Now that the initial furor has died down, much of the media is quickly coming to a consensus that the debate over building a Muslim community and prayer center two blocks from Ground Zero was overblown. It is/was part of a "summer of fear," a "ginned up rage," or "a frenzy over a story that doesn't really exist." Media hand-wringing and navel-gazing often follow the hysteria of an over-covered story in an effort to downplay and dismiss the media's own coverage. After all, the media, loves to cover nothing more than, well, itself (ahem, hence Mediaite).
But was this story really the equivalent of summer sharks, missing girls and frightening weather? Is the media to ignore or diminish a story where 70 percent of the public and 63 percent of New Yorkers oppose building the center in that location? Surely many will blame the media coverage itself for those numbers, and it is true that like any story that receives a lot of media attention, public awareness of the "Ground Zero Mosque" has had an impact on the "Ground Zero Mosque" story. (It's also true that few complained when the project was first announced many months ago.)
But the fact that most didn't know about it doesn't mean they wouldn't have cared if they did. The ultimate question is whether this was/is a legitimate story ripe for significant media coverage, or just a political and xenophobic ploy disguised as a news debate. Sure, some have hidden behind the "debate" to encourage islamophobia, and most of them have been appropriately called out by their political opponents in the opinion media time and again. Amongst the mainstream media, however, the pendulum is now swinging too far in the other direction, as many run for cover from a story that not only deserved coverage, but the media was really obligated to cover, if the standards for judging news have not been altered for this story.
So then I must be part of the "move the mosque" crowd? I mean, how could I believe the extensive coverage is appropriate if I also think the Cordoba Initiative should be permitted to move forward in that spot? Well, just because I happen to support any religion's right to build a facility two blocks from Ground Zero, just because I do not equate radical Islamists with the peaceful Islamic religion, just because I think it would be unconstitutional to try to impede it, does not mean this is not a legitimate story worthy of debate.
To the chagrin of many, the media gravitates towards controversy. It is in their (our) DNA. Whether anyone or everyone likes it or not, it is what they do. It's why politics and sports, mystery and mayhem dominate coverage. This story includes the ultimate elixir for media coverage: emotion, politics, terrorism, religion and bias. Some will say that the existence of those elements alone shouldn't mean that the media must play into the hands of those appealing to biases and the most base of human instincts. True, so then what makes this controversy deserving of days and days of saturated media coverage? Who knows how much coverage is appropriate, but it's obvious that when terrorists attack the U.S., sensitivities will be high to anything large built in that area a year after the fact or even almost ten years later. The area around Ground Zero is news because it's Ground Zero. Period. Building a center two blocks away that supports the very cause that the terrorists claimed (at least by name) was their calling increases its news value exponentially. It doesn't validate the terrorists' warped view of Islam, but, like it or not, in this day and age, it makes it news. Simply dismissing the entire controversy as a non-story is to presume that no one should question the prudence of building the facility at that location. That is also to take a side in the debate.
Consider another hypothetical example. A radical group of extremist Jews who claim to be angry about Turkey's role in the Gaza boat fiasco bring down the Sapphire Tower, a brand new modern high rise in the heart of the Istanbul financial district. Turkey has long been lauded by the international community for welcoming different religions and is considered a beacon of multiculturalism. The Israeli government and all major Jewish groups immediately condemn the attack in the harshest terms.
The rebuilding effort takes years, and in the meantime, a mainstream Jewish group proposes building a Jewish cultural center and synagogue two blocks from the location of the downed skyscraper. Of course there would be complaints, some based on antisemitism, others based on the sensitivity of the location. But even if you disagree with them, would we question whether it is a legitimate story worthy of extensive debate on the news stations, websites and newspapers of the region? Would we minimize those questions by constantly referring to the summer news doldrums? Like in this case, I would personally think those questions founded in a misunderstanding of the Jewish faith and the unfortunate conflation of Jews and radicals, but I would still recognize and appreciate why the local media was covering the story. A lot.
Should we question how some have covered this story here? Of course. Should we critique those who have nakedly tried to milk it for political gain or not so nakedly appealed to prejudice? You bet. But for members of the media to scapegoat their brethren as a whole for focusing on this is to become blinded by their own political biases. Everyone would like to see a Utopian media where only the most "important" stories of the day are covered, but until that happens, lets admit that singling out this one for particular scorn is to either highlight the author's take on who is right, or to usher in a completely new standard for judging what is news.
This post originally appeared on Mediaite.
Follow Dan Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@danielabrams
That said, the news that 70% of Americans can be swayed by bigoted semantics in the media to the extent they are willing to throw away the constitution, *is* pretty big news for sure.
Also, where is the media outcry concerning a Christian church in Florida which plans to hold a "Burn the Quron (Koran)" book burning bonfire in mid September? Book burnings of any kind are repulsive, but burning a Holy scripture of any religion, especially a religion that worships the same God as that Christian church does - is abhorant! There are two books of the Bible - the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Koran is the third Holy book of the worship of the Jewish and Christian god. The Old Test. was written by Jews, the New Test. by Christians and the Koran by Muslims. All worship the same god, all recognize the same prophets (up to the point in which the Holy scripture was written and all preach love, respect and acceptance of all who worship this god. The WTC was attacked by terrorist who happen to be Muslim, not by Muslims/Islam just as the Oklahoma Federal Bldg. was attacked by a terrorist who happened to be Christian. Thus, shud we ban all Christian church's from anywhere near the Oklahoma City Bldg. ground zero?
But every time it gets mentioned on the TeeVee as the ground zero mosque, and every time media outfits like Fox News get to frame it as a terrorist sympathizer building a victory mosque on top of the charred remains of fallen American citizens, it's no wonder why the poll numbers look the way they do.
Although not 100% perfect, this is yet another situation where newspapers like the NYTimes are on the high"er"-ground because the mechanism of racing to the gutter doesn't function for them as well. (I’m inferring the NYTimes would likely fall into the same trap if it actually worked for them.) TV news, and cable news in particular, has to feed their “always on” 24/7 news beast with whatever news they can find. Then they have to hyper-inflate the news to make their coverage sound more exciting than the other channel's coverage -- to the sheeple who think news is supposed to be just another sporting event. People who READ news stories in the NYTimes and other newspapers are far less inclined toward this hyper-inflation.
Is it fair to blame the media? It’s actually a result of a capitalistic news delivery system. When the news gets its funding based on number of viewers, number of viewers will be its driving concern. Attracting viewers is the actual priority – reporting news is just the chosen means of doing that. So long as news funding relies upon capitalistic markets, and the sheeple flock toward the flashiest bobble instead of substance, the problem will continue.
Second, this isn't a mosque and that is where the media really comes in for a drubbing. It is a community center with prayer rooms on the top floor. Muslims pray 5 times a day. In a mosque, neither you or I would be allowed IF WE WERN'T Muslims. This group, the Sufi, made sandwiches, women as well as men, for the first responders at the 9/11 site. There will be cooking classes, a swimming pool...in short, services that are available to many Christians...and others....in a YMCA. As for Jewish groups there are several who strongly supporty this particular community center, primarily because the Sufi Muslims are not so rigid and intolerant of other religious groups as many Muslims...like Christians...are. None of this is really covered by the "media". WHY?
Obviously, they weren't.
Nobody is saying there was too much coverage. They're saying there was too much incompetence and too much lying. Abrams does nothing to address this claim, either directly or by the quality of his commentary.
The 9/11 issue has been used to justify two wars, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and significant expansions of DoD and Intelligence Agency funding. All these progeny spawned by 9/11 resulted in billions/trillions of dollars going to a relatively few people.
Three thousand people died prematurely on 9/11. Since that time, about 400,000 people died prematurely in auto accidents (many of which could have been prevented), about 4.4 million people died prematurely from smoking (almost all of which could have been prevented), about 4 million people died prematurely from cancer (at least half of which could have been prevented), and so on. But where is the similar outrage against the perpetrators of these premature deaths? There is none (reported in the media), because these perpetrators profit from the causes of the premature killers.
So, ignore the mosque smoke-screen; the issue is about dividing the American people, re-electing the people who got us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and bigger DHS, DoD, and Intel budgets, and finding new ways to shift funds from ordinary taxpayers to the ultra-wealthy.
Another question: who is paying for this building? And why?
Last Question: If a building gets hit with significant debris from one of the airplanes that hit the towers, wouldn't that qualify the building as being part of Ground Zero? What defines the boundaries of Ground Zero in other words?
Bonus question: If the building is not a mosque as many people including some very knowledgeable comedians are contending, why is everyone saying that this is a religious freedom issue?
Maybe the issue could be resolved by building a multi-purpose prayer room or two in the memorial that all religious groups could use.
Radicals everywhere do not speak for the majority. In many instances they actually embarrass them as they only make the spotlight shine more on people who want to be left alone. Building a mosque near Ground Zero actually means nothing. Any miscreant would have caused such calamity in their misguided fervor - using the pretext of religion will always remain a cover to justify such acts.
The media, the world over, should focus on what affects the masses. Housing, infrastructure, good governance, access to information, education for all, fairness and justice are the core subjects the media should focus on. But that remains an ideal espoused by formal education. A shame.