Here is another article at vox.com, from January 2015, co-written by Amanda Taub and Max Fisher, which has the same delusional quality, and, again, demonstrates the falsity of their premise.
In this article, entitled 'Vox got no threats for posting Charlie Hebdo cartoons, dozens for covering Islamophobia', Fisher and Taub hope to get readers to equate, in their effects on free speech, the many murders committed by Muslims, with the threats Vox.com (among others) has received via social media for reporting on what they call 'Islamophobia' --
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7541095/charlie-hebdo-muslims-threats
Vox got no threats for posting Charlie Hebdo cartoons, dozens for covering Islamophobia
Updated by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub on January 14, 2015, 2:27 p.m. ET
We were glad that Vox decided to publish the cartoons of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Though their portrayal of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed has offended many Muslims, they are an important part of the story and readers have a right to see them. We were also glad that we covered the cartoons critically as well as sympathetically, praising them on the grounds of free speech and satire.
The decision of American media organizations to publish or not publish the cartoons has typically been framed of one of bravery or cowardice, based on the assumption that publishing invites physical risk from some number of the 2.6 million Muslim-Americans who will take offense and perhaps action. Vox.com was praised on MSNBC for its bravery, even though this purported risk did not actually enter into our calculus, and other outlets have presented their decision to publish as a way to defy the Islamist radicals who threaten free speech.
Writers at Vox have indeed been bombarded with threats for our Charlie Hebdo coverage. But not one of those threats has come from a Muslim or in response to publishing anti-Islam cartoons. Revealingly, they have rather all come from non-Muslims furious at our articles criticizing Islamophobia.
...
It is interesting to note that Taub and Fisher claim that the 'purported risk did not actually enter into our calculus', in regard to republishing the 'Charlie Hebdo' cartoons, while at the same time they claim to be 'glad that Vox decided to publish the cartoons'. This begs the obvious question, if they did not believe there was a risk, or they were completely indifferent to it, why would they be glad that the cartoons were republished? In other words, what is it that they were proud of, or glad about, if they did not believe there was a risk, or they did not believe the risk was worthy of real concern? (I emphasize republish, to remind readers that vox.com has done nothing original here — they are commenting on the work of others, well after the fact. 'Charlie Hebdo' took the risk, not vox.com. It seems like some of the writers at vox.com think they can acquire courage vicariously, by reporting on, and criticizing the work of others.)
Of course, the lead paragraphs quoted above from the Fisher and Taub article are nonsense. The only reason the 'Charlie Hebdo' cartoons are interesting at all, is because they mock and provoke a large group of religious fundamentalists who regularly resort to violence. Have you seen any uproar regarding 'Doonesbury' or 'Marmaduke'? And do you wonder why not?
The contradiction is obvious — if denunciations of Islam for the repeated acts of violence coming from their followers is an indication of an irrational fear of Islam — i.e. a phobia — then why would any writer claim some sort of pride for publishing the 'Charlie Hebdo' cartoons? That is, if Islam poses no threat, then how is publishing cartoons which mock Islam an act of courage?
And it should come as no surprise, that later in the article, Fisher and Taub give a fairly detailed description of their view of the 'arithmetic of the risk', which supposedly did not enter into their 'calculus'. So they thought through the 'calculus', but then decided that thinking through it did not constitute an 'entering into our calculus' --
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7541095/charlie-hebdo-muslims-threats
...
Receiving threats of any kind forces journalists to go through the calculation of whether it's likely that they could lead to real harm, and weigh that against the value of writing more on the subject in question. Any journalist or activist who has written or spoken publicly about a controversial subject will be familiar with the arithmetic of threats and fear. Add the value of speaking out, subtract the costs of silence. Multiply by the likelihood that the threats are empty, divide by the chance that they are not.
In our case, that arithmetic works out. The people who threaten us are crazies and there is no indication that they are representative of any greater whole or are considering doing any more than sending an email. But we are not the only outlet being targeted, and receiving dozens of threatening emails can have a real effect on journalists, even if we suspect the threats will come to nothing.
...
Receiving threats of any kind forces journalists to go through the calculation of whether it's likely that they could lead to real harm, and weigh that against the value of writing more on the subject in question. Any journalist or activist who has written or spoken publicly about a controversial subject will be familiar with the arithmetic of threats and fear. Add the value of speaking out, subtract the costs of silence. Multiply by the likelihood that the threats are empty, divide by the chance that they are not.
In our case, that arithmetic works out. The people who threaten us are crazies and there is no indication that they are representative of any greater whole or are considering doing any more than sending an email. But we are not the only outlet being targeted, and receiving dozens of threatening emails can have a real effect on journalists, even if we suspect the threats will come to nothing.
...
Obviously, the second sentence in the last paragraph quoted above should have been the focus of the article.
Notice that the 'crazies' that Fisher and Taub are referring to here as an ultimately harmless minority, are what they earlier describe as 'anti-Muslim extremists' who characterize 'Islamophobia'.
Let that sink in for a minute.
So let's summarize, to drive the point home. Fisher and Taub wrote an article dealing with a group of people who were gunned down by Islamic religious fanatics with automatic weapons (the 'Charlie Hebdo' attack), and in their article they emphasize social media threats which were received from 'anti-Muslims' in response to the reporting on 'Charlie Hebdo' in general, but which threats they then dismissed as giving 'no indication that they are representative of any greater whole or are considering doing any more than sending an email.'
In short, should not that be the real point? That is, that most religions have violent fanatical elements, but currently Islam presents an especially grave danger, since its followers are so willing to commit violent atrocities as a supposed defense of their religion — whereas others (like the supposed 'anti-Muslims' Fisher and Taub mention) leave it at sending threatening emails.
Begrudgingly, near the end of the article, Fisher and Taub actually acknowledge that shooting someone with a gun is much more serious than an email threat --
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7541095/charlie-hebdo-muslims-threats
...
This is not to argue that the threat from Islamist extremism doesn't exist; as the attacks in Paris demonstrated, this threat is all too real, and has included the actual murders of 17 people, something far beyond the danger of mere email threats.
...
This is not to argue that the threat from Islamist extremism doesn't exist; as the attacks in Paris demonstrated, this threat is all too real, and has included the actual murders of 17 people, something far beyond the danger of mere email threats.
...
But of course, this begs the obvious question (apart from why they wrote the article to begin with) —
If 'this threat is all too real', as Fisher and Taub wrote in the paragraph quoted above, why do they repeatedly refer to critics (including in the title of their article) as having a phobia — i.e. Islamohphobia?
Here are some more news events to drive home the point that 'this threat is all too real'. Those with sympathies for the article written by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub quoted from above, would do well to study these, to remind themselves that devout Muslims are willing to do much worse than send threatening emails, or even shoot people —
This site chronicles Islamic violence —
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
A professor of archaeology is beheaded for refusing to cooperate with ISIS —
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/middleeast/isis-executes-antiquities-expert/
ISIS teens ('caliphate cubs') execute Syrian soldiers before crowds at a Palmyra ruin —
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149469/Slaughter-amphitheatre-ISIS-executioners-brutally-shoot-dead-25-Syrian-regime-soldiers-bloodthirsty-crowds-ancient-Palmyra-ruin.html
A child (ISIS teen) beheads a Syrian soldier —
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-posts-video-child-beheading-syrian-soldier-article-1.2295914
ISIS blows up a baby as part of a training exercise —
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-blown-up-baby-terror-6059342
ISIS drowns 5 prisoners in a cage —
http://nypost.com/2015/06/24/new-video-shows-isis-slowly-drowning-prisoners-in-a-cage/
ISIS executes 5 mothers and their children by burning them to death —
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3154672/Iraqi-tribal-chief-recalls-horror-women-children-burnt-death-ISIS-militants-five-brave-mothers-refuse-allow-children-child-soldiers.html
Boko Haram executes 26 civilians by slitting their throats —
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/haram-slit-throats-26-civilians-chad-150708171934359.html
No comments:
Post a Comment