrorist movements) has lost meaning in the nine years since 9/11. We are inundated with its use on an hourly basis (don’t believe me? Google News it). Once a word is heavily used by one network, it tends to be parroted by others–look at Media Matters’ research into the word “rape” as used by conservative pundits to refer to the actions of the Democratic party. Media Matters also looked into the use, or lack of, the word “terrorist” in Obama’s Cairo address. Obama, addressing a crowd made up almost entirely of Muslims, avoided use of the word “terrorism,” a fact which conservative pundits immediately jumped on. The New York Times noted the fact as well, but commented that it was “a departure from the language used by the Bush administration, but one that some Middle East experts suggested reflected a belief by the new administration that overuse had made the words inflammatory.” I think it’s important to view this in context: Was Obama right to avoid the use of the word entirely? Likely not, but given the overuse of the word and its disproportionate usage when referring to Arabs and Muslims, I can see why he did it. And it’s worth recalling that he didn’t avoid discussion of extremism and the ideologies it feeds on, rather, he simply avoided a word whose use has become so commonplace it’s been rendered virtually meaningless.

So this is what I’m thinking about. I’m sure the impending release of Media Cloud will be great in terms of facilitating such research. In the meantime, do let me know if you come across anyone else who’s thinking about this stuff.

As for the original question, well, I get the point, and I’m certainly more alarmed by terrorism than I am by the actions of my own government, but I also think that the media’s role in how such fears are formed is huge, and that the risks are frequently over-stated, or worse, misstated entirely.

As if Fox News didn’t distort the truth enough, now they’ve annexed Iraq too!  If they had labeled Egypt, I wonder what they might have called it…Morocco?  Seriously though, why is Fox making its own maps anyway?  Don’t they have people for that?  People who are not conservative idiots with no knowledge of the Middle East, perhaps?