Legitimating Terrorism and Its Apologists

The Times' lead article today is about Blair's new security proposals.

But look what they do here:

The threatened measures drew strong protests from Islamic groups.

Imran Waheed, a spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, said the move to outlaw it would cause "serious repercussions" among British Muslims and "will be seen by the Muslim community as stifling legitimate political dissent."

Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said Muslims "will think it is a war against political Islam. This is a very dangerous signal from the government."

The mainstream Muslim Council of Britain also assailed Mr. Blair's announcement, saying that "if there are groups that are thought to be contravening our laws, then they ought to be prosecuted in the courts, not driven underground."

That gives the reaction of three Muslim groups, 1, 2, 3, without distingushing in any way between them. Here are the quite reasonable sounding alternative positions of the representatives of three British groups representating British Muslims, ho-hum, nothing in the least unusual here, something you'd see in any article -- position of government, quickee quotes from opposition groups.

Now, it is true that elsewhere in the article the reporter does note that the first group in that list is one that Blair has suggested is questionable:

He mentioned two groups that would be banned: Hizb ut-Tahrir, which says it supports a nonviolent campaign to restore the Islamic caliphate; and successor groups to Al Muhajiroun, which had made a point of praising the Sept. 11 hijackers before disbanding last year.

But aside from the fact that it's elsewhere in a long article, the reporter here only mentions what Hizb says about itself, not what other people say about it. (And how many casual readers of the Times, do you think, have been following the debate in the blogosphere about the recent firing of a Guardian employee who, it turned out, was a member of the group?)

The question, one would think, when a group is accused of extremism and links to terrorism, is what other people say about it. It may be non-violent, but it is in every way contrary to the values of a Western democracy. They aren't banned in other countries because they're non-violent, but because their anti-Semitism is frighteningly extreme, and if they aren't linked to terrorism, they certainly glorify it. (And how bad is it if the BBC is busting you on those charges?)

Of course, there are at least suggestions that the IHRC isn't all moderation and sunshine either.

Only the third group, the Muslim Council of Britain, seems truly moderate, mainstream, committed to dialogue and the condemnation of terrorism.

Okay, so what?

So the Times has just placed side by side as if they were of equal importance and weight quotes from representatives of three groups. That makes it appear as if all three groups are legitimate political players, worthy of being quoted in the New York Times, worthy of having their opinions count as the debate is shaped (at least in this country) about the nature of the proposed British response.

More than feeding the response of questionable groups into the public debate (which is bad enough), the Times, by doing this, gives those two questionable groups, one of which we know explicitly glorifies suicide bombing (thus is an open apologist for terrorism, aside from being anti-Semites of the most heinous kind), political legitimacy. It suggests that such groups are no different from any other political advocacy group, equally deserving of having their voices heard.

That's what people mean when they say that the way terrorism gets covered can make the media unwittingly complicit with terrorism.

And one other thing -- the reporter quotes these groups as if they were fully legitimate participants in the political process without suggesting otherwise to the reader. That's withholding key information on how to weigh evidence used in the article from the reader, a major violation of the trust between reporter and reader, in my book.

I'd also be mighty angry if I were a moderate Muslim. Slipping the opinions of groups like these in here as if they were fully legitimate representatives of the opinions of the Muslim community suggests first that, well, they are representatives of the opinions of the Muslim community, and second, that there are no better, less tainted groups to quote.

Update: NBC (well, MS) provides the response of Omar al-Bakri. (pdf file here.) They identify him, before providing the clip, as the head of a group that has been banned and who has spoken out in defense of terrorism himself in the past. That's certainly an improvement over the Times' presentation of their sources (it ought to be, since they're quoting a source so much more egregious than those the Times used) but I note that they don't bother to mention that two of Bakri's students took their teacher at his word a while back, and blew themselves up in a very nice bar by the beach in Tel Aviv.

But in an article on the response to Blair's proposals from Muslim groups, the well respected Times of London simply slips this in in the middle:

The radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, founder of al-Muhajiroun, said that he could live with being deported and that if he knew of plans for a terrorist attack he would not inform the police. “If I knew somebody was going to attack here, I will hold him, I will call the Muslims to hold him,” he said. “I would never tell the police. I am not working for the police. I would never, ever tell the police about any Muslim. It is God-forbidden.”

Yes, he's labelled as a "radical," and he's quoted as saying that he wouldn't inform the police of a possible attack -- but he's also quoted as saying that instead he would depend on the community to deal with the offender. Well, that doesn't sound so terribly, terribly beyond the pale, as much as it isn't the response we would want.

Of course, it's a bit different from the reality, which is that Bakri would probably have talked the terrorist into the attack and would probably wish them well and offer his blessing.

How has this paper done anything other than legitimate Bakri here and make him look far more respectable, far closer to the legitimate community spokesmen with which he is lumped?

It seems to me I saw Bakri quoted several times yesterday as well, although I admit it didn't click until I saw the piece in the paper this morning, so I wasn't focused enough to take careful notes.

So, let me ask the question: why do we care what this known sympathizer, apologist, out and out advocate for terrorism has to say about Tony Blair's proposals? How is our understanding of this news story enriched by having his commentary on it? What's gained? When news outlets plot out their day, as assignment editors and producers meet with their reporters to sketch out their responses -- why does it seem natural, or even at any level appropriate, to seek out this son of a bitch to ask for his remarks as if he were a politician responding to another government official's proposals? This is not John McCain responding to something the President has proposed. He is not a legitimate player in the political process.

So why should the press treat him as if he is?

And what are the implications when they do?

NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT BOMBARD ME WITH FREE PRESS RESPONSES. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE PRESS CAN'T DO, OR SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO. I'M TRYING TO ASK NORMATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO.

Comments

[DCXENA]

I think that perhaps what we really have here is sheer ignorance and laziness on the part of journalists. Most people's eyes glaze over when it comes to arab monikers--they have a hard time keeping people's names straight, much less all these groups and the differences between them. I suspect that these reporters are much the same--they just haven't bothered to learn much more than what's necessary. It's the easy way out--just take down the quotes and write a story.
I don't think this is too far-fetched a theory; look at the sheer ignorance and positively stupid reporting about the military, both here and abroad. If they can't (or don't bother to)even learn about such a transparent and familar organizations, what makes us think they'll do any better with the multitudes of Islamic groups? It's easy to get away with, too, since there aren't hundreds of thousands of "veterans" of these groups willing and ready to call them on their ignorance.
As for why they would quote such a rotten character as Bakri--well, probably for the same reason papers here even give Al Sharpton the time of day. Laziness (the guy is always good for a quote) and stupidity. I'm not sure the journalists (and I use that term LOOSELY)have nefarious intent as much as they are content to be ignorant and focused on making their deadlines...

[dauber]

You may well be right -- as I suggest, this is UNWITTING except in the case of Bakri. My point is that in the '80s these things and their implications were agonized over. I WANT THEM AGONIZED OVER AGAIN.