USA: Deconstructing Media Coverage of the “Ground Zero Mosque”
The logo for Park51
For the past several months, one story has consistently held media attention in the United States. The story is of a planned Islamic community center a few blocks away from the site of the attacks of September 11, 2001–a site dubbed “Ground Zero”–and has polarized opinion across the media spectrum. The community center, to be called Park51 for its location, has been called controversial by some pundits and politicians, such as Sarah Palin, because of its proximity to “Ground Zero,” and has caused some to call for the center to be moved. At the same time, numerous groups and individuals–including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg–have spoken out in support of Park51, reminding Americans of the history of Muslims in the U.S. and invoking the first amendment, which calls for the free exercise of religion.
Beyond the actual situation of the community center is the issue of media coverage. For months, much of the American mainstream media have referred to Park51 as “the Ground Zero mosque,” implying implicitly that the project is to be built on the actual ground (it isn't) and that the center's sole purpose is as a mosque (also false–the center will include a mosque, along with a swimming pool, theatre, childcare center, and numerous other facets).
Bloggers have jumped in to comment on a number of aspects of the story, from the history of Muslims in New York to the Islamophobia inherent in many arguments against Park51. Writing for Tabsir.net, one blogger discusses the media hype:
The current torrent of media hype about building a “mosque” near Ground Zero is part of a deeper Islamophobic fervor in direct lineage with the same unfriendly folks who have self-righteously hated Injuns, Negroes and Jews and found verses in the King James Version of the Bible to back up their hatred. Today’s New York Times carries a story by Laurie Goodstein about efforts across the country to stop construction of Islamic places of worship. If this is yet another tempest brewed in Tea Party forums, it looks more like a lynch mob than a ladies aid society brunch.
Moroccan-American writer Laila Lalami would appear to concur; in a blog post, she expresses frustration with the media's exclusion of Muslims in dialogue about Park51:
Notice that, in setting up the two groups of proponents and opponents of Park51, the Muslims who get mentioned are “former Muslims”, while the people who bravely stand up for religious freedom include ministers of every faith, except Islam. Are we to believe that no Muslims, whether ministers or not, are taking part in these interfaith groups, even though the matter at hand is an Islamic community center?
I see this kind of silencing everywhere in our media. Politicians constantly talk about the need for “moderate Muslims” to step up, and when they do, as Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf did when he tried to set up this community center, it is the extremists among Muslims—both the religious and the secular—who are given ample room to voice their opinions. Enough.
At Arab-American blog KABOBfest, author Sana explains the role Muslims have played in the history of Manhattan:
Lower Manhattan is also the final resting place of Muslims and other Africans, often slaves, who were forcibly resettled in New York when it was still New Amsterdam. The African Burial Ground, discovered in 1991, is six blocks away from the proposed Muslim community center. Scholars continue to debate the religious identity of the hundreds buried there, but the fact that some of the dead wore shrouds and were interred with strings of blue beads, frequently used as Islamic talismans, suggests Muslim were among the enslaved people who helped build Manhattan into a bustling city.
Of course, this history of Islam in lower Manhattan means little to the families of 9/11 victims who are protesting the proposed center. Far more troubling than their protest is how readily some political groups have used this issue to advance their own anti-Muslim agendas. Comments by Lazio and Palin are mere drops in an ocean of right-wing vitriol. In one outright lie, the Web site of the National Republican Trust has declared that the organizers of the mosque “intend to erect a shrine to the 9/11 terrorists.”
Rhetoric that treats Muslim-Americans like hostile foreigners fundamentally – and intentionally – skews the story of New York and its Muslim community.
One tactic opponents of Park51 have used in arguing against is comparing Manhattan to Mecca, in that inside Mecca, no Christian or Jewish places of worship may be built. Blogger Desert Peace debunks that particular argument:
First, as far as I know, Mecca has not a single Jewish inhabitant, so why build a synagogue there? To start a settlement enterprise there? To teach Muslims Shulhan Aruch or Chesronot Shas or other Talmudic messages?
On the other hand, New York is home to tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Muslims. And the people in charge of the project are American citizens who broke no law, committed no crime and hurt no body. Indeed, if New York Muslims were of Hitler’s ilk, as the hateful and provocative signs would have us believe, then the Jewish mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg, who supports the project, ought to be a Nazi supporter.
Not all bloggers support the mosque, however, even within the Arab-American blogosphere. Iraqi Mojo writes:
However, out of respect for conservative Americans and for the victims of 9/11, and knowing that the money for the proposed project will likely come from KSA and maybe other Wahhabi-infested kingdoms, I believe it would be unwise for Muslims to insist on building a mosque near ground zero. Having said this, the actions of New Yorkers and mayor Bloomberg have already shown that Americans are quite tolerant of Islam and Muslims.
56 comments
Dena,
“Why is Sarah Palin’s name mentioned?” Because the author is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, and she wants to please other liberals who LIKE the denigration of Sarah Palin. (I happen to agree that she often appears ignorant. I also agree that it’s not germane to the subject.)
No, I’m not saying that the first amendment has location limits. I am suggesting there are two subjects at hand: 1) Do Muslims have the right to build what they want where they want? Answer: Yes, as long as it meets all applicable laws and codes, etc. (which Park51 apparently does), and 2) Should Muslims recognize the insensitivity of placing this facility so close to ground zero, and build it some place else? Answer: Yes! They can do this because they’re good people, not because their rights are “threatened…”
I’m not picking and choosing rights… I’m suggesting that Muslims simply demonstrate some decorum. There can be no winners in this argument… everyone looses.
Actually, no, I brought up Sarah Palin because she is the perpetrator of dangerous rhetoric against free expression, freedom of religion, and now, against Muslims. Of course she’s nowhere near the worst, but she’s certainly amongst the most influential.
The problem with the sensitivity issue here is that a) families of the victims are divided on this topic, some support Park51, some oppose it. Let’s not ignore that. b) the whole controversy was stirred to distract from Republicans blocking a bill to provide millions of dollars in health care to WTC first responders who were injured on 9/11. Where’s the anger over that? Isn’t that a true “slap in the face” to the victims of 9/11?
…but dangerous rhetoric is protected by the first amendment, isn’t it? You seem to be against free expression when that expression is counter to yours. (Are you saying you’re a conservative?)
Let’s compare Palin’s dangerous rhetoric with radical Islam’s dangerous rhetoric, and see which one results with more dead people! It seems that your definition of dangerous is bad… or your education is.
War on Iraq and Afghanistan? Compare numbers please. 9/11 ==> hundreds of thousands war victims vs 2300 or something by terrorists (who becomes to be funded in the 80s by the US government), plus republicans not approving more medical care for 9/11 rescuers? And you are talking about definition and education? Come on! Some common sense is required!
You’re right Mo… we should have waited by patiently so the terrorists could destroy MORE infidels.
Hundreds of thousands war victims? Take your blinders off…
Dennis, the most conservative casualties estimate for the Iraq war puts the number at around a hundred thousand civilians, some put that number as high up as more than a million. Don’t believe this wikipedia article, but go to the sources it cites and check for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Iraq was not making threats, had no WMDs, and was not in any way related to the terrorists of 9/11 or the Taliban in general. Your argument is absurd, and your denial of well-document facts is concerning.
Anas… please forgive the error of my ways. I apologize for not getting all my news from Al Jazeera.
You’re right, Iraq was not making threats, had no WMDs, but WAS related to the terrorists. If you check the history of the event, you’ll see there was a stack of other valid reasons to attack… WMDs was just the tipping point that caused the coward liberals to jump on board. It’s safe to say we would NOT have attacked if 9/11 had never happened.
I’m sure that millions of Iraqis would agree with you that the world would be a much better place if Saddam were still ruling.
But we digress from Jillian’s subject of islamophobia and the ever so dangerous Sarah Palin…
I don’t see Sarah Palin’s free expression being limited, do you? Countering rhetoric is not the same as shutting it down, Dennis. Unlike Palin herself (who claims Laura Schlessinger’s first amendment rights were violated), I understand the Constitution.
I’m done here, Dennis. So long as you believe that Islam is evil, there’s nothing more to say here.
I don’t believe that Islam is evil. I do believe that the large, perverted, fundamentalist branch of Islam that spawns terrorism IS evil. Is that in dispute?
You’re right Jillian, Palin’s free expression isn’t being limited… and neither is Park51’s. It’s all just “speech,” right? So far I don’t see anyone’s rights be trampled on.
It’s been good bantering with you… thanks for not censoring my posts!
It’s all about free speech until someone gets stabbed: http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/124338/police–cab-driver-stabbed-by-passenger-who-asked–are-you-muslim–
…or beheaded?
Now we’ve had a stabbing over this issue? People resort to violence when they are frustrated and ignore or refuse to see any other alternative to take!” People such as Dennis fan the flames, and then step back and look at their handiwork.
“The community center, to be called Park51 for its location, has been called controversial by some pundits and politicians, such as Sarah Palin”
Dennis honestly: This is not “germane” to the subject? If Sarah Palin is arousing controversy then it does apply. As for her “reload” remark to Dr. Laura, when she demands that Rahm Emanuel be fired for saying “retarded?” Please!
And she just “appears ignorant?” Your saying she just seems or looks to be ignorant, but she isn’t really. That’s some political style, “you betch cha!” So should she run for president, her campaign slogan will be “She’s just appearin’ ignorent!” (sic)
As for the ongoing diction instruction to this thread , you would fair better if you understood that:
“Every human occupation has it repertoire of stock phrases, within which every man twists and turn until his death. His vocabulary, which seems so lavish, reduces itself to a hundred routine formulas at most, which he repeats over and over.”
— Auguste Villiers de l’Isle-Adam
Why did I seem surprised that Palin’s name was mentioned in this site? Maybe it was just an assumption of the intellect of people drawn from past conversation in this venue for years. I must admit Jillian; you are correct. “They do listen to her!” Oh, well! I bid you adieu!
Peace,
Dena
…oh ironies of ironies: The cabbie slasher is a leftist whacko… The Muslim cabbie is AGAINST Park51.
Dena, excuse me for fanning the flames of rationality, but it appears that many of you guys desperately need some!
Dennis,
Your first statement is patently false; nothing about the “cabbie slasher”, Michael Enright, demonstrates that he was a leftist. All we really know about him is that he went to Afghanistan to film a documentary about US troops and that he may or may not have volunteered for an interfaith group (religion and leftism? not so much). He also had a diary of anti-Muslim sentiments. Not exactly leftist, maybe not “right” either, but certainly filled with hate.
As for the cab driver, he has made NO such statement. The truth is, we have no idea what he thinks about Park51, because he didn’t say anything about it. The only thing he has said is that he doesn’t think Park51 is the cause of his stabbing.
You make things up then call us irrational?
No, I tell the truth then call you irrational.
Michael Enright was working for an activist liberal filmmaker. Michael Enright has a drinking problem. It was reported that the Muslim cabbie DID state that he was against the proposed ground-zero location of Park51.
You were the one using Michael Enright as the poster boy for the current islamophobia epidemic… I was simply trying to highlight the stupidity of your statement that Sarah Palin’s rhetoric is dangerous.
So I’ll re-ask the question that you avoided the first time: Who’s dangerous rhetoric has ended up with more dead people… Sarah Palin’s, or radical Islam’s?
Oh Dennis, I’m not going to answer your question because I know you won’t hear the answer. I’m going to, as I said I would before and should have, step out of this conversation. There’s just no point arguing with people like you.
الخطوة الذكية. العاطفة الإرادة مفككة إلى العقل والمنطق في كل مرة.
I highly advise against using machine translation to leave comments. I don’t get what you’re trying to achieve here, but that sentence is embarrassingly bad.
– A native Arabic speaker.
Anas (native Arabic speaker),
Here’s what I clumsily attempted to say: “Smart move. Emotion will loose to reason and logic every time.” What was I trying to achieve? I was trying to chide Jillian without making her loose face with her fans.
Please embarrass us with the literal translation.
Although I believe that building this community center/mosque so close to ground zero is in poor taste (large Muslim community in the area or not), I do believe that building it is a right that every American, no matter who they are, should have the right to exercise. This does NOT make me Islamiphobic or hateful. It is also my right to believe what I wish. I just think they have a lot of PR work to do and perhaps some community outreach. Muslims are good people. I have friends in Islam and would never look down on them or think of them differently. They are human beings and deserve dignity and respect. But they too, should show other Americans dignity and respect by recognizing the sensitive nature of the situation and work to build bridges between the religions. Just as our constitution allows them to build a mosque where they choose, they too should open their doors to non-Muslims.
I also understand that there are some Muslim countries that would not allow a church to be built in their countries (e.g. Iran), but that’s why America is such a great place, because we DO allow freedom of religion. Hell, that’s how this country came to be! The Pilgrims were escaping religious persecution in England. Have American’s forgotten that?! Why would we want to follow the example of countries like Iran anyway? We’re better than that! It seems that for some Americans, freedom of religion only applies to Judean/Christian denominations. This fits nicely into our ethnocentric mindset I guess, but to me it’s just sad.
“When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” ~Sinclair Lewis~
Well said, Jennifer.
Dennis,
“Dena, excuse me for fanning the flames of rationality, but it appears that many of you guys desperately need some!”
You just pull words out of a hat. Rationality is based on reasoning and understanding not “flaming fires” of rational thinking.
Who’s “dangerous rhetoric” has ended up with more dead people… Sarah Palin’s, or radical Islam’s? So your asking, who has more skills in writing or speaking to persuade others to kill? You are saying we can draw some conclusion from a body count between a woman who just came onto the world stage and a religion that is thousand’s of years old? And from this count you can deduce what?
Mr. Wells you should choose your words more carefully (no, really you should know the definition) if you want to engage the world on this forum! Otherwise, in my humble opinion, you are wasting our time! But I guarantee you this, you will waste no more of mine!
Peace,
Dena
Dena,
Excuse me for going over your head. You accused me of fanning the flames… I was trying to be funny in my response by mixing the metaphor; twisting your accusation into something that made sense. (I’m sure many readers did get it.)
Jillian made a stupid statement when she wrote that Sarah Palin’s rhetoric was “dangerous.” It’s a valid intellectual exercise to compare Jillian’s definition of dangerous, with the REAL definition of dangerous. What can I deduce? I can deduce that radical Islam’s rhetoric is clearly more dangerous than Sarah Palin’s. (Take a random sample of rhetoric during the SAME amount of time, any amount of time, and I think you’ll find the same answer: radical Islam is indisputably more dangerous than Sarah Palin.)
Dena, ask any English major to compare the acuity of your posts with mine, and I bet they unanimously agree that you shouldn’t be criticizing mine. (Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw invalid criticisms!)
Ha-ha. Get it?
Dennis,
I don’t agree. While I don’t know what Jillian intended by her statement, as an Arab-American, I can say that I feel more personally and immediately threatened by the rhetoric of the American GOP than I do by Al Qaeda. They attacked us, yes, and it was tragic (I lost a high school classmate), but I trust that we have improved as a country since then. I feel fairly safe in the US from terrorist attacks of that kind.
What I don’t feel safe from is the GOP. Not just the anti-Muslim rhetoric (which affects not just Muslims, but the rest of us Arabs too), but also their attitudes toward abortion, homosexuals, and oh yeah, the rest of the world. I feel concerned for my relatives in Lebanon and their safety, as the United States continues to kill my neighbors in Iraq and support the murderous Israeli regime.
So maybe that’s not what Jillian intended, but for those of us living and breathing in the United States every day, Sarah Palin and her cronies are absolutely more of a threat than radical Islam.
Reem, what does “we have improved as a country since then” have to do with Al Qaeda’s mission to kill innocent people? None of you out-of-touch liberals seem to be able to answer the simple question: Who’s rhetoric has resulted in more death, the GOP’s or radical Islam’s? So I’ll answer it… radical Islam is the bad guy here! Why can’t you just say it?
Your view of the GOP might be better in line with reality if you were plain American, rather than having to hyphenate your patriotism. I guess you think radical Islam’s attitudes toward abortion, homosexuals, and oh yeah, the rest of the world, are much more loving… You’re free to move to a Muslim country and live happily ever after! (You’d feel more at home with the other anti-Semites.)
If you’re threatened more by the GOP than radical Islam, you need more courage, and more intelligence. I’m living and breathing in the USA every day too. The people I know are much more threatened by radical Islam than ANY American political party.
Salaam.
What I’ve noticed is that when people start throwing personal attacks, in an otherwise friendly debate, that person no longer has a valid opinion. They use these attacks as a defense against their faulty positions and fear monger people into believing their view out of a false belief that “they have no other choice.” THIS is the kind of rhetoric Sarah Palin creates and it’s obvious Dennis, that you’re taking a page out of that book. THAT is why Sarah Palin is more dangerous than Al-Qaeda. She, and her tea party friends, use this tactic to poison the minds of the American people. Sadly, most Americans are not highly educated, so we’re easy to fool. This makes it so much easier for her to fulfill her ridiculous objectives; which therein tend to hurt the lower and middle classes as well as AMERICAN minorities in this country. This has happened before (i.e. Japanese internment camps) and it’s happening again. History ALWAYS repeats itself. Al-Qaeda hasn’t touched American soil since 9/11 because of our heightened security. It’s worked so far hasn’t it?! Besides, who has the nuclear weapons? Oh yeah, we do. Get off your high horse and starting THINKING.