Crying Wolf at the Inauguration
President Obama, judging from his inaugural address, knows the difference between terrorists and Muslims, but apparently CNN's Wolf Blitzer still hasn't figured it out.
In his somewhat solemn inaugural speech, President Obama issued a strong statement to terrorists: "...for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."
Two long paragraphs later, after having changed the subject from protecting our legacy (and the terrorists who would damage it) to the strength of our American diversity to a new era of peace, then he said, "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."
And yet Blitzer, in commenting upon Obama's speech, deliberately combined the two statements. So according to Blitzer, Obama was addressing the Muslim world both when he made the remark about the terrorists and and later when he specifically addressed the Muslim world.
Well, Blitzer made that up.
Specifically, Blitzer stated: "To the Muslim world, [Obama] had a double message. He said this, he said, 'For those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.' But then a couple lines later, he said this: he said, 'to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.'"
Obama never said America's enemies were "the Muslim world." Obama's statements were separate. The first addressed our enemies. The second, much later statement, addressed "the Muslim world." But Blitzer seemed to think it was the same thing.
No one called him on it. The three commentators sitting with him nodded and moved on.
Why do I even care about this point on such a momentous day of rejoicing? Aren't I nitpicking?
This incidence is important because it represents the entire subtext of the public discourse when it comes to Muslims. It's one of tens of thousands such statements that are taken for granted as true, never challenged, daily mainstreamed. The continual pairing of terrorism and Islam has contributed to a national hysteria unseen since McCarthyism.
Those addressed in the first statement above, those who induce terror and slaughter innocents, are not indigenous to "the Muslim world." Such criminals flourish all over the world and throughout history. Moreover, such criminals are the enemies not only of Americans, but the enemies of Islam, whose law condemns terrorism and never permits any slaughter of innocents.
The media watchdog group, FAIR, recently issued a report entitled "Mainstreaming Islamophobia", showing how Islamophobic rhetoric has become such a mainstream part of our conversation that we assume it's the truth. Some examples, like Ann Coulter's exhorting Americans to "invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" are so obviously xenophobic that they need not be discussed. It's the statements like Blitzer's, which pervade the media and the public discourse so thoroughly that we don't even notice the conditioning, that I find more divisive and more damaging.
America's enemies do not consist solely of Muslims. "Muslims" are not America's enemies. America's enemies are terrorists and those who use violence and oppression as their tools. As an American Muslim, I -- alongside the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide -- am all for defeating those.
As for Blitzer, perhaps he should take another look at Colin Powell's famous interview of October 2008; it might help him learn the difference between "Muslim" and "terrorist."
Sumbul Ali-Karamali is the author of The Muslim Next Door: the Qur'an, the Media, and that Veil Thing (White Cloud Press, Sept. 2008)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you Sumbul Ali-Karamali for writing this. I watched the Inuaguration and the speach and I was pleased with the Presidents address but then I was floored when Wolf Blitzer tells the world that the President had a double meaning in his address. I could not beleive, that Wolf was really on International TV telling the world what the President really meant. I was in awe and not in a good way. He then tells the world that "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." was meant for Muslims. WTF are you serious. The President said that to terrorist not Muslims and I could not beleive this man was on TV saying this as The President just finished a speach about being united. I was so upset by Wolf that I imediately starting sending e-mails to every News agency I could think of to have them check this or get back wtih Wolf to tell him that he mis-spoke. And of course there was no mention by CNN or any of the other stations. This is a prime example of the Media needing to be accountable for what was said.
There isn't enough time in a day to adequately describe what an embarrassment Wolf Blitzer and the "best political team on television" are to journalism.
Amen. My family and I were watching from Central Asia on CNN International. We were astonished (but not surprised) to here Blitzer's comments and the silence from the other commentators surrounding him. I wondered if anyone would speak out on this and I am very pleased to read your well-written article. If only the suits at CNN would read your article and take it to heart. On a more promising note--the President did take the oath as Barack Hussein Obama. What a wonderful message to the Muslim world that he chose not to hide his Muslim family ancestry!
Sambul, you're not nit picking at all. Good post, I hope it makes its way to Blitzer's ears. His statement was at best unprofessional.
BTW, Jews have been in this country since the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria with Columbus. They have fought in every war and added innumerable advances in science, medicine and civil rights to name a small few. They helped to forge this country into a strong democratic one, something which the 1.4 billion worldwide muslims have yet to do in any country. muslims are very new to this country, a large majority here just since the 1960's and one of the largest of their demographics comes from blacks criminals in prison converting from Christianity. They do not believe in this country or its Judeo-Christian values and as in Europe, seek our downfall by using our own frredoms against us. Obama putting muslims before Jews in his speech, was very calculated. Christians, Jews and all others who love democracy, freedom and the rule of law should be on alert. The times thay are a changin!
Muslims have been in this country since the early 1700s. This country was built on the backs of men and women of every race and every creed, and is made stronger not only by those who sailed here on the Mayflower, but by the immigrants who have come to our shores seeking a better life.
I was not aware that Jews had come to North America in the late 1400s. Do you have a reference, or are you just confused?
Mr Fanelli is apparently unaware that Ferdinand and Isabella, the King and Queen of Spain, not only bankrolled Columbus and wrested that last little bit of Spain away from the Moslems, but also drove the Jews out of Spain. (Most of them moved in with the Moslems in North Africa.)
By most historical accounts, the best situation for Jews in medieval Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Jews did come to the "New World" with the Spanish explorers and colonizers - because they were not welcome under Christian rule in Spain.
In echoing Bob Dylan's words that "The times they are a-changin'", I hope to see changes where we do not try to stereotype all Jews, all Muslims, or all people of any group. I hope to see a time when the dominant culture does not attempt to pit Jews against Muslims - or any minorities against one another - as a distraction from their own misdeeds. That would be the biggest single thing we could do to bring peace to the Middle East.
As a Jew, I would like to thank Ms Ali-Karamali for her insight. Let us stand together "against all who induce terror and slaughter innocents", and "seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."
It's not just columnists.
This morning on my way to work, I heard a commercial on the
radio that stated "What's good for business is good for the
environment" and proceeded on to convince me that the company
represented in the commercial was a "green" company.
It seems to me that it would have been more accurate to say that
'what's good for the environment is good for business.' But, spin
shows up in strange places and should be called out when it isn't
accurate or is misleading.
I do not understand why Wolf Blitzer has this respected journalist status. He always mangles the message of speeches and gets them wrong. He wants to put his spin on it. I listened to the speech twice and never once confused the message Obama made. No where did he say that Muslims were our enemies.
Remember, Blitzer is also one of many news people on CNN who never questioned Bush's reasoning for going to war in Iraq. He does not listen very well even when the person he is questioning is sitting right in front of him. My guess is that he is a knee-jerk supporter of Israel and thinks of all Muslims as being enemies of this country. As for the three media types with him, shame on them, they should have called him on it. Blitzer is editorializing not reporting.
Mr Blitzer clearly knew what he was doing and all the nods of agreement too. The goal of the right is to mangle the real message so that it conforms to their personal world view. CNN and others manipulate the story. That's not news. It's opinion. Perhaps a bold banner defining what is news and what isn't would make it obvious there is a difference.
Religious extremists have existed ever since there was religion. Whether it is the Holy Roman Church conquering the New World in the name of Spain and God, slaughtering heathens by the hundreds of thousands in acts of genocide from war to infected blankets, or the Taliban blowing up bus loads of school kids and throwing acid in the faces of women, religion has been used as a cover for empire building and misogyny for thousands of years.
America's enemies may be the terrorists--not all of whom are of this aberrant religious stripe, but motivated by other political concerns--but I think we will find our real enemies much closer to home. The corporations, whose presence in these regions of the world are said to constitute our "national interests," and the military machine that protects them, bear the lion's share of the responsibility. At the cost of life on both sides, and liberties here in the guise of the trumped up "war on terror," the military/industrial complex has thrown gas on the flames of religious fundamentalism that while attacking symbols of western imperialism, also brings death and terror to Muslim people worldwide.
The media, of course--and most especially Blitzer, who was a huge cheerleader for the run up to the invasion of Iraq--have refused to cover this aspect of the story. Not surprising given that they are owned by the same corporations spreading the hatred and destruction.
Amen.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
