Why is Fox pushing a falsehood to fuel outrage over NYC Muslim community center?
Following right-wing media who pushed the claim without providing evidence, Fox News falsely reported that the Muslim community center and mosque set to be built near Ground Zero will open on the anniversary of 9-11. However, Daisy Khan, executive director of one of the organizations leading the project, told Media Matters that the allegation is "absolutely false" and that "the timeline has yet to be determined."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Fox follows right-wing blogs' baseless claim that Muslim center "plan[s] to launch" on anniversary of 9-11
Camerota falsely claims Muslim community center "plan[ning] to launch" on "9-11."On the July 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Alisyn Camerota said of Park 51, a Muslim community center and mosque set to be built two blocks from the World Trade Center site: "It's not just the location, by the way, that has people outraged ... some of the dates that the mosque plans to celebrate, even the opening dates, so there's a lot here." When co-host Brian Kilmeade asked her, "You mean 9-11?" Camerota replied, "9-11, that is when they plan to launch, yeah."
Geller: Center's "stated opening date" is "September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of the terror attacks." In a July 13 Human Events post, Pamela Geller wrote:
New York officials are violating protocol to build a mega mosque at Ground Zero. They are ramming it through in warped speed, removing every obstacle to expedite the process in order to meet its stated opening date of September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of the terror attacks.
On Tuesday, the Landmarks Commission is expected to deny landmark status for 45 Park Place, the site for the proposed mosque.
Why the hurry? So that the mosque can open on the tenth anniversary of September 11, as promised? Would they do this for a church? A synagogue? This is an outrage.
Big Government: Imam "wants to unveil [the project] to the world on September 11, 2011." In a May 20 Big Government post, blogger Brigitte Gabriel wrote: "Less than nine years after the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our history, an imam who blames America for the 9/11 attack wants to construct a 13 story, $100 million dollar mosque and Islamic center 600 feet from 'Ground Zero.' And he wants to unveil it to the world on September 11, 2011 -- the ten year anniversary of the greatest jihadist atrocity ever perpetrated against America on its own soil."
Andrea Peyser: "The opening date shall live in infamy." In a May 13 New York Post column, Andrea Peyser stated of Park 51, formerly called the Cordoba House: "The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart."
Project's executive director called the allegation "absolutely false." In a conversation with Media Matters, Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, one of the organizations spearheading the project, called the allegation "absolutely false." Khan also said, in a statement:
We are in the preliminary planning stages of the center and the timeline has yet to be determined..
We do agree with Ms. Palin and others that it is time to heal from the wounds of the tragic events of 9/11. We peace- loving Muslims have a responsibility to lead the effort of rebuilding Lower Manhattan. We envision a community center for multi-faith collaboration that is focused on promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion.
So then Muslims aren't americans too?
Best
But trolls want their posts noticed, so that those posts can derail the conversation, and one of the best ways to do that is either make the first or second post or reply to the first or second post. You'll notice that the trolls here often do that. It's not coincidence that they fail to address the actual topic AND also post fast or up top.
I'm not going to argue she can call me a troll. Liberals often (always) have name-calling perfected. They have a derogatory name for everyone who doesn't agree with them. It's the only way they can converse. But, that is typical liberalism
This must really burn you up, inside: "We do agree with Ms. Palin and others that it is time to heal from the wounds of the tragic events of 9/11.", Daisy Kahn (executive director of American Society for Muslim Advancement) AGREES with Sarah Palin. You liberals must hate how Muslims can agree with regular Americans. Too bad they don't agree with your liberal ideals and simply 'hate' because YOU want them to.
kkk
What the hell are you talking about.
I bet Ms Palin doesn't agree with Ms Kahn! Because Palin hates anyone that is not a "Real American". She hates Muslims!
Some people remind of little kids dead set on being irritating. As adults they haven't even changed their line, "I didn't do anything!"
Congratulations!
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/07/sioa-is-an-anti-muslim-hate-group/
Please spread it around! Sanity must not diminish!
You failed miserably, but it was a nice attempt.
Church=House of worship
Mosque=House of worship
Seems to equivalent to me!
There's a similar controversy happening in Tennessee. Plans to build a large Mosque in Murfreesboro have brought the Troglodytes out from under their rocks. One of these "concerned citizens" was interviewed on the radio.
She said, "What is this being built for? Why do they need such a large building? There's something weird going on here; we're at war with these people!"
This is Teabagger America.(It helps if you imagine Dueling Banjoes playing softly in the background)
Bigotry... pure and simple.
Yeah, THAT would be typical Tennessee? And you claim others to be bigots and xenophobes? You must be a baker ... you take the cake!
As for my own bigotry? Yes, I am bigoted against bigots. It's a character flaw that I must learn to live with.
Thanks for playing, though.
Don't be sorry. I'd expect that kind of bigotry from anyone from Tennessee. You're a good example of those who comes from Tennessee. I'm sorry to take you away from your banjo playing time while you answer silly statements from me.
And that's the root of it all--the right-wing wants us to be at war with the Muslim religion and all its adherents everywhere. What they want is the uber-Crusade of all uber-Crusades--and then wonder why the rets of the world doesn't trust them...
You failed miserably, but it was a nice attempt.
Are these folks upset that less than 1/2 block from the OK Federal Building there is a Christian Church? Yeah, probably not.
And, how do you feel about Churches being built within blocks of a middle school?
Let's get down to brass-tacs here, if you're so livid about protests against the placement of this Mosque, does that mean you will allow any number of Churches and let them be built anywhere they want to build them?
Be careful answering this one. It is a loaded 'hypocrisy' question. Most liberals will ignore this and find something unrelated to comment on. Let's see how you do.
Actually, if ANY of you liberals have enough junk to answer that, I'd like to see that too.
You failed miserably, but it was a nice attempt.
How do you feel about a Catholic Church being built next to a middle school?
You seem to think theocracy compared 'radical Muslim' mosques to 'Catholic' church. Theocracy compared generalized mosques to one certain church. Which as minitru is only able to say; false equivalence. But, magnolialover (first) used the generalized comparison, so I answered generalized v. generalized. But, feel free to answer the specific question ... if you have a pair!
Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm not really sure what you're asking. Am I for or against the construction of houses of worship? Is it maybe a zoning question? Am I against building lots of mosques/churches/synagogues, etc.? Help me out here, and I'll answer as best I can.
Who benefits from having a large vulnerable segment of our conservative citizens continually riled up?
Whose interest is served by having the message given to conservatives that they are constantly under attack and that their very way of life is threatened?
A lot of money and effort is expended to keep the you are under attack message going. Those who spread this message feel pretty confident that this message doesn't need to be factual or even rational to be effective, as long as it is continually administered.
Who finds having all these unnecessarily upset conservatives desirable and why?
Now, eb, you realize that question can be asked exactly as written by referring to mmfa and liberal citizens, right? It seems kind of hypocritical to ask that while on this web site. Especially if your complaining about it being done by a right-wing group.
Hypocritical or not, can you answer the question?
This is a non-profit corporation, not a no money being brought in corporation. Is that the school bell ringing? Time to go?
This website documents conservative media misinformation.
Fox doesn't need to document something if it is consistent with its political agenda. This pattern has been repeated again and again.
If someone gets riled up from media matters, at least it is based on something that is documented and connected with reality. Read the above article. Why is Fox so sloppy with the facts? It should be embarrassing to them but they don't care. Why?
They have an agenda. What else can you conclude but if it stirs up the base to anger, they run with it. Please explain to me how what MMFA is doing has any equivalence to what Fox is doing? How is the above article incorrect or a manipulative attempt to rile people up?
The inability of conservatives to even CONSIDER that their ideology is anything short of PERFECT is delusional, bordering on the psychotic. Especially is light of all the evidence exposing the misinformation necessary to support it.
Bintx was right. It's not about conservatism, or indeed any political ideology. It's about authoritarianism. They simply need to believe that "their guy" or "their team" is right, no matter what. They are the ones who "worship" the politcial "messiahs." They follow them blindly, foregoing even the need to determine if they're right. Their inherent rightness is ASSUMED, and all evidence evaluated accordingly. It's no more than a pathetic mental defect.
--------------------------------------------------
Liberalism is a philosophy that rejects that model out of hand. That's what makes it an inherently superior philosophy.
That would explain their reaction to seeing their perfect ideology being so effectively debunked. All they can do is repeat the attack.
After following their political messiahs to such irrational extremes, it is psychologically difficult to face the reality of being taken for a dupe. It is more comforting to maintain the illusion.
Uhhh, and how do you feel about liberalism? Let's take a look:
ed-- Liberalism is a philosophy that rejects that model out of hand. That's what makes it an inherently superior philosophy.
There's your "delusional, bordering on the psychotic" for you. Good job proving what I just said.
And you did it twice.
Maybe you should get some reading glasses it will help!
Yes, I'm a bit bitter. I have always liked to debate quite a bit and I think it is healthy. I love turning things over and looking at things from every angle to come to a truth. However, facts and truth seem to be meaningless anymore. Sometimes there is no rational way to deal with idiots and they won't let me just ignore them. So.......
I'll answer your question, or try to. Those who benefit the most from riled up citizens are those who make a living off of riling them up. In this case, that would be incendiary talk show hosts, personalities, bloggers and media types who, if there is no outrage, must manufacture it.
Calm reasoned intelligent debate with two honest strong opposing viewpoints would make a more informed electorate and promote civility. But that has been replaced with talk show politics, where every issue is dumbed down to its lowest common denominator where it can be argued with insults and arrows. Keep insulting and throwing arrows and that is what you will get back. And when you need more ammo you go to Glenn Beck or Limbaugh or redstate.com or any number of sources that feed your anger and keep you riled up.
I couldn't agree more about the value and of a calm reasoned intelligent debate with two honest strong opposing viewpoints. Why are we so quick to go into sleazy mudslinging mode? While it might be a matter of laziness or media profits, it seems as though there is a political dimension to having so many angry people rally around a conservative interpretation of events.
Maybe we, or many of us, are all part of it and we are too "in it" to have any moral authority to criticize it with much conviction, I don't know. I just know much of it makes me ill, which is why I can't watch cable talk or listen to talk radio. It drives me nuts.
I'll sign on to this sentiment myself, for it certainly applies to me too. But we know we're just posters on a modestly-popular website, not personalities on TV. And many of us, I know--myself included--value this place as an outlet for frustrations that cannot be vented elsewhere without seriosu repercussions...
I usually find your posts mean spirited and arrogant,but not this time! I very rarely give thumbs, but thumbs up for you!!
I agree entirely with everything you've SAID, but what you've left out is rather telling...
You ignore the fact that all of the most incendiary talk shows, radio show, opinions programs, etc... are all Concservtaives, all support the GOP and all Right Wingers. And thus the Right, the Conservtaives and the Republicans ALSO stand to benefit from all this ginned up outrage.
I defy you to find anyone on the Left that matches Mike Savage. Or Glen Beck. Or Rush Limbaugh. Or Sean Hannity. Or Ann Coulter. Or Palin. Or Gingrich. Or any one of the usual suspects that regularly light up this board.
Liberal hosts largely just don't operate this way. Probably the reason they don't have the same draw as RW'ers: People LIKE outrage and ranting! But who on the Left can you really accuse of this kind of behavior with anywhere near the legitimacy you seemed willing to concede (in your post) when we call out the RIGHT for it.
--------------------------------------------------
(I'll give you Michael Moore. No prob. And that's it. And he doesn't play fast-n-loose with the facts on ANYWHERE NEAR the level that Beck does.)
The reason I say both is it can't really get much traction unless both sides engage in it. Now I know the right wing loudmouths provoke and all that, and it has to be answered. But the responsibility lies with both sides, maybe not equally - but one cannot flourish without the other. So I think to condemn it ALL without regard to who is worse is the only hope of ever moving back to a more reasonable tone of debate.
But if you'd care to keep score and stay just under your political opponent in slinging mud, then your point is taken.
And I'm dead serious when I say that I'm with you in terms of desiring more civil and reasoned discourse from both sides. I don't diasagree with conservtaives as a matter of course, and the better conservatives I've met don't just disagree with liberals as a matter of course. The best of both sides endevour to make well reasoned arguments. And we can sling mud at each other all day, yet we both know nothing productive will ever come of it. (It's so much FUN though, isn't it? LOL) So from that POV, we're absolutely on the same page.
But I'm still not buying your "both sides" argument. Would I want to see all shows resemble Countdown? No, not really, no. Ideally? My favorite show, back in the day? Was the McLaughlin group. Did you ever watch that? A conservative host, but hosting a broad range of guests, from liberals to moderates to Pat Buchanan, simultaneously and letting each one take their swings, and respond to one another. Good old fashioned debate. Yeah, because of the moderater it tended to lean conservative, but DEBATE was honored as a matter of principle. They really wanted all sided to be able to say their piece.
My problem with your blaming "both sides" is this: The Right basically created the current talk show model, which has the host do a 1-3 hour monologue, largely unchallenged, hosting only hand picked guests and taking only carefully screened calls, and with no kind of "fairness doctrine," if you will, requiring an alternative POV be allowed to be presented or indeed any basic fact checking at all.
This model took hold on Radio in the lats 1980's with Rush Limbaugh, Laura Slechinger, G.Gordon Liddy (and others) who took the relatively moderate (though still conservative) Paul Harvey model, and took it sharply to the Right. ON TV you had Morton Downey Jr., and Limabugh himself again not too long after that. That model grew to the point where Fox "News" could become a viable business venture, and only AFTER THAT did you start to see the rise of MSNBC's Liberal Shows, and attempts at similar Radio Projects - such as Air America. Putting aside that the Right had greater success (which actually support my point that they're the ones DOING more of what you're criticising) the way I see it is that they CREATED the model. And the left onlyresponded , to the market phenomenon that the Right created. They HAD to, or they'd be completely drowned out.
And while you can argue that the Left could create a McLaughlin Group-like show, the fact is that unless the Right reciprocates (and why WOULD thye?) then the Laft goes right back to being drowned out: You'd have the Right still going uncontested, while the Left gets constantly debated.
And that's why I claim that your blaming both sides is disingenuous. If you want civil discourse, if you want more reasoned open debate, then why not START with demanding that of Fox, Clear Channel, Ect...? Why not:
1) Clean your own house first.
- and -
2) Ask this of the people who have the true power to make it happen? The people that really dominate the market?
You're arguing a principled point, no doubt, but I don't think you're doing it in a principled manner. Granted: I'm a liberal. So yeah, there's no doubt that I can't claim to be principled when I blame this problem on the Right. Fair enough. I'm not so blind that I can't see that.
---------------------------------------------
But am I WRONG?
The only way it will ever be relegated to the discourse dustbin is to put down the scorecards and the arrows and do your own part, stop it from your own blog or your own mouth and refuse to partake in it. Period. If your outraged or provoked, amp it down and stick to facts and issues. Such a response has a diffusing effect eventually for if the buttons aren't pushed, they won't be targeted.
Otherwise it will never stop and only get worse. Which is what will happen until something really bad occurs to one of us, or all of us. It will take that to turn things around, I fear.
Reality: You are a partisan poster. As am I. You are conservtaive, and make no apology for it, and THAT'S FINE. (Ditto for me being liberal.) But MY POINT is not about keeping score, it is about evalutaing the ROOT CAUSE of the "problem" you;re decribing and trying to find a solution that would be effective.
In arguing what you do, refusing to acknowledge that the "problem" at had originated with the Right, was propegated by the Right, and continues to serve the Right, what you're saying is basically just advising Liberals to ignore what the Right is doing!
And us "ignoring" the Right, us doing "factual debates" while the Right continues to spew propaganda unchallenged, WILL NOT SOLVE THE "PROBLEM" THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING. What it will do is allow the Right will dominate every part of public discourse. I don't know if you want it that way or not, but refusing to acknowledge, pretending that if Liberals ignore it, it will go away, pretending that this model isn't BROADLY supported by those on the Right... I'm sorry that's disingenuous. I can think of no other word to describe it.
You can't fix a problem if you can't acknowledge where it originates. You're close, you really are. Your point is principled, sympathetic and admirable. But coming from the political ideology that created, perpetuated and continues to benefit from this "problem" you can't just act innocent and principled and expect me to buy it when you're not willign to call out your own side for it.
Your argument in no better than that of a school principal who, upon coming accross two kids in the schoolyard - one lying on the ground, bruised and bloodied, while the other, who doesn't have a scratch on him, continues to kick him in the stomach repeatedly - suspends BOTH STUDENTS for "fighting."
It's completely absurd. You're asking for justice without affixing blame. Well... you just can't DO THAT, and a Conservtaive ought to know that! You can't solve a problem without looking at who's behavior is at the heart of it! Especially when those very people have already repeatedly demonstratid that they have no shame.
--------------------------------------
Sorry, fine talk. But I still ain't buyin'.
And, that would be why you don't understand what he is saying. You have the constant hate and contempt for anything from 'that' side and don't even read what he is saying. Rather, you attack his statements as being irrelevant. Are you so sure it all started with the "Right"? Perhaps it all started because some hard-headed liberal wouldn't accept anything being said unless he said it.
LOL. Welcome back, Floyd. It's been awhile.
So... you're saying that the entire RW media industry - FOX News, AM Talk Radio, Newspaper Holdings, etc... "Started" because of "some liberal" whose was "hardheaded."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That's a good one.
"Perhaps" as you say... But it's not all that likely now, is it?
A far more likely explanation is that, tired of having their lies and malfesience exposed by the OBJECTIVE, TRUTH-TELLING MEDIA, the Right formed an alternative media entity, who's first order of business was to convice evryone of the "liberal bias" of the exsisting media. IOW: Any criticism of a Republican, no matter how warranted, and supported by evidence, could now be easliy diusmissed as "liberal bies." (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, BTW) And the next job was to endlessly promote Conservative talking point, RW Talking Points, Rpeublican Talking Points, and (most of all) support the corporatist agenda and the whores (candidates) who support it in politics, to the point where it drowned out any competing ideology. (Mission progressing very well, sir.)
I think THAT'S the far more likely explanation: Rich people wanted to make more money.
Done.
If you think it was all because of a "stuborn liberal" or even some principled stance on balanced analysis and free speech, you're a FOOL. It has always been, and will always be, about MONEY: Having it, making it and protecting it's interests. PERIOD.
----------------------------------------
And hey - it's hard to be humble when you're right all the time!
You mean like Dan Rather's excellent expose on Bush's National Guard service? THAT kind of truth-telling?
Like you said: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That's a good one.
Now... onto your counter-example:
1) Last time I checked, Rather lost his job over that. (Whoa and behold that liberal media!)
2) Last time I checked, no RW'ers have ever disproven the allegation, or provided any material evidence at all to counter the accusation that Bush was AWOL for the bulk of his service.
So... in addition to my thanks for your concession regarding the entire rest of my post, I thank you as well for picking such a laughably easy counter-example.
---------------------------------------
Thanks for playing. Good game. High-five.
ed-- 1) Last time I checked, Rather lost his job over that. (Whoa and behold that liberal media!)
Uhhh, he retired. He wasn't fired, so he didn't "lose" his job, he gave it up. You liberals supported him throughout his 30 (whatever) year career, while even his own peers didn't like him.
ed-- 2) Last time I checked, no RW'ers have ever disproven the allegation, or provided any material evidence at all to counter the accusation that Bush was AWOL for the bulk of his service.
And you whine about ME changing topics. When you have more than ACCUSATIONS (perhaps FACTS) we can have a discussion. But, I've already covered how discussions with you turn out. As proven by: "thanks for your concession regarding the entire rest of my post". You are such a typical liberal
As for who changed the topic, you took one point, narrowed it even more, and offered a counter example. I then addressed you counter exmaple, and when you could address my counter, you accuse me of changing the topic. You are such a typical conservatave.
As for my being "such a typical liberal?"
---------------------------------
Thank you.
No, Sherrod got fired for being a racist. Rather retired because he was a liar and a cheat related strictly to the 'news' he reported.
ed-- As for who changed the topic, you took one point, narrowed it even more, and offered a counter example.
Thanks for admitting YOU took it off-topic.
I'd say Eddie got it precisely correct, and your hanging on to the lies is justification of Eddie's veracity.
That could be because advertisers determine who is on the air. That is why you liberals constantly whine about trying to get advertisers to stop doing business with the examples YOU just gave. And, since liberal radio/TV hosts are boring, lie and vial name-callers, they don't get the advertising that conservative radio/TV hosts do. Which means they (conservatives) stay on the air and liberals go on un-employment. Economics 101
ed-- I'll give you Michael Moore. No prob. And that's it. And he doesn't play fast-n-loose with the facts on ANYWHERE NEAR the level that Beck does.
If you believe that, then there is no hope for having honest TWO-sided discussions with you. Wait, you're the one who thinks liberalism is "inherently superior". You never intend on having honest two-sided discussions, you're too superior for others and would not lower yourself to the level of average people talking to each other.
The projection in that statement is so blatant its irritating. This article is just one of the many times "conservatives" have maliciously lied and did not bother to do research and that is without counting the constant name-calling and lying from the likes of Limbaugh ("Halfrican-American"; "Feminazis"; insulting recently dead men multiple times) and Glenn Beck ("Obama is a racist that hates white culture"; "socialist"; "marxist"; his convoluted, slanderous conspiracy theories). "conservatives" have shown themselves to be worse than liberals because they never apologize nor correct themselves and admit guilt.
These people have no idea what TAKING THE MORAL HIGH ROAD means!
All they "know" is Jesus loves them, and they both hate muslims.
Folks: Opening EVEN A MOSQUE in NYC on the anniversary of 9/11 would be the greatest demponstration of "Amercian Exceptionalism" imaginable! It would show the world, without on no uncertain terms, that this great nation will not be cowed by extremists into a false holy war, that we are NOT every bit as bad as they are, and that becuase of the very religious tolerance that WE STAND FOR (and they FIGHT) we are the greatest nation on earth. Why can't these fools see it? The terroroists WANT us to hate them! They WANT us to be just as biggoted and thuggish and unelightened and descpicable as they are!
WE MUST NOT ALLOW OURSELVES TO BECOME NO MORE THAN A MIRROR IMAGE OF THEM!
The right consistently choose petty motives over magnanimous ones. They choose fear over courage, greed over generosity, prejudice over tolerance and revenge over healing and forgiveness.
In short: They have no principles. Only irrational fear and self-interest.
-----------------------------------------------
They want us to just be the Christain answer to the Middle East. I want us to be the secular answer to religious extremism everywhere.
I've associated with many Muslims over the years, and I've found them to be more pious, more in tune with their faith's teachings, and much more honorable than the Right Wing Christian Crusaders that I am surrounded by daily. I honestly think if I would "come out" with my agnostic beliefs, my family would send me to a reprogramming camp somewhere. I'm not gay, but if I were, I would DEFINITELY be stuck somewhere with a team trying to pray the gay away. There are bad apples everywhere. In my case I am stuck in a bushel basket of extremists who think Jesus is the only answer.
I own my own house and do quite well actually. However, I would be Ostracized from my whole extended family if I ever really discussed my beliefs. Maybe I was a little melodramatic about it, but it is basically how it goes. Just trying to keep up with the soap opera that is the right wing propaganda machine I guess.
And I'll ask you this, How many gay individuals have committed suicide because their RIGHTous Christian family's would not just accept that they don't have a disease and they were born with an attraction to the same sex? It happens, but I don't have any video evidence, so I can't prove it to you.
I don't even know why I am responding to you. You are an uneducated troll that eats from the trough of slop that Glenda spews every day.
Crawl back under your bridge and shut up D-Bag