The Daily Clarity

Controlling an agenda – a primer by Michelle Malkin…

When does the reporting of an issue, even from an openly politicized agenda, stop being journalism and start being just hate propaganda? Freedom of speech is one thing, but there is a thin line between that and potential  for incitement. Michelle Malkin, more than most of the ‘media shock jocks’ out there in cyberspace, seems closest to the line.  The headline screaming from her blog recently,  serves as a prime example of profiling as an enabler of  her sloppy journalism. The headline reads, “Muslim TV exec pleads not guilty in wife beheading“. It is odd wording, if you think about it.  Is the identification of the accused’s faith a determining factor in his guilt? Does it make it a self-evident truth that he committed the crime, or is it really a crude attempt by the reporter to imply that his religion was his motivation?

If the same standards were applied to other stories,  should the headline  “Madoff sent to jail as furious victims applaud“,  therefore be presented as “Jew sent to jail as furious victims applaud”.One could well imagine the outrage if it was, and it would be justified. It would also frame Maddoff’s actions within a religious framework that had nothing to do with the crime. If we extend the concept, should we identify the story’s participant by race, whether they are fat, a smoker, drug user, educated and on? Such profiling often fools the inclined reader,  is lazy reporting, a conscious attempt to set an agenda to story, and to frame a perspective in a readers mind as to how the ‘facts’ should be interpreted. It makes a mockery of  the  ideal of a free press, and sadly echoes the techniques of the most foul politcal regimes.

Malkin is famous as a lazy journalist, one who would never let a fact get in the way of a story, but she is not alone in this sin. Such headlines can be found in multiple media, but  her article headline serves well enough as an example. If her headline had read instead, “TV exec pleads not guilty in wife’s beheading“, the implication could be a failed career executive under stress.  Maybe  a casualty of the dire economy pleading a case of diminished responsibility in his defense. The options offered by the addition of  one word in the headline changes the conceptual landscape. It is the term  ’Muslim’ that instantly makes the case appear an issue of religious intolerance. The presentation makes moot whether the facts of the case support the conclusion.  The headline has condemned the man pre-trial, seemingly on  the basis of his religion alone. Interestingly, it also removes the requirement for the reader to read the story to have to discern the facts – the assumption of guilt and the supposed motivation are fed to them by the headline. A trap and tool in trade, sadly, of many a modern American reporter, and an everyday currency for Malkin and her ilk.

This profiling trick is worse than just lazy journalism;  it is, in reality,  a form of  intellectual bullying akin to a totalitarian regime. It is a sophist trick by a politically motivated  journalist to  incite  a mindset  deliberately and with intent to deceive. It is a form of mind control so as to set social agenda, and a very easy trick for a writer.  The fact that the same sub-standard profiling doesn’t apply to other religions as frequently as it does to Muslims  – Lutherans, Catholics, Buddhists and on are not called out in the same way -  makes a mockery of any pretence of fact based reporting. The media has, by taking the low road (and Malkin apparently knows no other way), has set itself up as judge, jury, and de facto executioner. It is also sensationalist; a conjurers trick to promote juicy, pornographic-like thrills.  Malkin’s headline implies a tawdry tale, and further pollutes  public opinion.

Imagine if the judge asked the question, ‘Members of the Jury how do you find the Muslim man – guilty or not guilty?”. In a legal trial such a  trick would not be permitted, but in journalism only the discernment of the reader acts  as judge. Individuals may be of  faith or not, they will vary in their levels of observance, they may have disagreement with certain tenets of dogma of their religion.  Malkin’s ruse of  ‘Muslim man beheads wife’ is an intent to point to an instant conclusion, without an application of fact or critique. In an attention deficit readership age it is also the main part,  perhaps with the addition of the first paragraph, that most readers will scan. The journalists  are purposely presenting  it so poorly so  as to create a mindset of hate, based on religion and creed, that sells their column.  So the next time you see a headline, Muslim this or that, consider the source, and perhaps find the work of a better quality journalist to subscribe to.