Tag Archives: feisal abdul rauf

MRC Study: ABC, CBS and NBC Tilt Ground Zero Mosque Debate by Smearing Americans as ‘Islamophobic’

By a wide margin — 66 percent to 29 percent, according to the most recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll — the public is opposed to building that proposed $100 million Islamic cultural center near the site of the destroyed World Trade Towers. This is not a lightly-held opinion: more than half (53%) told ABC news they are “strongly opposed” to building it near Ground Zero, vs. only 14 percent who report being “strongly” in favor. (Scroll to Question 30 .) So in the face of such obvious public sentiment, are the big broadcast networks reflecting such public sentiment in their coverage? Or are journalists implicitly repudiating their viewers by touting accusations that opposition to the mosque is motivated by America’s supposed “Islamophobia”? To find out, MRC analysts reviewed all 52 stories about the Ground Zero mosque on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from August 14 through September 13 — the first month after President Obama propelled the issue into the headlines with his remarks at a White House dinner. The results show that the networks have tilted in favor of mosque supporters and against public opinion, with more than half (55%) of all soundbites or reporter comments coming down on the pro-mosque side of the debate, vs. 45 percent for opponents. Even those overall numbers fail to show how the debate has grown increasingly tilted over time. During the first week (August 14-20), the networks actually provided more visibility to mosque opponents — 55 percent of soundbites, vs. 45 percent for mosque supporters. But in the following weeks (August 21 to September 13), the networks’ coverage lurched in the other direction, with mosque supporters receiving a 63 percent to 37 percent advantage. (See chart.) Our analysts tallied as “pro-mosque” all statements and soundbites that either: supported the idea of building the Islamic center on its currently proposed site; defended or praised the project’s organizers (mainly the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf); or criticized the other side as bigoted or “Islamophobic.” Anti-mosque statements/soundbites presented the other side: criticized the plans to build the center and/or the project’s organizers, or defended mosque opponents from charges of bigotry. The shift in coverage occurred after mosque proponents began tarring their opponents as bigots. A pair of protests on Sunday, August 22 — one in favor of the mosque, one against — drew coverage on all three network newscasts, and all three highlighted the accusation from pro- mosque demonstrators that a contrary stance was evidence of what Time magazine’s cover story that week dubbed “Islamophobia.” What had been a relatively even-handed debate about balancing the sensitivities of 9/11 families with America’s tradition of religious freedom morphed into a one-sided story about beleaguered Muslims facing hardship at the hands of bigoted Americans. On the August 23 Nightly News , for example, NBC’s Ron Allen picked up how “many Muslim-Americans insist this debate is more evidence of religious intolerance.” On the August 25 CBS Evening News , fill-in anchor Jeff Glor linked the stabbing of a cab driver to the mosque debate: “That alleged hate crime took place in the shadow of a heated and divisive debate over whether a mosque should be build near Ground Zero….Other controversies over new mosques in Wisconsin and Kentucky have led some to question: Is America becoming Islamophobic, a prejudice against Muslims?” Four days later, on ABC’s World News, correspondent Steve Osunsami cited “a string of recent incidents suggesting that many Americans don’t care for Muslims — the back and forth over the Islamic center near Ground Zero, the cab driver who was stabbed simply for being Muslim.” “Critics say all the rhetoric is fueling anti-Muslim violence,” ABC’s Dan Harris chimed in on the September 5 World News . ABC and CBS both touted exclusive interviews with organizers of the Ground Zero mosque project, but never gave the same privilege to mosque opponents. These interviews were hardly probing. CBS’s Scott Pelley interviewed Sharif el-Gamal, the real estate developer who bought the property two blocks from Ground Zero, excerpts of which were shown on the August 27 and August 30 Evening News . “This facility that is being debated all around the world is universally known as the Ground Zero mosque,” Pelley told el-Gamal. “What do you call it?” “It should be universally known as a hub of culture, a hub of co-existence, a hub of bringing people together,” el-Gamal enthused. ABC’s Christiane Amanpour interviewed Abdul Rauf for the September 12 This Week , with excerpts shown on the September 9 World News . She quoted Abdul Rauf as arguing that failing to proceed with his mosque concept would “strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment. This will put our people, our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens, under attack in the Muslim world. And we have expanded and given and fueled terrorism.” Seemingly deaf to what she just heard, Amanpour characterized Abdul Rauf’s statement this way: “So, he said he wasn’t making any threats or predicting any terrible worst case scenario.” Alone among the three evening newscasts, ABC’s World News also offered soundbites to Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to propose that Americans were prejudiced against Muslims. (NBC’s Today on September 9 also featured a CAIR representative to speak out against Americans as bigoted.) CAIR is currently listed by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in their investigation of funding for Middle Eastern terrorist groups such as Hamas. “I’ve really never seen the level of Islamophobia that we’re experiencing today,” Hooper blasted on the August 16 World News , a soundbite that was repeated on the August 29 broadcast. A week later, on the September 5 World News, Hooper was back to condemn the “hysterical atmosphere we’re in right now.” Parsing the numbers a different way provides some insight into how the networks seem to conceptualize the issue of balance: Debate about the Islamic center itself and/or its organizers was almost perfectly balanced (57 soundbites arguing against the project, vs. 54 soundbites in favor, or a 51-49% split). But the “debate” about whether opposition reflected Islamophobia was almost perfectly one-sided: 27 soundbites (93%) leveling that accusation, with just two soundbites (7%) offering a defense. In other words, the networks permitted a balanced debate about a proposed real estate project, but allowed mosque supporters to attack the majority of Americans as “haters” and “bigots” without adequate debate. That’s yet another sign that the liberal, elite media are hopelessly out of touch with the public they ostensibly serve.  

Read the original here:
MRC Study: ABC, CBS and NBC Tilt Ground Zero Mosque Debate by Smearing Americans as ‘Islamophobic’

Amanpour Paints Rauf’s Protection Racket as ‘a Matter of Vital National Security’

Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf chose ABC’s Christiane Amanpour to spend “several hours” with on Thursday in New York City, and just as she did back on the August 22 This Week when she featured Rauf’s wife and an ally, she again served as his public relations agent, forwarding his claims without challenge. After passing along his denial of any deal to move his project, Amanpour gushingly relayed meaningless blather about his great concern: “The imam went on to tell me that this whole issue is so sensitive because he has to really take care of sensitivities here in the United States and abroad.” Amanpour proceeded to tout that he’s now back from an overseas trip “all about interfaith dialogue and trying to reach the moderates,” and he warned, as he did on Wednesday’s Larry King Live, that if he doesn’t get his way Muslims will murder Americans. Amanpour, however, didn’t describe that as a protection racket or suggest he’s employing blackmail. Instead, she just paraphrased his spin that his warning — about his vanity – is “a matter of vital national security” to the U.S.: He says that this has become a huge international issue, the issue over the Islamic center in Manhattan and also the threatened Koran burning. And so everybody, all over the world, not just here in the United States, is watching. And he felt, and he said to me, that he thought it was a matter of vital national security not to give in or to move that Islamic center. She then played a soundbite from Rauf: My major concern with moving it is that the headline in the Muslim world will be, “Islam is under attack in America.” This will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment. This will put our people, our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens, under attack in the Muslim world. And we have expanded and given and fueled terrorism. Despite what he said, Amanpour assured viewers: “So, he said he wasn’t making any threats or predicting any terrible worst case scenario.” To say nothing of how this awful scenario was set in motion by his quest to put a mosque so near Ground Zero and refusal to address the sensitivities of 9/11 victims. Nonetheless, Amanpour agreeably related his rejection of any comparison to burning Korans when he’s just trying to build a wonderful “multi-faith monument” to “tolerance,” as she described how he called it “extraordinary to try to equate destroying anybody’s scripture with building what he called his center to be a multi-faith monument for cultural and ethnic tolerance and for all religions and groups to come and try to share the moderate ground of the current space.” My August 22 NB posting, “ Amanpour on One-Sided This Week: ‘Profound Questions About Religious Tolerance and Prejudice in the U.S .’” recounted: Not even feigning the pretense of balance, a week after her roundtable hailed President Obama’s initial endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque (GZM), on this Sunday’s This Week host Christiane Amanpour featured an “exclusive” with two GZM proponents as she declared “the controversy has raised profound questions about religious tolerance and prejudice in the United States. And the backlash against Islam has been seen across the country…” Holding up the current Time magazine with its “Is America Islamophobic?” cover, she forwarded the contention: “Is America Islamophobic? Are you concerned about the long-term relationship between American Muslims and the rest of society here?” Amanpour’s guests, to “cut through the heated rhetoric” on the only Sunday interview show with a guest segment on the GZM (Fox News Sunday took it up in its panel time): Daisy Khan, wife of imam behind the project, and Rabbi Joy Levitt, from the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, “who’s an adviser on the project.”… From the Thursday, September 9 ABC World News: DIANE SAWYER: Tell us more about your interview with that imam today. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Well, yes indeed Diane, he’s just come back, as you know, from a rather lengthy overseas trip, sponsored by the State Department, all about interfaith dialogue and trying to reach the moderates. And he says that this has become a huge international issue, the issue over the Islamic center in Manhattan and also the threatened Koran burning. And so everybody, all over the world, not just here in the United States, is watching. And he felt, and he said to me, that he thought it was a matter of vital national security not to give in or to move that Islamic center. This is what he said. IMAN FEISAL ABDUL RAUF, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MUSLIM ADVANCEMENT: My major concern with moving it is that the headline in the Muslim world will be, “Islam is under attack in America.” This will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment. This will put our people, our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens, under attack in the Muslim world. And we have expanded and given and fueled terrorism. AMANPOUR: So, he said he wasn’t making any threats or predicting any terrible worst case scenario, just that he said that this was an extremely important consideration in these talks about anybody potentially moving that Islamic center. Diane? SAWYER: And what else did he say about the equation of the Koran burning and the mosque near ground zero? AMANPOUR:  Well, he said it was really — he said, extraordinary, to try to equate destroying anybody’s scripture with building what he called his center to be a multi-faith monument for cultural and ethnic tolerance and for all religions and groups to come and try to share the moderate ground of the current space. And he said there was no way to draw any kind of equivalence.

More:
Amanpour Paints Rauf’s Protection Racket as ‘a Matter of Vital National Security’

Wednesday Night Fights: Laura Ingraham vs. Ground Zero Mosque Supporter

As the summer of 2010 comes to a close, American tempers are dramatically rising over the Ground Zero mosque. A fine example of the heat this issue is generating occurred on Wednesday’s “O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News. In the left corner was Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. On the right filling in for the usual host was Laura Ingraham. What ensued was an ideological battle that likely pleased folks on both sides of this contentious debate (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t our friends at the Right Scoop ):  LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Scott, let’s talk about this controversy in New York that’s made some people say a slow news month of August, quite chaotic. Mayor Bloomberg has now staked his ground. He’s doubled down. He made that comment about it’s un-American. Just to throw the word un-American out seems to be a little odd. I don’t know anyone who’s conflating law abiding Muslims in the United states with al Qaeda. It’s about the sensitivity of the place at Ground Zero. SCOTT STRINGER, MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT: There’s no doubt about it. As someone who was in Manhattan on that terrible day when the terrorists attacked, we will never forget that. And we will always honor the families and the people in that community, who didn’t walk away from New York. They actually stayed and rebuilt the community. Having said that, a few very well orchestrated agitators have created a situation where we have now seen Tea Party people going after Jewish American elected officials, Mayor Bloomberg, myself, the speaker of our state assembly Shelly Silver. They’re using this as a national political wedge issue. And I have to tell you something, today we now have a report that a cab driver was stabbed when he told a passenger that he was Muslim. INGRAHAM: Right, well, we don’t know the details. STRINGER: But– INGRAHAM: I mean, throwing out examples like that, we don’t know the details of that, Scott. STRINGER: –I have to tell you something. It’s building– INGRAHAM: Well, let me tell you– STRINGER: –and we should tone this down. INGRAHAM: You want to do an anecdote like that? STRINGER: Let’s tone it down. INGRAHAM: I’m going to throw down to doing anecdote. No, I’m going to keep the temperature up because I think this is important. STRINGER: Well, you’re keeping the temperature up because you’re just– INGRAHAM: No, no, no– STRINGER: –you’re creating something that doesn’t exist. INGRAHAM: I’m not creating anything. STRINGER: Well, of course you are. INGRAHAM: You know what happened down at Ground Zero? STRINGER: And the reason I’m on the show is because we have to fight back to let America know that we’re not like this. INGRAHAM: Do you know what happened at Ground Zero? America disagrees with you vehemently. STRINGER: America does not disagree. INGRAHAM: 77 percent of the country disagrees with you. STRINGER: They do not disagree– INGRAHAM: They’re not Islamophobic. STRINGER: –that we should use anti-Semitic slurs– INGRAHAM: They’re not nasty people. They’re good people. STRINGER: –that we should go after Muslim– INGRAHAM: Do you want to know what anti-Semitic was? Let me get in here. STRINGER: This is your Tea Party friends– INGRAHAM: –what happened at Ground Zero. STRINGER: –trying to create an election (INAUDIBLE) when we all know it. INGRAHAM: And I mean, you dismissed the Tea Parties, but they’re obviously having huge and positive influence in the United States. What happened at Ground Zero– STRINGER: You don’t believe that. INGRAHAM: –in these dueling protests, and I think the more protests the better on both sides. STRINGER: Well, constructive debate is good. INGRAHAM: I think people should have their — well, it’s not up to you to determine what’s constructive. That’s the elite’s little trick. STRINGER: No, but I have– INGRAHAM: That’s the elites trick here. STRINGER: –an opinion, too. You can call me– INGRAHAM: You have an opinion, but let me just tell you what else happened, because you raised the issue– STRINGER: Sure. INGRAHAM: –of Judaism in this debate. There was also an exchange. And Andrew Breitbart has this posted on his website. You should see it because a pro-mosque protester got in the face of an 83-year-old man, who said he was a Holocaust survivor. He got in his face and he said you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t know what the con — I mean, he’s in the face of this old man, who survived the Holocaust who doesn’t want this mosque there. STRINGER: That is terrible. But I have to tell you something. I’m talking about– INGRAHAM: How’s that for an example? STRINGER: –Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, people trying to divide this country and divide this city of New York. INGRAHAM: Trying to divide this country? STRINGER: It’s not going to work because– INGRAHAM: Do you agree with this imam that America has more blood on its hands than al Qaeda? Do you agree with the imam? STRINGER: I believe that we should have an opportunity for everybody to come together. INGRAHAM: How about an opportunity to hear from him? STRINGER: We don’t go and take away people’s property. We don’t raid people. INGRAHAM: I’m not saying we have a right to do any of that, no, no, no. STRINGER: Of course you are. You’re doing that every day. INGRAHAM: No, no, no, no, no. STRINGER: You’re doing that every day. INGRAHAM: They have a right to build this mosque. We have a right– STRINGER: You– INGRAHAM: –to raise questions about funding. And you as an elected official– STRINGER: You started this. INGRAHAM: You as an elected official should have an obligation to ask this imam– STRINGER: You told Daisy Khan, you told them on this show in December of 2009, you said you’re doing the right thing. INGRAHAM: Assimilating, absolutely. STRINGER: You’re doing great work. INGRAHAM: Assimilating. STRINGER: Rabbis support it. You actually– INGRAHAM: Blood — do you believe America has blood on her hands? STRINGER: You supported this and then you– INGRAHAM: You won’t answer the question, will you? STRINGER: that you left the studio. Well, let me just make point and– INGRAHAM: No, no, you want — blood on her hands? STRINGER: You (INAUDIBLE). What did I do? INGRAHAM: Why don’t you want these questions? STRINGER: What did I do? I didn’t stick to the talking points. I have to now go back and reverse myself because I need ratings. INGRAHAM: No, no, no. That’s what I heard. I heard what you don’t want to hear. STRINGER: You agreed with them. INGRAHAM: Pipe down. You know what I heard? STRINGER: Yes. INGRAHAM: I heard– STRINGER: I saw you on the show. INGRAHAM: –blood on our hands. I heard Americans are mean and they’re Islamophobic and they hate Muslims if they disagree. Is that building bridges? STRINGER: But why did you support the cultural center in December 2009? INGRAHAM: I absolutely support assimilation. STRINGER: Okay. So that’s great. INGRAHAM: I don’t support founders of an organization– STRINGER: So that’s great. INGRAHAM: –who actually believe that America is the equivalent of al Qaeda when destroying Muslim lives.. STRINGER: Then you know what? Let’s go to the FBI and Homeland Security. If you have information I don’t know, we should hear. But in the meantime– INGRAHAM: Read the 2005– STRINGER: –December 2009– INGRAHAM: You apparently don’t care what he says. You just don’t care. STRINGER: You supported this before Michael Bloomberg, before anybody else. INGRAHAM: I supported assimilation. You better believe it. STRINGER: You said what they were doing was the right thing. INGRAHAM: And professor, you got short shrift here. Do what you need to do and ask the questions. Ask questions. STRINGER: I’m just endorsing what you said what should happen. INGRAHAM: That’s so weak. Do you actually get elected with that kind of line? Ask questions. Yikes. Someone throw some water on the contestants. That said, Stringer like so many on his side of this debate greatly misrepresented Ingraham’s interview with Daisy Khan last December. It’s been characterized by most liberal media members that Ingraham on that occasion agreed with the location of this mosque. Here’s the video of that segment along with a full transcript. You decide if that’s what actually happened:  INGRAHAM: In the “Impact” segment tonight, some controversy surrounding Islamic mosque and cultural center in the works at Ground Zero. The imam responsible for this project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has conducted some post-9/11 sensitivity training for the FBI, but he’s also made some questionable remarks about America’s behavior towards Muslims. Joining us now from New York, the imam’s wife, Daisy Khan, the executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement. And Daisy, before we get into this, I know you were listening to our previous segment about the culture war with the — the war against Christmas and these ads, and you wanted to comment. DAISY KHAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MUSLIM ADVANCEMENTS: Yes. I was most intrigued, because I don’t think that there is a war between people who are believers. I think our real issue is bringing people who disbelieve and, you know, have absolutely no notion of what God is and believe in the existence of God. And this is what our faith community should be doing together to work on a common platform to remove this kind of ignorance against God. INGRAHAM: All right. I like the — I like the backup you’re giving me on that. Let’s talk about the Islamic center at Ground Zero. Questions, I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it. Bloomberg for it. Rabbis in New York saying they don’t have a problem with it. Why near Ground Zero? Why did you choose that space? KHAN: Well, I think the closeness of the center to Ground Zero, first and foremost, is a blow to the extremists. And you know, we Muslims are really fed up, Laura, of having to be defined by the actions of the extremists. You know, we are law-abiding citizens. We are faithful people. We are very good Americans. And we need to project a different message of Islam, one of tolerance, love and the kind of commonalities we have with different faith communities. And the center will be dedicated to promoting what it needs to be Muslim and what it also means to be Americans, and that is the real message that needs to get out. INGRAHAM: When you see surveys, and I know your group takes a moderate approach to Americanizing people, assimilating people, which I applaud. I think that’s fantastic. But when you see — when you see Pew’s survey, the global survey that came out — what is that, 18 months ago or so — global opinions of Muslims, especially younger male Muslims on a number of issues, including whether jihad is morally justifiable, the figures are disturbing to me. And I was wondering what your thoughts were. KHAN: Well, once again, our faith has been defined by people who have political agendas. And what they do is they use religion as a veneer to mobilize people. And what we have to do is talk about what is the central core of all faiths, which is the love of God. And this is a message, and this is why we want to create a center so close to Ground Zero: to promote a different message, one that most majority of Muslims live. I mean, the extremists are a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. And they don’t represent the majority view. And what we are afraid of is that they become the center and the majority. And we have to stop that. INGRAHAM: The problem is — we’re going to get to your husband’s comment from back in 2004 in a minute. But Pope Benedict has asked for parity, kind of a reciprocity. Look, we’ll have a mosque in Rome. Absolutely, a mosque in Rome, freedom of religion. But let’s have a cathedral or a Catholic church in Saudi Arabia. How far do you think he got with that? I mean, or Lebanon today. Try to build a new church in Lebanon. You know, previously a hot bed of Christianity. And you don’t get anywhere. So that’s what kind of upsets Christians, especially with what’s happening to Christians in Iraq and Iran and places like that. KHAN: Well, I completely agree with you. Because if you look at the history of Muslims and you look at, you know, the pluralism that existed within Islamic history over the last 1,400 years, there used to be great mosques and great cathedrals and churches and synagogues in every place. What has happened is there is a new interpretation that has crept in: one of intolerance and one of non-acceptance. And this, we have to push back against that and bring back what, you know, our religion says: there is no compulsion in religion. Which means you can disbelieve and believe, and believe in other faith communities, because… INGRAHAM: Daisy… KHAN: Yes. INGRAHAM: … let’s get into what your husband said in 2004, because this is a sticking point with a lot of people. Sydney Morning Herald interview, he was quoted as saying it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets. He placed some blame on Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians. That disturbs a lot of people. A lot of American soldiers died liberating Muslims around the world in Kuwait and Bosnia, and they didn’t appreciate that. KHAN: Well, I don’t think he meant it that way. I think what was trying to say is that, you know, when we take — when we have a small crime, and then there is such a huge response to that, where there’s a calamity on such a large scale, that, you know, we have to look at what the law says. And Christians — Christianity is defined by love. When things are done in the name of Christianity like, you know… INGRAHAM: Well, we didn’t — we didn’t wage World War II in the name of Christianity. KHAN: No, I’m not… INGRAHAM: That’s a difference. I mean, our fighter pilots weren’t screaming, “Allah Akbar,” you know, or the equivalent in English, “Praise be to God.” KHAN: Yes. INGRAHAM: I think — I’d amend that if I were he. I’d kind of go back and re-do that statement. But I like what you’re trying to do, and Ms. Khan, we appreciate it. And come on my radio show sometime. KHAN: Yes. We need the support of people like you, seriously. So we… INGRAHAM: OK, take care. All right, Daisy. Take care.

Continue reading here:
Wednesday Night Fights: Laura Ingraham vs. Ground Zero Mosque Supporter

NYT Scrubs GZM Imam’s ‘Iconic’ Paragraph From Original Online Report

On December 8 of last year, at some point before hitting the “print” button, someone at the New York Times decided that a story about what has since become known as the Ground Zero Mosque needed to be reworked. Earlier that day, the Times published an online powder-puff piece by reporters Ralph Blumenthal and Sharaf Mowjood about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s GZM plans. The pair’s story was revised before it went to print, and the online version was changed (“Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero,” with a web page title bar that reads “Muslim Prayers Fuel Spiritual Rebuilding Project Near Ground Zero”) to mirror it . It’s even puffier. Several bloggers posted about the pair’s online original when it appeared. A few, including Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs and Ben Muessig at The Gothamist , excerpted some or all of the key paragraphs shown on the left below (bold in the third paragraph is mine). On the right is how that segment went to print on December 9 (link is to hard-to-read enlarged scan of that day’s front page, where the story’s opening paragraphs appeared near its bottom right), and how it currently appears online: Putting aside the issue of whether previous online versions of subsequently revised stories should be retained and kept available to readers for future reference (I think they should; the Times, the Associated Press, and others clearly disagree), and even giving the paper the benefit of the doubt on the need to fit available print edition space, there’s plenty of reason to question the paper’s editing choices. The most important one is: “Why did the third paragraph disappear?” That disappearance raises at least these points: The imam describes the location as being “close to 9/11,” as if the fallen towers represent some kind of event and not an actual place. Is this imperfect English, or a slip of the tongue? Readers who know more about Rauf’s full background might be tempted to think he’s referring to something positive, especially given that he describes being so close to them as being “iconic.” Expanding on the Rauf’s use of “iconic,” the word “icon” in context means : “a person or thing regarded as a symbol of a belief, nation, community, or cultural movement.” So if the GZM’s proposed location is indeed “iconic,” it’s far, far more than a nice community center, isn’t it? Readers who know more about Rauf’s full background have legitimate cause for wondering what he believes the GZM really symbolizes. It’s also interesting how the phrase “a longtime critic of radical Islamists” fell off. It’s not like ” Islamists ” is a forbidden word at the Old Grey Lady — or even (though much more rare) ” radical Islamists .” Perhaps Blumenthal or Mowjood found some contradictory information, like that 60 Minutes interview where Rauf told Ed Bradley less than three weeks after the 9/11 attacks that “the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened,” and that “in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” It seems a bit more likely, at least before the GZM idea sprung up, that Rauf, based on his own words, had really been a longtime sympathizer with radical Islamists. Finally, it’s more than a little odd that the Times denied itself the opportunity, after originally claiming it, to brag about getting a scoop. Did the paper back away from seemingly valid bragging rights because of nervousness about being accused of proactively helping the project move along? Given the facts and attitude clues washed out, the Times made some interesting editorial decisions indeed. When done, the presentation of Rauf is on balance became much more favorable, and there were no direct alerts that something might be amiss. Imagine that. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Link:
NYT Scrubs GZM Imam’s ‘Iconic’ Paragraph From Original Online Report