Media-ocrity


By Humberto Fontova

There’s no worse crime in journalism these days than simply deciding something’s a story because Drudge links to it.
 - NBC’s Chuck Todd, March 6, 2010.

Oh, really?

Well, how about partnering with a Stalinist regime’s military robber-barons to boost their currency booty and hide their tortures, mass-murders, and mass-jailings? To wit:  

In June 2007, Castro’s Stalinist regime held a “tourism fair” in Havana to kick off an ambitious plan to boost the Cuban military’s tourist booty. By some peculiar coincidence, NBC’s “Today Show” decided to broadcast from Havana that very week. Amidst smiling, clapping, dancing tourists, Matt Lauer and Andrea Mitchell advised viewers on how to legally vacation in Cuba.

Don’t look for this from NBC, but Castro’s Soviet-trained and armed military and secret police own most of Cuba’s tourist facilities. Along with providing these inquisitive Cuban officials with certain insights regarding visitors to Castro’s fiefdom, this setup also insures that most of what tourists spend in Cuba lands in the pockets of the only people in Cuba with guns.

Yet Castro apologists and/or agents (both on the payroll and off) keep insisting that a flood of rich Western tourists will magically smother Cuban Stalinism, whereupon the island nation will quickly mutate into a bigger (and more historic and picturesque) Cozumel. This logic (which NBC’s Matt and Andrea naturally share) seems to go something like this: Rewarding and enriching the KGB-trained and heavily armed guardians of Cuba’s Stalinist status-quo will magically convert them into instant opponents of that Stalinist status quo.

Amazingly, this line of reasoning fails to convince those with firsthand experience under Cuba’s Stalinist regime. But never mind this insufferable rabble of “Cuban-American right-wing crackpots” and their congressional allies. And never mind the evidence.

To wit: For each of the past fifteen years, almost ten times as many tourists have visited Cuba as have visited in any year during the 1950s, when Cuba was labeled a “tourist playground.”

You will note the spectacular liberating effect this has had on Cubans, who with a few exceptions are barred by machine gun-wielding police from excessive interaction with these tourists.

Any trickle of foreign currency reaches the Stalinist regime’s subjects (primarily from prostitution) is offset a thousand-fold by the millions ($2.4 billion last year, for instance) crammed into military and secret-police coffers.

Apparently eager to highlight their hypocrisy, the month prior to their Cuba broadcast, the “Today Show” reported on location from Cape Town, South Africa. “The one indispensable visit on a trip to Cape Town is a pilgrimage to Robben Island [a former political prison],” frowned the Today Show hosts. “Most moving, of course, is the tour through the prison, led by former inmates, where you’ll view the painfully cramped cell where Nelson Mandela spent eighteen of his twenty-seven years in prison.”

Cuban political prisons and political prisoners did not merit any mention during the two-hour “Today Show” Havana broadcast, though hundreds of political prisoners were languishing in Cuba’s dungeon’s within miles of Andrea and Matt during the very taping. Among these were black human rights activist Dr. Elias Biscet, who attempted Gandhi’s and Martin Luther King’s tactics of non-violent civil disobedience against Cuba’s very violent regime and suffers daily tortures for the effort, as confirmed by Amnesty International. The Paris-based Reporters without Borders documents that almost 20 percent of the world’s jailed journalists (Matt and Andrea’s colleagues, you might think) languish in Cuba’s (a nation of 11 million!) prisons. Many of these jailed journalists suffered in dungeons within walking distance of where Matt and Andrea were yukking it up with their jailers and urging their viewers to “come on down!” — and thus further reward, enrich, and entrench these jailers and torturers.

It was fascinating to watch Matt and Andrea decrying an implacable “U.S. blockade” of Cuba during a show from Cuba where the backdrop consisted of smiling tourists from all over the world (including the U.S.) holding up signs and waving.

It was also fascinating to hear Andrea, wife of former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman (and early Ayn Rand disciple) Alan Greenspan, explain that Communist economics has nothing to do with Cuba’s crumbling buildings. Instead, that “U.S. embargo” is the culprit. For the record, for close to a decade now, the U.S. has been Cuba’s number-one food supplier and 4th-biggest partner, while Cuba trades with every nation on earth.

As Andrea and Matt spoke from Havana, trade delegations from 24 of the 52 United States were also in Havana attending a trade fair and signing trade deals with the Stalinist torturers. The only thing the so-called embargo mandates nowadays is that Cuba’s military robber-barons pay U.S. vendors up front in cash. No credit. (Moody’s refuses to even rate Cuba, who has stiffed virtually her every creditor to date.)

So it was fascinating to hear the wife of one of the world’s most famous and powerful economists imply that paint, cement, and spackle are available only in the U.S. and somehow not available with payments of cash.

One exchange between Andrea and Matt was particularly fascinating: “You often hear Cuban-Americans saying, When Fidel is gone, we’re heading back to Cuba,’” says Lauer. “‘We’re going to reclaim our property, what was taken away from us.’ And actually that is a fear of the Cuban people here.”

Mitchell: “Sure. They’re afraid of it. That is quite a legitimate fear, given the rhetoric coming out of some Cuban-Americans in Miami.”

Poll after poll after poll of Cuban-Americans makes hash of this “Today Show” nonsense. Eighty percent of Cuban-Americans consistently reject Andrea’s and Matt’s contrived “revanchism.” But for the sake of argument, let’s go ahead and consider that other 20 percent.

Now, let’s say that Andrea’s and Matt’s Beemers were to disappear one night while parked in Georgetown or on Broadway. Now let’s say that the thieves were rounded up. We’d certainly look for NBC reporting how, given the hysterical rhetoric from Andrea and Matt about desiring the return of their possessions, these thieves had “a legitimate fear” that those Beemers would be “reclaimed” by the greedy Mr. Lauer and the revanchist and avaricious Ms. Mitchell.

By Diana West  

Should Fox News register with the State Department as a foreign agent–an agent of Saudi Arabia?

First off, is that a farfetched question? Not when a leading member of the ruling family of the Sharia-totalitarian “kingdom” of Saudi Arabia, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, has made himself the second-largest shareholder of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., Fox News’ parent company.

Just as Steven Emerson believes that American universities using Saudi mega-millions (many from Alwaleed) to set up Islamic studies departments should register as Saudi agents, I believe an American news channel part-owned and part-influenced by the Saudi prince should, too.

Alwaleed’s long march through U.S. institutions is a mainly post-9/11 progression greased by his purchase of about a 5.5 percent stake in News Corp. in 2005, and his purchases, I mean, gifts, of $20 million apiece to Georgetown and Harvard Universities, also in 2005.

There have been other eye-catching displays of Alwaleed’s largesse–$500,000 in 2002 to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas- and Muslim-Brotherhood-linked entity, and a whopping $27 million, also in 2002, to the families of Palestinian “martyrs,” aka suicide bombers. These, along with Alwaleed’s self-described “very close relationship” with Murdoch son and apparent heir-apparent James, a left-wing global-warmist with virulently anti-Israel views, should only deepen Americans’ concerns about Fox’s ties to “the prince.” Recently, Murdoch and Alwaleed have discussed expanding their business relationship through the Murdoch purchase of a substantial stake in Rotana, Alwaleed’s huge Arab media company.

Targeting The Media

Before entering his Murdoch association, Alwaleed gave a remarkably candid interview in 2002 about what Arab News described as his belief that “Arabs should focus more on penetrating U.S. public opinion as a means to influencing decision-making” rather than boycotting U.S. products, an idea of the moment.

The Arab News reported: “Arab countries can influence U.S. decision-making ‘if they unite through economic interests, not political,’ (Alwaleed) stressed. ‘We have to be logical and understand that the U.S. administration is subject to U.S. public opinion. We (Arabs) are not so active in this sphere (public opinion). And to bring the decision-maker on your side, you not only have to be active inside the U.S. Congress or the administration but also inside U.S. society.’”

And active inside U.S. society living rooms–even better. Alwaleed would seem to have hit on a Fox strategy some time after Rudy Giuliani refused to accept, on behalf of a 9/11-shattered New York City, his $10 million check-cum-lecture that essentially justified the al-Qaeda attacks as having been a response to U.S. foreign policy. This was “such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either,” Sean Hannity said at the time. “This is a bad guy,” Hannity said. “Rudy was right to decline the money.” Bill Sammon called Alwaleed’s check “blood money,” adding, “we’re better off without it.”

The “Bad Guy” And Fox

How terribly ironic that this same “bad guy” is now a News Corp. blood-money bags, a boss who must be handled with care as, for example, Fox host Neil Cavuto did in a deferential interview with Alwaleed in January. 

How does this influence Fox News coverage? It’s impossible to say. Alwaleed has bragged that it only took a phone call to ensure that Fox coverage of Muslim rioting in France not be described as “Muslim” rioting in France, a boast News Corp. has never denied. This week, security analyst Joseph Trento, in light of recent negotiations between Alwaleed and Murdoch, mused online whether his own recent interview on “Fox & Friends” didn’t appear in Fox’s online video cache because he had told host Steve Doocy that “Saudi Arabian money was still financing al-Qaeda.” The doubt itself is damaging.

Meanwhile, spokesmen for terrorism-linked and Alwaleed-endowed CAIR still appear on Fox shows, for example, while Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, likely Fox guests as conservative authors of the sleeper-hit book Muslim Mafia (an exposé of CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood), get zero airtime. The more important question becomes: How does Alwaleed’s stake in News Corp. affect what Fox News doesn’t cover?

If they don’t report, we can’t decide. This, for a Sharia prince, could be worth millions.

NewsBusters.org | Media Research Center
Van Jones

By: S.E. Cupp

The first Danica Patrick GoDaddy television commercial I saw made me feel a little uncomfortable.

The second one, which I caught during the Super Bowl on Sunday, made me feel downright dirty.

Before we get to those ads, let me say this, as a NASCAR fan. I’m ambivalent about Patrick moving over from open-wheeled racing to compete in the circuit this year. That the new driver has girl parts holds no relevance for me; I just want to see some good racing.

Of course, the marketing geniuses at NASCAR know better than I, and they have decided that putting Patrick on the track will be good for business.

They might be right.

But if Patrick cares about her image, and NASCAR cares about its credibility, these GoDaddy ads have got to go.

Why all the fuss? Recall the commercial: The comely Patrick seems to be naked under a towel while she gets a massage from a buxom blond, who will eventually rip her top off in front of Patrick. They engage in a flirtatious will-they-or-won’t-they porn riff that many would identify as cheap lipstick lesbianism, meant to appeal not to other chicks, but to dudes.

You’d have to be a moron not to see the sexual suggestiveness.

Apparently, GoDaddy CEO and President Bob Parsons wants me to believe he is just such a moron. When I asked him about the campaign, he seemed utterly nonplussed. “There is absolutely no sexual connotation to these ads, no innuendo,” he insisted. “My wife gets massages all the time, and I know it’s a pretty professional experience.”

He didn’t explain why, on the GoDaddy site, you can view Internet-only, “Too hot for TV” versions of the ads that push the story even further.

Titillating ads are nothing new. But Patrick’s embarrassing involvement in the GoDaddy sleazefest makes me wonder if she’s got any self-respect — or whether she’s thought even for a second about how she’s affecting the thousands of other women who are fighting hard to gain credibility as competitors in sports.

And what about the role of the multibillion-dollar NASCAR organization?

The sport’s sanctioning body doesn’t have a direct say in Patrick’s ads, but it certainly knew what it was getting when it signed her up to join the circuit. And if I’m supposed to judge a newcomer on her racing prowess, don’t expect me to sit through a “Skinemax” commercial and not see her as a cheap marketing ploy.

I’m not alone. If anyone is GoDaddy’s intended audience, it’s Bubba the Love Sponge, a shock jock whose raunchy shows air on a Howard Stern satellite radio station. Bubba interviews porn stars and coined the term “No-panty Thursdays.” He also loves NASCAR. And to him, the ads are bad for the sport.

“It’s a cheap gimmick,” he told me. “There are other female drivers that are better racers, but aren’t as good-looking, that are being overlooked. With big-time sponsors like GoDaddy stepping up with an ad like that, it adds a requirement that a woman be good-looking before she’s considered for a NASCAR ride.”

Yes, Patrick is free to sell herself and look good doing it. I take offense when women are expected to “ugly up” to be taken seriously. But this kind of smut-marketing takes things to another level entirely.

NASCAR has worked hard to cultivate a family-friendly brand. If the racing behemoth wants to keep the respect of its fans, and if Patrick wants to make her name on the track, they both must think hard about how low they’re willing to go.

By Cliff Kincaid  

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has approved a request to add Al-Jazeera English (AJE) to the list of television satellite services for distribution in Canada. Supporters of the Arab government-funded propaganda channel hope that acceptance in Canada will lead to more cable and satellite carriers in the U.S. picking up the incendiary network.

A group called “Canadians for Al-Jazeera” organized public pressure on the CRTC to approve the entry of AJE into the Canadian media market. Although the group’s leader, Walied Khogali, is described in news reports as a Canadian, he identifies himself on his Facebook page as a fan of Barack and Michelle Obama, Students for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. He supports “the Red Movement” that mainly acts to protest Israeli policies and promotes the “I love Allah” T-shirt and the “Bush shoe thrower” from Iraq.

 
But Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau for Public Affairs, criticized Al-Jazeera’s coverage of the Haiti relief effort at the State Department press briefing on January 26. “When you’re talking about international reporting,” he said, “we have had—I’ve had direct conversations with our friends at Al-Jazeera, for example. And we have spent some time critiquing what we felt was unfair, unbalanced coverage of operations in Haiti.” He explained that he had “a conversation” with “officials at [the] Al-Jazeera, English channel” about “inflammatory” coverage suggesting that U.S. relief efforts in Haiti constituted a military plan to take over the country.
More serious and severe criticism has come from Judea Pearl, father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who has called Al-Jazeera “today’s greatest recruiter for terrorism.” His son’s murderer, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is now in Guantanamo but has been scheduled by the Obama Administration for a civilian trial in the U.S., boasted of his murder, saying that he “decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head.”
CRTC commissioner Marc Patrone said in the lone dissenting opinion that the decision to permit broadcasting AJE was made without adequately addressing concerns that the channel could engage in spreading “ethnic and religious hatred.”
He also expressed concern about the foreign ownership of the channel. “In weighing the merits of all foreign services, the regulator should be particularly sensitive to ‘state-owned’ or ‘state-financed’ services originating from nations with radically different attitudes towards freedom of speech and democracy in general,” he said.

See No Evil

A group called Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)  welcomed the decision to allow AJE into the country but said nothing in its statement about the fact that the channel is funded by the oil-rich Sunni Muslim monarchy in Qatar and that there is no freedom of the press in Qatar itself.

The U.S. State Department says about Qatar: “The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press in accordance with the law, but the government limited these rights in practice. Journalists and publishers continued to self-censor due to political and economic pressures when reporting on government policies, material deemed hostile to Islam, the ruling family, and relations with neighboring states. There were reports that security authorities threatened both individuals and organizations against publishing certain articles.”

What’s more, it goes on, “Citizens lacked the right to change the leadership of their government by direct ballot. There were prolonged detentions in overcrowded and harsh facilities, often ending in deportation. The government placed varying restrictions on civil liberties, including freedoms of speech, press (including the Internet), assembly, association, and religion.”

Commissioner Patrone noted that the CRTC had provided a “stark appraisal” of the record of Al-Jazeera Arabic (AJA) in 2004 when approving its license for the Canadian media market only if the content were recorded and monitored by cable and satellite carriers. No distributors picked up the channel because of those restrictions, which have not been applied by the CRTC in the case of AJE. This means the channel may find it easier to get in more media markets.

But Patrone said that because of the treatment of AJA, “one might have expected this most recent application by the same network’s English-language service would have been subject to the most rigorous examination possible—one which included a reconsideration of the entire network’s journalism policies. Regretfully, this hasn’t been the case.”

“While some of the interveners argued that the Commission should consider AJA’s broadcasting record, my colleagues, consistent with the Commission’s usual approach, chose not to do so,” Patrone explained. “The consequence of this decision, in my opinion, is that it did not allow for the kind of comprehensive investigation of Al Jazeera’s entire record that I believe was warranted.”

Patrone added that one of the interveners, a group called Honest Reporting Canada, had submitted documentary evidence to the commission noting that some reporting of AJE, despite its claims to be objective, has been unbalanced, unfair, and inaccurate. It cited specific instances of such reporting.

Honest Reporting Canada said, “We are apprehensive that AJE will be unabashedly anti-Israel, journalistically unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced, and may potentially carry content which exposes Jews to hatred and anti-Semitism. We have relayed our concerns to the CRTC and to the Canadian sponsor of AJE, Ethnic Channels Group Ltd.”

Cut From the Same Cloth

Patrone noted that Ethnic Channels Group Ltd (ECGL) claimed that AJE and AJA “were distinct services and submitted that it would be inappropriate to consider AJA’s broadcast record in order to assess the request to add AJE to the list, even if they share a common owner.” The CRTC seemed to accept this dubious assertion.

In fact, an AIM special report found evidence that key Al-Jazeera English personnel had come from Al-Jazeera Arabic. The emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, is chairman of the boards of directors for both channels.

In the U.S., largely because of efforts by Accuracy in Media to expose the channel’s links to terrorists and funding by an undemocratic regime, AJE has had limited distribution and acceptance. However, it has spent countless oil dollars of the emir on expensive public relations firms in order to obtain more outlets. AJE is now being carried in the Washington, D.C. area through the MHz Networks.

While not arguing for any federal action to keep the channel out of the United States, AIM has told potential cable and satellite carriers that it offers anti-American programming designed to incite Arabs and Muslims to hate and kill Americans and Jews. AIM produced a documentary, Terror Television: The Rise of Al-Jazeera and the Hate America Media, featuring evidence that Al-Jazeera inspired foreign Muslim fighters to go to places like Iraq and Afghanistan for the specific purpose of killing U.S. service members.  

AIM demonstrated, through a videotape captured after the liberation of Iraq by U.S. forces, that Al-Jazeera’s first managing director was an agent of the Saddam Hussein regime. In addition, one of Al-Jazeera’s Afghanistan reporters, Tayseer Alouni, went to prison in Spain on terrorism charges. Al-Jazeera paid Alouni’s salary, legal fees and “related expenses” during his trial and continues to defend him.

American Journalist Bails Out

Our charges of bias were vindicated when the top U.S. journalist at Al-Jazeera English, Dave Marash, left the channel and said that anti-American bias was a factor in his decision to leave. Prior to the channel’s launch in 2006, Marash had claimed that Al-Jazeera English would be editorially autonomous and independent from Al-Jazeera Arabic.

Marash told the Columbia Journalism Review that Al-Jazeera officials in Doha, Qatar, had wanted to do a series on “Poverty in America” that was “so stereotypical and shallow” that AJE in Washington, D.C. rejected the idea. “And so the planning desk in Doha literally sneaked a production team into the United States without letting anyone in the American news desk know,” he said. The result, he said, was just as he predicted—a shallow and stereotypical story.

The CRTC had received a request on February 27, 2009 from Ethnic Channels Group Limited for the addition of AJE to the Canadian distribution list. The ECGL had stated that AJE’s Code of Ethics included “journalistic values of honesty, fairness, balance, independence and credibility” and “was taken very seriously by AJE’s reporters and management.”

This is laughable, of course. As AIM disclosed during the U.S. presidential campaign, Al-Jazeera aired a Moammar Gadhafi speech praising then-candidate Barack Obama and followed with a story depicting supporters of GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin as white racist Christians. The Al-Jazeera “reporter” who did the hit piece on Palin was Casey Kaufmann, who surfaced in Federal Election Commission (FEC) records as a $500 contributor to the Obama-for-president campaign.

In terms of “ethics,” Judea Pearl has described how Al-Jazeera not only covered but helped sponsor the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, a released terrorist who had smashed the head of a four-year-old girl with his rifle butt in 1979 after killing her father before her eyes. Kuntar had been released by Israel in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers, who were kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006.

“Al-Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society’s role model,” Pearl noted in a Wall Street Journal column. “No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al-Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al-Jazeera’s management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.”

From CNN to Al-Jazeera

“I have to explain to people that I’m not the voice of Osama [bin Laden],” AJE correspondent Rizwan “Riz” Khan defensively told a National Press Club International Correspondents Committee event on March 9, 2007. Khan, who worked for the BBC and CNN before going to AJE, also wrote the book, Alwaleed, an official biography about the billionaire Saudi prince who has become a major investor in News Corporation, the parent company of the Fox News Channel.

Bin Laden’s continuing use of Al-Jazeera as a mouthpiece for al Qaeda came on January 24, when the channel broadcast the terrorist’s latest audio tape. “Ever since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Al Jazeera has been the network al-Qaeda has often chosen to deliver its messages to. For al-Qaeda, the channel’s reach in the Arab and Muslim world, as well as its global audience, is key,” acknowledged the report on AJE. It said that Ahmed Al Sheikh, editor-in-chief of Al-Jazeera Arabic, had confirmed the tape was bin Laden’s voice.

Bin Laden took responsibility in the tape for the attempted Christmas Day bombing attack on the U.S.

The AJE aired the views of various people who claimed that airing the tape didn’t mean that Al-Jazeera was in any way sympathetic to the terrorist group. One talking head even claimed that while airing the tape meant that the channel had exclusive “access” to al Qaeda, this gave Al-Jazeera increased “credibility.”

Five days later, on January 29, Al-Jazeera aired another bin Laden tape blasting the U.S. for contributing to climate change.

Bin Laden Quotes Leftist

In the recording, according to Al-Jazeera, bin Laden also stated that “Noam Chomsky was correct when he compared the US policies to those of the Mafia. They are the true terrorists and therefore we should refrain from dealing in the US dollar and should try to get rid of this currency as early as possible.”

Al-Jazeera identified Chomsky as “the US academic and political commentator” when, in fact, the professor is a member of the board of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a Communist Party spin-off group, and well-known for his anti-American and anti-Israel views. 

On another occasion, Noam Chomsky was identified by Al-Jazeera as “the renowned US academic, author and political activist” and appeared on a show on the channel called “Inside USA.” He had previously appeared on Riz Khan’s program.

Al-Jazeera Arabic on February 7 aired an interview with the U.S.-born Yemen-based “religious scholar” Anwar al-Awlaki, who is actually an al-Qaeda propagandist and recruiter and has been accused of being linked to the murderous attack at Fort Hood and the Christmas Day attempted bombing. “I have said in an earlier interview with Al Jazeera’s Yusri Fouda that the United States is a tyrant, and tyrants across history have all had terrible ends,” he said. “I believe the West does not want to realize this universal fact. Muslims in Europe and America are watching what is happening to Muslims in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will take revenge for all Muslims across the globe.”

Why Not Al-Jazeera?

The U.S. House of Representatives in December passed a resolution (H.R. 2278) by a vote of 395-3 to “direct the President to transmit to Congress a report on anti-American incitement to violence in the Middle East…” It was sent after passage to Senator John Kerry’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee for further action.

The resolution declared that “The broadcast of incitement to violence against Americans and the United States on television channels and other media that are accessible in the United States may increase the risk of radicalization and recruitment of Americans into Foreign Terrorist Organizations that seek to carry out acts of violence against American targets and on American soil.”

The sponsor, Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), said passage was a blow to “terror TV” and that the report from President Obama “must include a country-by-country list and description of media outlets that engage in anti-American incitement to violence in the Middle East and a list of satellite companies that carry such media.”

However, Al-Jazeera was not named in the text of H.R. 2278 while other television networks associated with Hezbollah and Hamas were.

Yet the legislation defines “anti-American incitement to violence” as “the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, advocating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a violent act against any person, agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the United States.”

It will be difficult for officials of the Obama Administration to argue that the definition does not apply to at least some of the programming from its “friends” at Al-Jazeera.

As Best Buy recently discovered, reaching out to Muslims can cause a backlash. Even those who champion the targeting of ads to the community steer corporations away from the mainstream media.

51830222.jpg

Best Buy, which is believed to be the first major retailer to market to U.S. Muslims, inserted a "Happy Eid al-Adha" greeting in a holiday advertising flier. (Best Buy)

By Raja Abdulrahim–LA Times

Leafing through a Best Buy flier over the holiday season, Celena Khatib spotted a small greeting near the bottom of the page: "Happy Eid al-Adha."

The good wishes for the important religious holiday celebrated by Muslims seemed a milestone in U.S. marketing. "I finally felt that they are recognizing Muslims like we are a part of this community," said Khatib, 31, a suburban Detroit mother of two. "We live here, we spend our money here."

But on Best Buy’s website, people around the country posted contrasting views. "You insult all of the heros and innocent who died 911 by celebrating a holiday of the religion that said to destroy them!" wrote one. Many others said they would no longer shop at Best Buy.

The controversy underscores the continuing obstacles that retailers and other companies face in marketing to a U.S. Muslim population estimated at more than 2.3 million by the Pew Research Center.

Even an advertising-industry study three years ago that urged companies to cash in on what was then the community’s estimated $170-billion purchasing power got little traction.

Best Buy is believed to be the first major retailer to market to Muslims nationwide, and only a few are even dipping their toes into direct ethnic local advertising.

Rather than pave the way for more national advertising, the Best Buy ad seems to have reinforced the pariah status that Muslims have in mainstream marketing and to serve as an example of why "Happy Eid" won’t join "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Hanukkah" as a mainstay in holiday advertising any time soon.

"Obviously the Muslim market has some unique sets of challenges. . . . That’s not something to be glossed over," said Rafi-uddin Shikoh, founder of DinarStandard, a consulting firm specializing in the Muslim market.

Other immigrant and minority groups have faced similar treatment from advertisers, but the U.S. Muslim community carries heavier baggage.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and with more recent incidents, such as the Ft. Hood shooting and attempted Christmas Day plane bombing, the word "Muslim" for some Americans is synonymous with terrorism. And that’s an image that corporations don’t want attached to their brand names.

A recent study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 35% of Americans have a negative view of Muslims and 45% believe Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence.

Even those championing marketing to Muslim consumers — like Shikoh — advise Western companies not to do what Best Buy did. Instead, in a move that seems both practical and defeatist, they recommend directing advertising in ethnic and religious media and away from the mainstream.

"At this point, I don’t know if there’s a real need for a national campaign," Shikoh said. "They are curious to see if there is a way to tap into this market without risking their reputation or it backfiring in any way."

Best Buy has refused to discuss its holiday advertising, though a brief statement on its website indicates it stands by its Eid greetings: "Best Buy’s customers and employees around the world represent a variety of faiths and denominations. We respect that diversity and choose to greet our customers and employees in ways that reflect their traditions."

Other companies have recently come under some fire for marketing to groups that some considered out of the mainstream.

A Gap ad during the holiday season angered a conservative Christian group for being too inclusive by referring to Christian, Jewish, secular and pagan holidays with the line "Go Christmas, Go Hanukkah, Go Kwanzaa, Go solstice." Gap didn’t directly address whether it had considered mentioning Eid al-Adha, which was celebrated two weeks after the ad first appeared.

"We’ve been down this road before with other groups," said Jerome Williams, a professor of advertising and African American studies at the University of Texas at Austin.

In the 1960s, studies looked at whether advertising that featured blacks would scare away white customers. Companies don’t rush into new and unfamiliar markets, he said, but rather tiptoe into them. And what will ultimately sway advertisers is money.

"They’re not in the business of social justice," he said. "An advertiser does not want to do anything that will have negative impacts on sales. . . . At the end of the day, they have to see if they’ve gained more than they’ve lost."

Mohammed Abdullah, event coordinator for the first American Muslim Consumer Conference, believes the Best Buy ad campaign will spur more outreach. The chain’s 13% revenue increase in December over the previous December, he believes, is a sign that the retailer wasn’t affected by any backlash.

"The growth strategy being employed by Best Buy will be copied, and few will look at the Eid al-Adha holiday ad as a negative or a misstep now," said Abdullah, an assistant vice president at Deutsche Bank. "There will absolutely be more outreach for this market segment."

Some companies have begun to test heavily Muslim markets. Crescent Foods in Chicago, for instance, started selling its halal chicken products at six Wal-Mart Superstores in Michigan and at ShopRite, a regional chain in the Northeast.

During Ramadan, Western Union launched a travel sweepstakes that would give customers who send money to the Middle East, Pakistan and Bangladesh the opportunity to fly home or undertake the annual Islamic hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. The sweepstakes lasted through the Eid al-Adha holiday in November and awarded a $1,800 ticket voucher to each of 14 winners.

"We know this is a very special holiday for our Muslim customers," said Maher Kayali, marketing manager for U.S. to Middle East and Pakistan region. "So we gave them that opportunity so they can go to Mecca."

To promote the sweepstakes, Western Union representatives visited mosques and held Ramadan dinners in Los Angeles, New York, New Jersey and Detroit.

"If it’s Ramadan-specific and Eid-specific, it’s directed to the ethnic media," Kayali said, insisting that such targeted marketing isn’t done out of fear of fallout from the mainstream.

But promotions beyond the small Islamic community face roadblocks. About six years ago, Syed Rasheeduddin Ahmed, president of food certification firm Muslim Consumer Group, added his halal symbol to the packaging of bread loaves with the full name of his company written out.

Soon the company was getting complaints, and Ahmed changed the symbol to include just the initials MCG for loaves sent to the U.S. Those shipped to the Middle East still retain his original symbol.

Constraints that advertisers face here don’t exist in the Middle East, where Ramadan and the two Eid holidays are times when brands such as Coca-Cola, Nestle and McDonald’s are merged seamlessly with holiday greetings.

In Turkey, Nestle launched a campaign during Ramadan, which began in late August, that urged customers: "Enjoy the pleasure of Ramadan with Nestle Chokella." After sunset, when Muslims are allowed to break their fast, Nestle employees went to public squares and neighborhoods to give out samples of the chocolate spread on pita bread.

But a Nestle USA spokeswoman said she wasn’t aware of any plans to target Muslim consumers here.

Despite their large buying power, U.S. Muslims remain a small percentage of the consumer market. And for now, it appears advertising and products targeted toward them will remain in small markets and niche media and publications.

"It’s almost like a policy thing when you’re treated like a voting bloc or a consumer bloc instead of just a quote-unquote Muslim or a shady person in the background," the American Muslim Consumer Conference’s Abdullah said about marketing to U.S. Muslims. "It’s almost like a validating stance — ‘Hey, you are American.’ It just makes you feel more accepted."

ABC notNews:

Following an ABC News report that thousands of gun sights used by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan are inscribed with secret Bible references, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps said the Corps is ‘concerned’ and will discuss the matter with the weapons manufacturer.

"We are aware of the issue and are concerned with how this may be perceived," Capt. Geraldine Carey, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps, said in a statement to ABC News. "We will meet with the vendor to discuss future sight procurements." Carey said that when the initial deal was made in 2005 it was the only product that met the Corps needs.

However, a spokesperson for CentCom, the U.S. military’s overall command in Iraq and Aghanistan, said he did not understand why the issue was any different from U.S. money with religious inscriptions on it.

"The perfect parallel that I see," said Maj. John Redfield, spokesperson for CentCom, told ABC News, "is between the statement that’s on the back of our dollar bills, which is ‘In God We Trust,’ and we haven’t moved away from that."

Said Redfield, "Unless the equipment that’s being used that has these inscriptions proved to be less than effective for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and military folks using it, I wouldn’t see why we would stop using that."

[More bullshit from Leftist ABC]

————————————————

Below is what we wrote yesterday on this bullshit:

JOSEPH RHEE, TAHMAN BRADLEY and BRIAN ROSS at ABC are attempting to create yellow journalism for prophet by stirring up a pot where there is no issue. This story is old news and common knowledge among those in the shooting community.  The only proselytizing being conducted by American troops are their daily efforts to arrange a meeting between would be martyrs and Allah.

If ABC News would spend as much effort on slamming our fanatic enemies as they do on screwing with our own troops, their abysmal rating might go up.

The authors don’t get it. Screw them!  

Trijicon makes some of the best gawddamn small arms combat optics on planet earth; which is why our guys (including law enforcement) use them. The military issues them, although some guys spend their hard earned cash on improved models that aren’t issued. Our guys prefer to have the best when they are killing gawddamn Islamic Fascist terrorist enemies of the United States.


If the maker of a fine product wants to wear his religion on his sleeve by putting Biblical verses on his product, how does that stack up against suicidal crazies yelling Allahu Akbar before they blow themselves up and everyone around them. We don’t care if there are Satanic verses on these scopes as long as the reticle pattern is centered on some deserving Muslim’s head.

FYI:Trijicon gives a portion of their sales to help Wounded Warrior Disabled Sports Project.

JOSEPH RHEE, TAHMAN BRADLEY and BRIAN ROSS at ABC are attempting to create yellow journalism for prophet by stirring up a pot where there is no issue. This story is old news and common knowledge among those in the shooting community.  The only proselytizing being conducted by American troops are their daily efforts to arrange a meeting between would be martyrs and Allah.

If ABC News would spend as much effort on slamming our fanatic enemies as they do on screwing with our own troops, their abysmal rating might go up.

The authors don’t get it. Screw them!  

Trijicon makes some of the best gawddamn small arms combat optics on planet earth; which is why our guys (including law enforcement) use them. The military issues them, although some guys spend their hard earned cash on improved models that aren’t issued. Our guys prefer to have the best when they are killing gawddamn Islamic Fascist terrorist enemies of the United States.
 If the maker of a fine product wants to wear his religion on his sleeve by putting Biblical verses on his product, how does that stack up against suicidal crazies yelling Allahu Akbar before they blow themselves up and everyone around them. We don’t care if there are Satanic verses on these scopes as long as the reticle pattern is centered on some deserving Muslim’s head.
 

FYI:Trijicon gives a portion of their sales to help Wounded Warrior Disabled Sports Project.

————————————————————–

U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret ‘Jesus’ Bible Codes
Pentagon Supplier for Rifle Sights Says It Has ‘Always’ Added New Testament References
By JOSEPH RHEE, TAHMAN BRADLEY and BRIAN ROSS–ABC Bullshit News

ht_scopes_1_100117_ssh.jpg

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.

At the end of the serial number on Trijicon’s ACOG gun sight, you can read "JN8:12", a reference to the New Testament book of John, Chapter 8, Verse 12, which reads: "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." The ACOG is widely used by the U.S. military.

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious "Crusade" in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.

One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as "the light of the world." John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, "Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions "have always been there" and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is "not Christian." The company has said the practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who was killed in a 2003 plane crash.

Next Page »