|
Hundreds of complaints, over fifty cancelled subscriptions to the North Carolina News and Observer, public editor excoriates own newspaper for accepting hatemongering video that was produced by Aish Hatorah cult group
For more information about Aish Hatorah, see my previous posts here, here, and here.
Ted Vaden, the public editor at the North Carolina News and Observer writes:
Should The News & Observer allow itself to be used as a vehicle for disseminating offensive speech against a religious faith?
No, was the resounding response from readers who objected to a DVD that was distributed in The N&O last weekend. The video, titled "Obsession," portrays radical Islam as an organized global terrorism campaign aimed at Jews, Christians and America.
It depicts armies of jihadist warriors, suicide bombers in training and armed children chanting anti-Western slogans. Images of Islamist militants are juxtaposed with scenes of goose-stepping Nazi troopers. Graphic footage displays carnage from attacks in New York, London and Madrid.
"This is a film about a radical world view and the threat it poses to us all, Muslim and non-Muslim alike," a title says at the beginning of the video.
After the DVD was distributed Sept. 13, protests poured into News & Observer offices. We received at least 300 e-mail and phone messages, and about 50 people canceled subscriptions
"By taking responsibility for the delivery of this movie, an esteemed newspaper lent credence and stature to a movie which is, at best, hyperbolic, frightening propaganda. Surely, money cannot replace ethics," wrote reader MARY HARRISON.
"Gee, if I was still teaching, this video could be a classroom aid to show how some use hate and religious intolerance to scare people," wrote retired fourth-grade teacher MARY GILBERT of Raleigh. "However, I would not want to poison young minds by having them watch it."
The DVD was distributed by The N&O as an advertising product, inserted along with the advertising circulars into the paper. Jim McClure, vice president for display advertising, said he recognized that the DVD would be controversial and consulted with other executives before accepting it.
But he concluded that the paper should not deny advertisers the opportunity to reach the N&O audience because their message is unpopular or offensive to some. "The ultimate question is, at what point do you draw the line and start censoring things based on comfort level?" he said.
Many readers, citing The N&O's well-publicized revenue problems, accused the paper of selling out scruples for advertising dollars. McClure said the paper doesn't disclose what customers pay for ads, because they expect confidentiality for competitive reasons, but money was not a factor: "There was no consideration that this was so lucrative that we have to lower our standards and accept this. It was accepted on its merits."
I have a problem with this particular entry into the free-speech marketplace, because we don't know where the speech is coming from. The DVD package contained a name and address for the sponsor, The Clarion Fund of New York City. A Clarion Web site gives no information about its directors or its funding. It says the film was made possible by a large donor, but doesn't identify who.
Omid Safi, a professor of Islamic studies at UNC-CH, has researched the video and the Clarion Fund. He says the producer of the video is a Canadian native who now is a rabbi and Zionist leader in Israel. Distribution was aided by a Christian Zionist organization headed by Texas evangelist John Hagee, he said, and a Clarion Fund Web site recently published, then removed, an article that endorsed John McCain over Barack Obama for president.
Safi noted that the DVD was placed in newspapers only in key election swing states, suggesting it's intended to scare voters into the McCain camp. "The whole premise of this film is that the West doesn't know what radical Islam represents," Safi said. "Fair enough. Tell us what you represent." My calls to the Clarion Fund were not returned.
I think newspapers have an obligation to be as transparent as possible with readers about the information they provide. In this case, I think the DVD fell short in two respects.
First, it should have been labeled as paid advertising content, as the newspaper would require of a political advertisement. Despite the story on the front page, it's clear from their comments that some readers perceived the video as somehow endorsed by The N&O. McClure said it's the first time he could recall that The N&O has distributed a DVD.
More important is the lack of information about the source of this controversial content. Without that, the readers were not in a position to make an informed judgment about the message they received.
Story here.
|
