About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Insight claimed "[l]ast word" on madrassa smear

February 02, 2007 3:38 pm ET

11 Comments

In a February 1 article, InsightMag.com presented its "[l]ast word" on the controversy surrounding its January 17 article reporting that "researchers connected to" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) claimed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." In its most recent article, InsightMag.com appeared to back away from a January 23 posting in which it defended its much-maligned story. On January 23, InsightMag.com dismissed a CNN report that Obama did not attend a madrassa, stating that "CNN's claim ... needs verification by other news outlets -- such as FOX News." However, in its February 1 posting, InsightMag.com appeared to accept the veracity of that CNN report without any reference to Fox.

From the February 1 InsightMag.com article:

CNN, and others in the traditional print and broadcast media followed up on Insight's intelligence report and went to the school in Indonesia Obama attended as a boy. CNN reported that the school is not now and never was a Madrassa."

Some reporters drew an inaccurate conclusion that because information from Indonesia discredited the idea that Obama's school was a Madrassa, Insight's article was false. Some even went on to suggest that the story was intended to denigrate Islam or even Sen. Obama's religious beliefs. This is false. Insight abhors religious or racial intolerance. Such prejudice or bigotry has no place in society, including journalism.

The "[l]ast word" appeared to be a step back from a January 23 posting, in which InsightMag.com claimed that "CNN didn't debunk anything" and rehashed the unfounded smear against Obama. From the January 23 posting:

As for CNN's investigation into Obama's Muslim school, we are not yet convinced. To simply take the word of a deputy headmaster about what was the religious curriculum of a school 35 years ago does not satisfy our standards for aggressive investigative reporting. The State Department portrays Indonesia as a hot bed of radical Islamist activity. Christians and non-Muslims face persecution on a daily basis. CNN's claim that Obama attended a multi-confessional, secular public school needs verification by other news outlets -- such as FOX News -- who will look the facts straight on, without a vested ideological interest in downplaying Obama's Muslim heritage.

It is unclear what caused the apparent backpedal. Although InsightMag.com had previously stated that CNN's findings needed to be verified by a news outlet like Fox, the February 1 article made no reference to Fox. In fact, Fox News issued a "clarif[ication]" on the January 22 editions of Fox & Friends and Fox & Friends First, noting the strong denials from both the Obama and Clinton camps. And an ABCNews.com article posted January 25 quoted a statement by Fox News senior vice president of programming Bill Shine in which he stated that Fox "consider[s] the matter closed." Shine's statement also made no mention of remarks by Fox News host John Gibson about Clinton's involvement in the smear, and never addressed Obama's reported dissatisfaction with the Fox & Friends clarification.

As Media Matters for America noted, on the January 22 edition of The Situation Room, CNN correspondent John Vause visited "Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta." Vause stated that he had "been to madrassas in Pakistan, and this school is nothing like that." On January 24, the Associated Press (AP) debunked the madrassa story, and ABC reaffirmed CNN's and AP's reporting the following day.

InsightMag.com ended its "[l]ast word" by stating that "Insight stands by its story" and claiming: "We are pleased that our inside-Washington knowledge and contacts could contribute to the political debate. Such a debate is, however, not within Insight's purview as a subscriber-based political intelligence report."

From the February 1 posting:

Insight reported on January 17 that the opposition research war room of presidential contender Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was conducting a background check on Senator Barack Obama's years in Jakarta, Indonesia, which would conclude that "the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim."

Under the headline, "Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background," Insight cited reports from its very credible sources that the opposition research is seeking hard evidence that Mr. Obama is still a Muslim or has ties to Islam. A Hillary Clinton spokesman has denied any involvement.

The Insight report ignited a controversy with numerous articles and columns from mainstream media operations including CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Some from the mainstream media reported that the claims about Obama were being made by Insight. This is incorrect. Rather, Insight was reporting information our sources said was part of the Clinton camp's opposition research and potential campaign strategy against an opponent.

CNN, and others in the traditional print and broadcast media followed up on Insight's intelligence report and went to the school in Indonesia Obama attended as a boy. CNN reported that the school is not now and never was a Madrassa.

Some reporters drew an inaccurate conclusion that because information from Indonesia discredited the idea that Obama's school was a Madrassa, Insight's article was false. Some even went on to suggest that the story was intended to denigrate Islam or even Sen. Obama's religious beliefs. This is false. Insight abhors religious or racial intolerance. Such prejudice or bigotry has no place in society, including journalism.

If read carefully, one can see that Insight's story simply reported on a potential attack strategy on Obama by his Democratic Party opponents.

Insight stands by its story. Having laid the ground, we now leave it to the mainstream print and broadcast news organizations to ferret out more facts and make judgment calls on relevance. We are pleased that our inside-Washington knowledge and contacts could contribute to the political debate. Such a debate is, however, not within Insight's purview as a subscriber-based political intelligence report.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by BLR (February 02, 2007 3:47 pm ET)
         

      Translation for the rest of us:

      Insight stands by its story. Having laid the ground, we now leave it to the mainstream print and broadcast news organizations to ferret out more facts and make judgment calls on relevance.

      Now that it's apparent that we're not going to be subject to legal action from our attempted defamation of character of the members of Senator Clinton's committee, we're going to leave our lies, mistruths and attempted slander out in the open to be weeded out by disingenuous talk show hosts and unsavory right-wingers to drag out as "fact" whenever they feel like it.

      We are pleased that our inside-Washington knowledge and contacts could contribute to the political debate.

      We're tickled pink that this worked so well.  We weren't expecting this kind of a response!  We'll be sure to come up with even better lies in the future.

      Such a debate is, however, not within Insight's purview as a subscriber-based political intelligence report.

      Insight is happy to wash its hands of this and claim that we are just doing our jobs, as we work on more manufacturing of lies to attempt to slander anyone too far Left of our particular political bias.  We're working on a "Senator Clinton had threeways with her husband and Ms. Lewinsky in the Lincoln bedroom" story right now that will knock your socks off!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 02, 2007 4:05 pm ET)
         

      I love the logic...

      What a headmaster said was the religious (or non-religious) curriculum at his school 35 years ago is unreliable because Christians and non-Muslims allegedly face daily persucution today in that country. Then if the school taught Islamic extremism they'd be proud of it!  And I guess InsightMag is also saying it doesn't believe Barak Obama either... what would he know anyway about where he went to school? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by rusty shackleford (February 02, 2007 4:37 pm ET)
           

        Didn't Obama attend one of the same madrassas as George W. Bush?  That fancy one in Cambridge, Mass.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 02, 2007 4:49 pm ET)
         

      "..needs verification by other news outlets -- such as FOX News..."

      When has FOX News ever done any investigative reporting? Oh, wait, I forgot... FOX News disproved global warming.  Sorry... my bad.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (February 03, 2007 7:55 am ET)
           

        If a chemical or pharmaceutical plant could dispense with its testing labs and research facilities, it could be much more profitable.

        So it is with "news" outlets. If they can dispense with any "investigative reporting" arm and hire no "fact checkers", the payroll will be much more lean, and the business much more profitable. FOX has learned that making stuff up, or simply piggy-backing made-up stuff from Drudge or Insight or any other rightwing propaganda outlet, is sufficient "new" reporting for their audience.

        However, an adjustment might be in order. "WE report, YOU are left to seek other RESPONSIBLE news sources to factcheck our claims, to run down the truth of our allegations, and to practice professional journalism."

        Nah, too wordy. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by covert (February 02, 2007 5:03 pm ET)
         

      All other verbiage and obsfucation aside, this odious "political intelligence report" stands by its story that

      the opposition research war room of presidential contender Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was conducting a background check on Senator Barack Obama's years in Jakarta, Indonesia, which would conclude that "the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim."

      So for all this nonsense, Insight still claims Clinton's war room concluded that Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and raised and educated as a Muslim.  And Insight states this as a fact.  Insight claims to have "very credible sources" to attest to this assertion.  Now that Clinton's spokesperson has denied Insight's claim, the onus is on Insight to show its evidence.  Who are its credible sources?  How does anyone know they are credible?  What proof does Insight have that Clinton's campaign even has an opposition research war room? 

      Insight should not be able to have it both ways.  It should not be able to offer a report about Clinton's campaign's conduct, but when called to task for proof, retreat into some ridiculous assertion that it has laid the ground and its up to others to ferret out the facts.  It's a pity that no credible news organization will take them up on their offer.  Someone should investigate Insight to see where they got their credibley-sourced information.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jefffrane (February 05, 2007 11:28 am ET)
           

        Ironic, isn't it? One of the primary complaints the Right has about the mainstream media is the use of unidentified sources. According to the Right, such use immediately removes any credibility of the media or their stories. And Insight? "We heard it from credible sources, so you have to believe every word, even though nothing we've published makes a lick of sense."

          

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (February 02, 2007 6:06 pm ET)
         

      oxymoron

      "insights's intelligence report"

      Report Abuse
    • Author by MATT2545 (February 03, 2007 8:56 am ET)
         

      Insight's work is done here. It was all about planting the notion in some people's pea-brains that Obama is a Muslim (he doesn't even have to be 'radical Muslim', plain old Muslim will do fine). However in order for this to work people would have to believe the following:

      1. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the school Obama attended as a young boy was religous and not secular.

      2. His atheist mother continued to support his religous instruction.

      3. He didn't change his given name to, oh I don't know, let's say Andy Hardy, because he is still, you know - a Muslim.

      4. 20 some years ago when he joined the United Church of Christ it wasn't because he was a Christian, it was because he knew in 20 years he would run for President and, of course, America would never elect a Muslim President.

      5. His strong Muslim faith doesn't preclude him from worshiping in a Christian church because he is, oh I don't know, a covert agent in the conspiracy to make the US a Muslim country?

       Given the level of rational thought of some people- yep that'll work.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (February 04, 2007 3:29 am ET)
           

        Andy Hardy might have worked out, Matt, but I think if he was going down to city hall to change it, why not make it worth the trip, like maybe;

        Hank E. Doodledandy

        Christian Starzanstripes

        Jesus H. Freedom

        Justice Lotax

        Strengthy McVictory

        Uncle Sam Righteous

        I'd vote for those guys.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by truthseeker77 (February 03, 2007 3:33 pm ET)
         

      Insightmag made no sense here:

      They say that even though the school is not a madrassa now, maybe it was 35 years ago. But they say that now, today, present tense, Indonesia is seen as a nesting ground for terrorists.

      So can you explan to me, Insight-mag loonies, how could this school came to de-radicalize itself during these 35 years? 

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.