American Media: Aiding Islamists
Posted by MichaelW on 22 Jun 2007 at 8:20 pm | Tagged as: Media, MichaelW's Page, Foreign affairs
That’s not even according to me, but instead an accusation leveled at The New York Times and The Washington Post by … wait for it … Reuters:
Hamas scores publicity coup in U.S.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Shunned by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization, the Islamist group Hamas scored a publicity coup this week by defending its policies in Gaza with opinion pieces in two of the country’s most influential newspapers on the same day.
The New York Times and The Washington Post gave space to Ahmed Yousef, a senior Hamas figure, on Wednesday to argue that the United States should not interfere in Gaza, where Hamas took control after six days of bloody fighting against Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah fighters …
Hamas leaders rarely have access to major U.S. media to express their views unfiltered, and getting an opinion piece into the Times and the Post on the same day appeared unprecedented.
Both Fred Hiatt, the Post’s editorial page editor and David Shipley, the Times’ deputy editorial page editor, said they would not have carried the articles had they known of the other paper’s publishing plans.
The Washington Post Op-Ed can be found here.
In light of some of the discussion that went on yesterday, it seemed important to note just how oblivious the MSM is to propaganda from anti-American forces. The Yousef essay is nothing more than sanitized apologia for the violent and repressive actions of Hamas. It’s true that playing host to diverse views is the job of the Op-Ed page, but one can only wonder to what avail when such pieces are merely a means to spread disinformation and vilify enemies. An even greater question arises when, as with the Yousef piece, that enemy is us.
Even Reuters found Yousef’s piece to be a bit over the top with it’s slant:
Neither op-ed piece mentioned what the United States, Europe and Israel see as the key obstacle to dealing with Hamas: its refusal to recognize Israel and a world view of Jewish conspiracies and domination laid out in the organization’s charter.
You can find some more breakdown of the Hamas Op-Ed here; round-up here.
One last bit of advice for the NYT and WaPo: when Reuters is accusing you all of helping terrorist organizations land a “publicity coup” maybe it’s time you took a little stock of the situation. Remember, admitting that you need help is the first step.
Technorati Tags: Media bias, New York Times, Washington Post, Hamas, Fatah, Palestinians, Ahmed Yousef, middle east, propaganda
6 Responses to “American Media: Aiding Islamists”
Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed
I dunno, I was kind of glad to get a glimpse of how they might view the world. It offers context. And I hate that I always wind up being that guy in these threads, but how much op-ed space has the Post and Times given to Israeli and Fatah representatives? A great deal.
Please, Josh. ASHC is better blog because we have people like you being “that guy.” I’d much rather debate with someone who actually wants to debate rather than sling ad hominem epithets and marshall an army of strawmen.
Well, I don’t know about a “great deal” but I’m sure they’ve both been able to place Op-Ed’s as well. There’s a significant difference in this case, in my mind, since there is currently a civil war going on and Hamas is a decided enemy of America. They are also affiliated (albeit loosely) with al Qaeda. Why they have a platform in our media is beyond me.
With respect to Fatah, it really is the same problem. Sure they’re the least bad alternative right now, but they also aren’t getting any face time in the MSM.
The Israelis are another story altogether since they don’t espouse anti-American rhetoric and they are actually seeking a path to peace.
Fair enough. But if the MSM is to be as comprehensive as you often complain they are not, wouldn’t airing the opinions of our enemies prove valuable? That is, if we as individuals are to be as well informed as possibly about the ideas, motivations, and intents of our enemies.
That’s the value I see here—letting everyone else get a glimpse of what Mossad sees every day: self-delusional evil. And who isn’t giving Fatah face time? While they haven’t published any op-eds in the major rags, Abbas has been front page news for a week. People are paying attention to him; it’s Hamas we know so little about.
I see your point, but doesn’t the timing of this Op-Ed make a difference? Would it have been appropriate for, say, Baghdad Bob to write an Op-Ed in the NYT and WaPo in March of 2003? Or to allow Miosevic such a privilege in 1999?
Like I said in the post, there is no doubt that the purpose of the Op-Ed page is to air diverse view points, for exactly the reason you stated. But when the opinion expressed is nothing more than propaganda intended to influence readers in choosing sides of an on-going conflict, it strikes me as wholly inappropriate. It is especially so when that opinion is from the most virulently anti-American point of view available with regard to the combatants.
Timing might, but when would you consider an appropriate time for this? Before or after Fatah reneged on a legal, fair election that brought radical, violent Islamists to power?
I guess I just don’t see the damage. All opinion is propaganda in a way, since it doesn’t necessarily have to have any relationship to fact—and, as we’ve all seen in the MSM, requires manipulating fact to persuade or defend a certain point of view. I mean, the HAMAS column was run alongside editorials condemning HAMAS for the street violence and executions. I think a reasonable person reading the opinion page of the New York Times would have a reasonable idea of what’s going on, and that the paper itself doesn’t support them.
And as for the anti-American stuff… well, they do have Noam Chomsky and Paul Krugman. And we as a nation continue to press on :-)
Okay, but isn’t complaining about Nazi’s, Fascists, the Klan, Communists and Hamas one way of making sure we all know who they are? Isn’t that part of pressing on?
I didn’t read the other op-eds, so maybe you have a point, if they set about to treat their guests points as something to destroy. Otherwise, we can accomplish the same thing by referring to their own publications while showing how dangerous and dishonest their views are. Some views do not deserve a platform provided by anyone other than themselves. So, if this happens rarely, and because we and others complain about virulent, murderous totalitarians getting a hearing, then it may not even be a bad thing. Too many people mouth apologies for Hamas, maybe it gives us a platform to show exactly why. The Times has that opportunity, hopefully they use it.