After reading a couple of op-eds today, I was reminded to post Jon Stewart's excellent interview with Rachel Maddow in which they discuss American media. The interview is long, but well worth watching.
Stewart's main point is that the sane middle is often ignored by news outlets because being moderate is boring. The media is a business, and in order to gain viewers and money, they give platforms to the loudest, most reactionary elements of society-- on both ends of the political spectrum. Which brings me back to those two op-eds.
The first is from Roger Cohen in the New York Times, who writes about Oklahoma's anti-Shariah law. Cohen "decided to take the pulse of a resurgent conservative America at the Kumback Café" in "downtown Perry, population 5230", where he interviews a bunch of old drunks.
I don't believe that the political views of a handful of elderly career drinkers can really be considered a microcosm of conservative America, but Cohen thinks otherwise. After quoting a few people, making sure to note their drinking habits and incredibly old age (I suppose to emphasize how retrograde old people's political views are?), he makes the claim that "Not since 9/11 has Islamophobia been at such a pitch in the United States."
The idea that Islamophobia is rising in America has become something of a shibboleth in the media. It's a large claim, requiring clarification and evidence. What, exactly, does Islamophobia mean -- is it a rise in largely peaceful but unwarranted worry? Is it a fear of brown skin or ideology or origin? Or all of these? And if Islamophobia is growing, does that herald a likely erosion First Amendment rights? City councils refusing to grant building permits to mosques? A rise in physical violence against Muslims? And just how high a pitch is American Islamophobia, compared to other potential religious "phobias", like "Judeo-phobia", or "Catholic-phobia"? These are all questions that can be answered, or at least argued over, using concrete facts.
But surprisingly, just when Cohen should elaborate, he moves on, leaving his claim hanging there, unclarified and unargued, simply offered up as self-evidently true. For actual numbers, you'd need to read the op-ed pages of the Boston Globe:
"In 2009, according to data gathered from more than 14,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide, there were 1,376 hate crimes motivated by religious bias. Of those, just 9.3 percent — fewer than 1 in 10 — were committed against Muslims. By contrast, 70.1 percent were committed against Jews, 6.9 percent were aimed at Catholics or Protestants, and 8.6 percent targeted other religions. Hate crimes driven by anti-Muslim bigotry were outnumbered nearly 8 to 1 by anti-Semitic crimes.Year after year, American Jews are far more likely to be the victims of religious hate crime than members of any other group. That was true even in 2001, by far the worst year for anti-Muslim incidents, when 481 were reported — less than half of the 1,042 anti-Jewish crimes tabulated by the FBI the same year.Does all this mean that America is in reality a hotbed of anti-Semitism? Would Time’s cover have been closer to the mark if it had asked: “Is America Judeophobic?’’Of course not. Even one hate crime is one too many, but in a nation of 300 million, all of the religious-based hate crimes added together amount to less than a drop in the bucket."
Suddenly, by looking outside the walls of the Kumbuck cafe and its wacky cast of cantankerous Morris Buttermakers, a much different picture appears. Do I think passing an anti-shariah law is silly? Yes. Do I think some people are irrationally fearful of Islam in America? Absolutely. But are the fears and reservations of a small percentage of drunken elderly coots in a bar a reliable indicator of Muslim life in most of America? Lord, no.
But you wouldn't know it from Cohen's smug trend-piece, which is more interested in mocking the easiest of targets than presenting a reasoned argument.
