New York Times Misrepresents “The Third Jihad”

3 Feb

There’s a major scandal brewing and it’s time to blow the lid off it.

The New York Times is taking an extreme politically-correct stance, working to discredit any and all sources that expose insidious Islamist activities in America.

The latest scandal started when Tom Robbins, a reporter from the Village Voice, wrote an article on how the New York Police Department was screening the film, The Third Jihad, to educate officers on the dangers of domestic terror.

Next up to the plate was New York Times reporter Michael Powell, who last week delivered a front-page snow job against the film. I have not studied The Third Jihad in-depth, so I cannot comment on all its content. But what I do know is that the Times’ article, “In Police Training, A Dark Film on U.S. Muslims” (January 23, 2012), is filled with misinformation and bias.

For example, the opening sentence claims that in the film “a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying over the White House.” The clear implication is that the filmmakers photoshopped this negative image. In truth, the “Islamic flag flying over the White House” is taken straight from an Islamic film. In other words, the image supports the film’s concern over radical Muslim groups operating in America – which the Times flips around to attack the credibility of the film!

Another example: The Times tries to discredit the film by portraying it as broadly anti-Islam, alleging that the film declares: “This is the true agenda of Islam in America.” Yet the Times fails to mention the disclaimer at the beginning of the film which clearly states: “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical.”

After complaints this week, the Times amended the quote to read: “This is the true agenda of much of Islam in America.”

Strike two for the Times – that is also a misquote! The actual line from the film is: “This document shows the true agenda of much of Muslim leadership here in America.” Thus far, the Times has refused to correct the article, nor print a letter to the editor setting the record straight – using the excuse that “the Letters section won’t publish anything that refutes matters of fact and only publishes matters of opinion.” Right.

Again, my purpose is not to judge the content of the film. (The Third jihad is now available for free online viewing, so you can judge for yourself.)  But if there is to be an intelligent public debate about the film’s value, the starting point must be a factual presentation in the media.

Meanwhile, the Times has been hammering this story all week – running two news reports and three op-eds against the film. So what do you think happened when Tom Ridge (former head of Homeland Security) and Jim Woolsey (former CIA Director) submitted an op-ed defending the film? That’s right, the Times refused to print it.

This is all part of a pattern in the media toward hiding domestic Muslim threats. As I document in my book, David & Goliath, political correctness has spawned a phenomenon whereby the New York Times dodges the “M-word” whenever Muslims commit heinous crimes. A few examples:

• When 17 Canadian members of an Islamic terror cell were arrested on charges of plotting to bomb targets near Toronto, the Times managed the remarkable feat of publishing an 1,843-word report without once calling them “Muslims.” The only identifying information provided by the Times was that they are of “South Asian descent” and “represent the broad strata” of society. (“17 Held in Plot to Bomb Sites in Ontario,” June 4, 2006)
• When eight people – all Muslims – were arrested in the UK for plotting car bombings, the Times referred to them simply as a “disenfranchised South Asian population.” (“Britain at Top Terror Alert After Air Terminal is Struck,” July 1, 2007)
• In 2009, when four New York men were arrested for plotting to bomb synagogues and “bring death to Jews,” the Times hid the M-word until the ninth paragraph. (“4 Accused of Bombing Plot at Bronx Synagogues,” May 20, 2009)
• And when Faisal Shahzad was arrested for the failed Times Square car bombing in 2010, the Times ran a 900-word article with no mention of the M-word, even as information was available that Shahzad had admitted to training at an Islamist terror camp in Pakistan. (“Suspects in Terror Case Wanted to Kill Jews, Officials Say,” May 12, 2011)

This week, we saw more of these media gyrations with the Third Jihad controversy. Writing in Forbes magazine, Abigail R. Esman observes how the Times is mixing up who are the bad guys here:

Much of what the Times objects to is a group of clips from You-Tube videos in which Islamist leaders speak of taking over the United States, of their dream of flying the flag of Islam from the White House, of the importance of destroying the infidel. The Times, however, in describing the film as “hateful,” does not mean that these clips themselves are hateful; no, they mean that allowing the NYPD to see that they exist is hateful. In other words, they have no problem with the video clips themselves; but with those who expose them…
[In the view of the New York Times, the fact] that the NYPD, which is responsible for maintaining public safety in the world’s top target for Islamic terrorists, should happen to be provided this information, apparently not only unnecessary, but egregious.

Beyond all the inaccuracies, the Times’ advocacy journalism is being used by the pro-Muslim group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) to pressure NYC police chief Ray Kelly to resign. CAIR, as we know, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial, which was shut down by the U.S. government for funding Hamas to the tune of $12 million.

Here’s the real irony: While the premise of The Third Jihad is to expose the pressure, intimidation and manipulation tactics of groups (such as CAIR) who are trying to stifle exposure of Islamists operating in America, the “newspaper of record” is now aiding and abetting those very efforts.

Stay tuned. This is bound to get even more interesting.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: