Missing the Beat on Terry Jones

When I read an article about the threatened Qur'an burning in Florida actually taking place I got a little cranky at the media for not picking the story up. I found an AFP report (via the The Sydney Morning Herald, via Twitter) that described the 20 minute trial and burning witnessed by only approximately 30 people. After reading it, twice, I retweeted, commenting that I was shocked it wasn't yet all over the news. 

Admittedly, I failed as much as the media I was attempting to call out. Here I am, privileged enough to have a voice on a respectable media outlet and I didn't take advantage of the situation. I waited around for others to say something. During the initial threats by the Florida-based church to to burn the Qur'an, there was a flurry of criticism. Everyone seemed to make efforts to highlight the distance between this man and the rest of the non-Muslim world. The threats led to worldwide attention and shunning. Seven months later, when the church's leader, Terry Jones, actually followed through on those threats, the act was reported but not discussed.

Even my tweet was met with the response, "Let's not give them the attention they crave." 

If only it were so simple. That Jones and his followers were just seeking attention, and that ignoring them would make it all go away. The U.N. staff in Mazar-e-Sharif probably wish that was the case too. Or would, if they and a mounting number of others hadn't been killed in the violent protests that took place throughout Afghanistan in response to the book burning.

Sadly, it took the violent deaths of innocent people for us to pay attention and realize this was more than a ploy for notoriety. Jones likely believes that the reaction to what he did proves that what he did was right.

Would anything be different if the press, myself included, had created more of an uproar? Why didn't I use the medium I have at my disposal to speak up about something that I found so disturbing?

For starters there was the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that another wacky American preacher, Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, have the right to free speech. Phelps is the charming man of God who pickets military funerals and makes signs that proclaim God's distain for homosexuals. While I wish people didn't hold some of the opinions they do, I don't want them censored or forced into any kind of indoctination via gunpoint (Mike Huckabee, I'm looking at you).

So, yeah. I was a big old chicken. It's easier to defend Jones' right to burn a Qur'an when he hasn't actually done it. 

Maybe I wanted to believe that this man had gotten enough face time and I just wanted to close my eyes and wish him away. But books, no matter how incendiary - even the ones with zero cultural or intellectual value - shouldn't be burnt. I once worked at a bookstore and had to ship a book, I can't remember the exact title, that claimed to have slave testimony about why the United States south was better before the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Instinctively, the urge was to "disappear" that book, but intellectually I could only hope the person who wanted it did for a reason that was closer to my own beliefs -- ie. to debunk that testimony and prove that it wasn't so.

Lastly, I didn't write anything because I didn't want to cover America again. I like Current Intelligence because it doesn't focus on the U.S. the way so much media does. We've got writers in the U.K.,  Afghanistan, India, Hong Kong, Canada and elsewhere and do a damn good job looking at the world as a whole. I'd just written about Islam and America and really wanted to look somewhere else. In doing so, I may have missed an opportunity to write something compelling about why Jones is the minority, even among those in the U.S. who are distrustful of Islam. I'm not saying it would have stopped any violence, but it should have been said nonetheless.

Oh, and before I go, one more thing. Because I'm a stickler for spelling, I just want to point out to all those media outlets out there who are using the spelling Koran that the Arabic spelling is لقرآن‎ or al-Qur’ān. I'm not asking for the diacritic, or even the apostrophe, but can we all at least go A.P. Stylebook with Quran? Koran is so old-timey, like Mohammedan or Hindoo. kthxbye.

A Picnic Disguised As a Protest

Last Saturday, when several hundred thousand protesters (the press was reporting anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 people in attendance) took to the streets of London to fight the system, I went to a museum. I wasn't the only one either. The line in front of the Natural History Museum snaked its way down the marble steps and along a fence bordering Cromwell Road. As people slowly trickled out, others were let in. To avoid waiting in a line for hours, I scrapped my original plan and headed to the Science Museum instead.

While Labour leader Ed Miliband spoke to a crowd that's focusing its anger on the current leadership and ignoring the part Miliband's own party played in Britain's economic mess, I looked at wooden models of ships from the days when the British fleet was the most impressive in the world. Even in their scaled-down glory, they were huge, a poignant reminder of the immense wealth and influence Britain once wielded.

As I left South Kensington to make my way by bicycle through Hyde Park where the rally took place, I passed several placard carrying protesters. They looked, as they headed back to their lives, somewhat disenchanted. Cheers came from the crowd but not one of them looked back.

Seen from a distance, it was less inspiring than were the student protests of last fall. That might seem unfair, because I experienced that protest from a distance too. But the build-up was also pretty uninspiring, hence the trip to the museum. Last fall's student protests didn't just touch me because I'm a student -- the raised tuition doesn't actually effect me, given that I'm a foreigner already paying overseas fees, but I understand what it's like to worry about not being able to afford the college everyone tells you is a necessity. This Saturday's protest, on the other hand, was against "cuts". The TUC flyer I received a few days before didn't do anything to clarify what that meant exactly, and I had to go online to find out that TUC stands for Trade Union Congress. Maybe it's the foreigner thing, but the assumption that I should automatically know who TUC is or what it's fighting for seems a little naive. 

I understand that the cuts people are wide-spread and include teachers and libraries and other public services but there just hasn't been any specific mention that "X is being cut and you should be pissed off about it". 

Personally, I'm skeptical of a moment that doesn't have a coherent argument. When I was reporting on the Tea Party in the United States I found that lack of coherence to be the biggest obstacle to the Tea Party's potential to bring about real change. Most of the folks I talked to at those tax day rallies wanted lower or more effective use of taxes, but the whole thing seem less a movement than a collection of scattered rhetoric, vague enough that it could resonate with a range of worldviews, be they religious, anti-big government, etc. 

It’s not surprising that the follow-on media coverage of the protests has focused on the violence and vandalism done by a very small percentage of protesters. Leading up to Saturday the Guardian’s coverage offered people a forum for explaining why they were heading to the protests. Responses didn't suggest a a common baseline.  The student protests, at least, were more focused and therefore more powerful, even if that collective power was ultimately ineffectual.

America's Islam Problem

When did newspapers start phrasing headlines as questions?

I ask because the current vogue to do so grates on every last one of my nerves -- and to make a larger point. To begin an article with a question (in this case as the lede rather than the hed) implies not only that the question asked will be the question answered, but that finding the answer will be the main point of the article. 

Sadly, such is not always the case. I blame the Washington Post online outfit Slate for the popularity of the question-hed (it's also present in WaPo's Foreign Policy magazine), though that blame may be misguided. It's simply where I started to notice the trend. 

The reason I bring this up: I found myself duped into reading three articles in the Christian Science Monitor because the questions were interesting. I say duped because the answers to those questions weren't really central to the articles. All three revolved around the House Committee on Homeland Security's hearing on "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response".

I've got some semantic issues with that too, but one thing at a time.

First, the headline, "Who's testifying at controversial House hearing on radical Islam?"  -- a question I thought really needed answering. I imagined a list of witnesses, credentials, political affiliations, etc. A real who's who of House witness testimony. Instead I got "Families of radicalized or 'brainwashed' young Muslim Americans", "a Los Angeles sheriff", and a couple names of who wouldn't appear (those being U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI director Robert Mueller). That's a pretty weak answer to a very specific question. Much of the article focused on the controversy surrounding the hearings, rather than the actual meat of what was slated to happen. That L.A. sheriff, by the way is Leroy Baca.

Next up was the ironic "Why won't media -- or Muslims -- address Islamism in America?" Here Boston College political science professor Peter Skerry does a hell of a job of taking the current keywords about Islam (read: Muslim Brotherhood, Islamists) and demystifying some of the myths with a gentle nudge that informs without being didactic, but really doesn't say much about media -- or Muslims -- and the conversation.

"Muslim Americans: What Would Jesus (Or George Washington) Do?" actually came closest to answering part of the question. (That'd be the George Washington part, not the Jesus part, by the way.) While the whimsey of wild speculation about what either of these iconic characters would do in relation to Muslim Americans would probably be a fun, and divisive read, it's pretty obvious that's not going to happen. Instead we get another academic, Thomas S. Kidd of Baylor University, explaining American Christian sectarianism at the time of founding.

I'm picking on the Christian Science Monitor here not just because its inquisitive headlines grabbed me, but because -- despite my feelings about its headline tactics -- its hearing-related content is the most diverse and informative I've read. The opinion pieces by the academics are strong essays that seek to contextualize the controversy rather than simply reiterate. Despite not answering the question that was asked, staff writer Gail Russell Chaddock's piece adds some good reporting to what could easily be a roundup and regurgitation of existing coverage. What Chaddock doesn't do (and I think this is to her benefit), is go into depth about why the hearings are controversial. It's mentioned in passing, but the heart of the article focuses on what might actually be said during the hearings and the variety of  likely views that will be offered.

What I haven't seen in any of this is a discussion of the language of the hearing itself. The strongest criticisms, for example, have focused on House Committee on Homeland Security's chairman Peter King and his McCarthyesque witch-hunt of U.S. Muslims. That's strong language, and the kind of thing that's brought up in U.S. media pretty much anytime an American legislator wants to discuss controversial topics surrounding societal "others".

Preconceived notions of what will or won't be said run something like this: on one side of the spectrum. claiming everything about American Islam is dangerous; on the other, focusing on how everything is fine and we can all live in peace and harmony. Setting that aside, a quick look at the title of the hearing suggests something rather comforting. Instead of framing the hearings as Radical Islamism in America -- which is what I'd was going on, based on the media panic of the last few days -- the hearing seeks to discover the extent of radicalization. This is actually pretty important in the larger American dialogue in which often all Islam is assumed to be "radical". I separate that word here because in the American context "radical" is meant as a dangerous, separatist movement and one that excludes the progressive movements that are likely more common in American Muslim communities. 

The only real semantic issue I have with the name of the hearing is "that Community's Response". In other words, the Muslim community. Separated and demarcated from the rest of American society. It implies that the Muslim community alone is responsible for the activities of people who call themselves Muslim. I think the genuine intent of the hearings, though, is to focus on the wider community's response to Islam and Muslim Americans.

I listened to the hearings,  and they went down pretty much like anyone would imagine. A few references to American ignorance about Islam, a discussion of sharia and its implementation in the United States. There was partisanship, there were efforts to include other groups (ie. KKK) in the definitions of those participating in religious terrorism. It will give pundits on both extremes something to complain about.

The real question is whether the House hearing will flounder in controversy or whether any actual dialogue will emerge. Sadly, that's a question that can't be answered in a simple blog post, but one that will unfold over time. Quick guess though, since I don't like to leave questions unanswered, it's a whole lot of fuss over a very little bit of content. Next week, we'll all be riled up about something else and a new "McCarthyist" inquisition.

The Far End of the Maghreb

A boarded up movie theatre in Marrakech’s Gueliz neighborhood tellingly demonstrates the city’s struggle with both poverty and modernity. It sits abandoned, barbed wire preventing access to windows and doors, a block from a bustling street filled with European-style bars and restaurants, many beckoning visitors with 1950s-era neon signs. Scattered among the aging, once high-end hotels are the signs of what’s likely to become of them. Multi-story empty buildings, closed off on the ground floor, their window openings, devoid of glass, allow the weather to seep in. The Gueliz, once the French enclave of the city, is no longer new, as its other moniker, Ville Nouvelle, implies. Instead, it has become a dying hub of Marrakech’s struggling middle-class. Few of the buildings suggest that they have been repurposed, their lifespans seemingly limited to the businesses that once thrived within their walls.

Were it not for the mix of low-end fashion, galleries offering affordable contemporary art, and beat up late-model cars, the Gueliz would seem frozen in time. It moves along, but at a pace that has been left behind by the Europeans who built it.

As pundits fill television screens, offering predictions about which Middle Eastern states will fall next to waves of protest, Morocco does, from the inside, seem relatively safe. From the Gueliz to the traditional Medina, newspaper stands dominate major intersections and offer Arabic, French, German and English papers and magazines. According to the CIA’s World Factbook, 53.2 percent of the total population can read at least some of those papers. Of these, 65.7 percent are men and 39.6 percent are women. There is a range of information about the rest of the world on offer to them, and for those lucky enough to have internet-capable devices. There's an outdoor garden, a literal cyber-park, that offers access to the online world. For the rest, the satellite dishes that spring up from nearly every rooftop in the city channel information from around the world.

An air of oppression certainly exists, but it isn’t crushing. Marrakech may also be unique, in that so much of its economy is dependent upon outsiders. Evidence of a tourist-based economy are everywhere, from the luxury hotels that line the road from the Medina to the Guilez, to the tour groups wandering through narrow, high-walled streets peppered with impoverished idle youth, to street signs that point only to sightseeing destinations and roads leading to other cities.

Nearly all of those sightseeing spots are stunning if dilapidated examples of Islamic architecture. Outside them, local boys offer hash for sale in a handful of Western languages while school-age children bat sad eyes in efforts to exchange packets of tissues for a few dirham. The history that hides behind the high walls is inaccessible to the very people to whom it belongs - part of an unspoken, subtle antagonism between  Moroccans and outsiders. Too much struggle on offer and the tourists won’t come, making that struggle even worse. 

Unemployment in Morocco already sits at approximately 9.8 percent, only slightly higher than the United States’ estimated 9.6 percent or Egypt’s 9.7 percent. Government is largely invisible, with private security guards most prominent at the city’s train station and a mixture of private and public uniformed police forces in the Medina’s main square. The protests that took place across the country last Sunday are unsurprising but not fraught with the urgency found in similar ones across the continent. Rather than calling for an overthrow of the ruling powers, Moroccans demanded the king introduce constitutional reforms that would limit his power. Easier said than done: he's part of a ruling line that claims to be descended from the Prophet Muhammad and took power in 1631 -- a power declared in the constitution to be sacred. The reforms that protesters called for limit the king's power to dissolve the government or to have the final say in government appointments, giving that power back to voters.

The protests in Morocco are less likely to be broadcast around the world than others taking place in North Africa. This isn't because they're less important. They're just less dramatic. Rather than a people trying to topple a longstanding government, Moroccans are trying to compromise with the system that already exists. Reform might not play out well on television but it certainly is just as extraordinary.

Reshape the constitution to make life better for the people of Morocco and perhaps that beautiful old cinema can have another life too.

All Jazzed for Al Jazeera

When little girls and boys dream of becoming journalists they imagine something similar (though perhaps with a bit less time detained) to what Al Jazeera's reporters have been through in the last two weeks. Journalism, in its most idealized state, includes not only reporting on the exciting events of the world, but participating in them. It also, no matter how much objectivity one shoots for, means standing up for what's right. 

It's that standing up that's caused an Al Jazeera English blackout in the United States since its inception in November of 2006. It's no secret that America's right wing has protested Al Jazeera since its inception as anti-American -- a shaky label that, if included to mean anti-U.S. government, the right's darling FOX News certainly could share. 

Now, however, as people find themselves captivated with the ongoing protests in Egypt, it's that strong editorial stance that seems to be drawing people to the internet for a look at the channel. Al Jazeera has successfully demonstrated itself to be the definitive source for information on the story. Americans are sharing links to AJE on Facebook and Twitter, The New York Times reports that the online campaign to bring the channel to the U.S. is working, and talks with Comcast will be held later this month.

All this is great, because Al Jazeera might be what the American television news landscape needs right now to focus its attention back on the actual events of the day, and less on its own rhetoric and misreporting.

There's one little problem though. While Americans found themselves supporting Egyptians during the heat of protests, the story has already begun to fade from the headlines. Julian Assange has found his face splashed on the front pages of the Guardian and The New York Times, while the Egypt spotlight has dimmed. So too will American enthusiasm for Al Jazeera. 

I'm not saying they'll stop watching and start uninformedly talking smack again. Al Jazeera has proven itself  a network that will relentlessly chase a story it thinks worth telling, even as its journalists are detained, its offices raided and its feed officially banned. Americans will do what they always do (which means going back to whatever it was they were doing before). A few might put AJE into their news rotation but with the heavy focus on the Arab world, most will turn away, in that other American tendency: isolationism.

As life returns to normal for some Egyptians who can't keep their shops closed any longer, so too will Western news habits. Just a week ago most couldn't help but ask which country would be next. Most, unfortunately, won't tune in to find out.