"Do I need to burn embassies to get respect for my views? asks the Professor rhetorically during "my appearance on CNN, in which I'm rather critical of CNN's decision not to show the cartoons."
On CNN's "Inside the Blogs" last night, the most trusted man in the blogosphere, Glenn Reynolds explained to cutie-pie interviewer Abbi Tatton the way of the world, in response to her questions re the "intense scrutiny of news organizations like CNN and others and the decisions that we've been making about whether to publish these cartoons or not." We caught the show during rebroadcast in the wee hours, and Ian Schwartz of Expose the Left has the video [via Michelle Malkin]:
Well I think you guys have blown it, and in fact I think by not publishing the cartoons, what you've done is let people imagine the worst. The actual cartoons are not that [bad], and in fact one way we know they're not that [bad] is the Danish imams had to add fake cartoons when they did their little tour to try to stir up trouble because the real ones weren't bad enough, and I think when you cover things up, you let people's imaginations run wild, and the results are often worse than if you expose things. The press is there to tell us things, not to hide things from us.
Everything's offensive to somebody, and in the modern world we all have to put up with some degree of offense. If the fundamentalist Christians were rioting because of Will and Grace, would you take them off the air?
Conservative bloggers hear a lot of talk about free speech in other contexts, but it seems like people are willing to go to the mat to protect free speech when it's free speech that irritates people on the right, but when it's free speech that irritates Muslims, they're more concerned about not offending.
"How has the internet contributed to this story," asks Tatton:
Well I think it's helped people find these images they couldn't find through the mainstream press -- which as always helps people bypass the gatekeepers. My beliefs are offended when gangs of ignorant thugs burn embassies. Where's the respect for my beliefs? Do I need to burn embassies to get respect for my views? Because that's the message CNN sends. The message they send is "We will reward violence." And you're going to get more of what you reward. That's how it works.
And that's the way it is. But despite this excellent segment on CNN, MSM types still don't get it. The anchor of the show -- a very personable and competent professional -- had already internalized the dhimmitudinous new phrase of the moment, "the prophet Mohammed" to refer to a religious figure previously known to infidels as simply "Mohammed." Listen for it. They're all doing it now, even on Fox. Are tolerant Muslims about to refer to Jesus as "Our Lord Jesus Christ"? Nor should they.
Instalanche. The great one doesn't know wherof he speaks, saying "I think I finished well, though, even if I was boring. But hey, I'm a law professor. Boring is what we do best!" No, no. You are not boring, you silly.
Update: Reader Scott points out the imprecision of our comparison between the Christian expression "Our Lord Jesus Christ" and the Muslim expression "the Prophet Mohammed [PBUH]." We agree. A more apt comparison might be the spelling G-d used by some Jews as a reminder of the holiness attached to God's name or -- as blogged here, the traditional honorific capitalization of pronouns referring to Christ.
FWIW, Orthodox Muslims DO view and refer to Jesus as a prophet in the same fasion as they refer to Mohammed. Furthermore, they, at least the Sunnis, believe in the ascension of Jesus. And, when speaking Jesus' name, to show proper respect, his name is followed by the phrase,"peace by upon Him", exactly as it is when referring to Mohammed.
Posted by: John deVille | February 12, 2006 at 02:42 PM
Thank you for the info, John. Good, relevant stuff, but my point is that it sounds forced -- dhimmitudinous -- for Christians to suddenly start referring to Mohammed as "the prophet Mohammed," not to mention adding the [PBUH], which I have seen at least one non-Muslim journalist doing of late.
Posted by: Sissy Willis | February 12, 2006 at 02:52 PM
Well, wouldn't it be nice if just for once - the media decided to be respectful of all religions... not just the Muslim religion. They've spent years and years tearing down Christians and Jews, so yes I am insulted even more when they bend over backward for the Muslim religion.
As for the show - I watched it when Matt of Blackfive was on there and I consider this episode (with Glenn) to solidify my first impressions... it's a reporters love fest. Wherein they try to tell us how tough their job is and how well they think they do it.
I was very surprised that Glenn got as much airtime as he did. They really didn't give Matt much time (although he made good use of it). The formula they follow - comment from blogger, rebuttal by reporter in the field, comments from 2 people in the audience (supposedly meant to represent all Americans.... um sure), one more comment from blogger, and then self justifying closing remarks by the moderator. Makes me antsy.
I am so impressed with Glenn and Matt for trying to get their points across to those who just don't want to hear it.
Posted by: Teresa | February 12, 2006 at 03:16 PM
Your partial transcript is handy (so thanks), but it flatters Glenn Reynolds. What he said, twice, was "tame" where you put [bad]. Obviously he was caught between saying the cartoons were mostly tame (which is true) or that they were not that bad (which is true), and what he said was they were not that tame, which was false and confusing. (I also though his half-look to the camera when he got off his "Will and Grace" line was lame.)
Abbie Tatton got Glenn Reynolds to correct himself so smoothly that he never even realised he'd messed up. That was very slick work by a media professional getting the show to go smoothly, and gracious. I was impressed.
I also found her accent easier to follow than his. And it didn't hurt that she's good looking.
In terms of content - yes Glenn Reynolds nailed it. His job was in effect to say firmly but without heat or bitterness not only that CNN was wrong but why it was wrong, and he was dead on.
Posted by: David Blue | February 13, 2006 at 06:17 AM
"Are tolerant Muslims about to refer to Jesus as "Our Lord Jesus Christ"? Nor should they."
I don't think referring to Jesus as "Lord" is the same as referring to Mohammed as "The Prophet" (kind of like president vs teacher in my eyes) but point taken - there is a certain amount of fawning deferrence being accorded to Islam by the MSM, no denying it.
Glenn succeeded in making one crucial point - that the MSM's deferrence in this matter is driven by fear of physical, economic and legal reprisal by muslims, and that this is a downward spiral circling the drain. Letting them know they "blew it" was a great way to underline this fact.
His "not all that tame" remark made me wince but it's to be expected that someone taking (a lonely) center stage on such a controversial issue is bound to engender feelings of nervousness - Abbi herself looked frankly terrified when she first started speaking and didn't appear fully relaxed even by the end of the segment.
And that guest journalist with the 25 years or whatever living in muslim countries - what exactly was his point? That some cultures limit the speech of their citizens and media? Er, yes, and...? Rarely have I heard someone take so long to say so little.
Hats off to Glenn for saying what needed to be said.
Posted by: Scott | February 13, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Scott: You're right about the imprecision of my comparison between the Christian expression "Our Lord Jesus Christ" and the Muslim expression "the Prophet Mohammed [PBUH]." A more apt comparison might be the spelling G-d by some Jews as a reminder of the holiness attached to God's name or -- as blogged in one of my later posts, the traditional honorific capitalization of pronouns referring to Christ.
Posted by: Sissy Willis | February 13, 2006 at 11:48 AM