Unlike wannabes from Wall Street to Hollywood, aspiring reporters don't lust for fame or fortune. Their goals are lofty: Speak truth to power; comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Most journalists are true believers and they want to make a difference. At least, that's how they start out.

But where do they end up? And the follow-up: Where might they rather be?

The two stories most likely to dominate the news for the foreseeable future are the recession and the Middle East. In the past, key aspects of these stories have been blurred, marginalized and missed. No need to recount the coverage of WMD, Dubya's “mission accomplished” or the mortgage boom, when we can just as easily consider reporting on the bank collapse or the fate of Afghanistan.

Are you reading stories that speak truth to Wall Street's power? I am not talking about the lifestyle changes that a $500,000 salary cap might require. (Can schaudenfraude alone explain why this is the New York Times' most emailed story?) Nor is Bernie Madoff the only villain. I'd like to know more about men like John Thain, Robert Rubin, Richard Fuld and the culture of greed, entitlement and soullessness that they helped to create. (Okay, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, it's a culture that these captains of industry did not create but did nothing to change.)

And what about Afghanistan? According to Richard Holbrooke, head of the administration's Pakistan and Afghanistan clean-up crew. “I've never seen anything like the mess we've inherited.” But while the New York Times reports that Obama and company are disenchanted with President Karzai, the paper says he “has successfully presided over the transition of the Afghan state from the devastated, pre-modern institution it was under the Taliban to the deeply troubled but largely democratic one it is today.”

So who and what to believe?

Would that journalists would reclaim the idealism that motivated them in the first place and tell stories that more accurately reflect our world. That won't be easy because the same corporate interests that strangled the economy also hold sway at our nation's pre-eminent news organizations. In some newsrooms, these interests are experienced as limits to what, which and how stories are told. An editor doesn't have to say “No,” because reporters understand what will or won't make the cut.

How to get past those restrictions is a challenge. Speaking truth to power is hard to do at home, but it is the most important religion story—that is, if you count social ethics as a spiritual good—today.

Diane Winston 

Before delving into the good stuff—sex, sex and more sex—let's take a step back and ponder the big picture. Thanks to Phil Zuckerman, we can do that.

Zuckerman, a professor at Pitzer College, writes about religion and society in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Acknowledging that faith in God can motivate men and women to creative, selfless and noble acts, he also says it plays a part in “tension, violence, poverty, oppression, inequality and disorder.” But Zuckerman's not taking sides. “Rather,” he says, “I simply wish to soberly counter the widely touted assertion that without religion, society is doomed.”

Citing Denmark and Sweden as exhibits A and B, Zuckerman reports that both have low murder rates, high happiness scores, and little religious affiliation. In fact, according to one researcher, Denmark, not Disneyland, is the happiest place on earth!

“Belief in God may certainly give emotional and psychological comfort to the individual believer – especially in times of pain, sadness or uncertainty – and history has clearly shown that religious involvement and faith in God can often motivate individuals or cultures to promote justice and healthy societal development. But the fact still remains that it is not the most religious nations in our world today, but rather the most secular, that have been able to create the most civil, just, safe, equitable, humane and prosperous societies. Denmark and Sweden stand out as shining examples. The German think-tank Hans-Böckler Stiftung recently ranked nations in terms of their success at establishing social justice within their societies; Denmark and Sweden, two of the least religious nations in the world, tied for first.”

Keep that in mind while reflecting on the coverage of some of the big stories this past week. First up– the buzz on Alexandra  Pelosi's “The Trials of Ted Haggard” followed by news that he had a sexual relationship with a young man in his congregation. This surfaced because the leaders of Pastor Ted's former church did not appreciate the fallen minister suggesting on film that he'd been un-Christianly cast out. From their perspective, it had been very Christ-like to cover up his indiscretions with the simple proviso he leave town.

Hard on the heels of the Haggard story was news that the U.S.  Attorney in Los Angeles “launched a federal grand jury investigation into Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in connection with his response to the molestation of children by priests in the Los Angeles Archdiocese.” Columnist Tim Rutten thinks it's a weak case but that hasn't stopped the story from spreading. Still, its legs can't compare to news of the birth of octuplets to a woman who has six children — that story has  racked up almost 2000 news hits – 1400 more than Mahony and 600 over Haggard.

My point? Sex sells – and journalists seem to relish nothing more than gay religious sex—how else to explain the excessive coverage of a slight documentary about a pitiful man.  Unfortunately pandering to prurient interests won't save the news media. Likewise the Mahony story needs to move beyond its sensational starting point. Does the attorney general have a case and, if so, how does it reconfigure the relationship between church and state? Given the Catholic contingent on the Supreme Court, this could have interesting ramifications.

Sex, too, lies at the heart of the Suleman story, even though, the babies were conceived with a sperm donor in a fertility clinic. I understand why so many people are obsessed with this story: it's extreme in ways that challenge conventional understandings of family and responsibility. But the drive to uncover any/everything about the mother seems equally immoderate. Could we pull back from prying on her and consider instead the ethical, medical and social questions that the situation poses for the rest of us?

Zuckerman has a point: religion can work for good or ill, and there are other paths to achieve a just society. One of those paths leads through the stories we tell about ourselves. What lessons do we repeat? What types of behaviors do we lift up? Journalism is all about selecting stories and choosing how to tell them. This week I'd like to see how they do it in Denmark.

Diane Winston
 

Like the busy critters in a whack-a-mole game, Rick Warren bobs up faster than his critics can bop him down again.

Just since this summer, Warren popped up with his church-based candidates' forum, pre-election support for Proposition 8 capped by a comparison between gay marriage and incest, a keynote address at the Martin Luther King Day Commemorative Service at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church and the invocation at the Obama inauguration.

And that's not counting all the stories about Warren's work in Africa (or for another take on it), his mega-best seller and his global ambitions.

For both bloggers and reporters, Warren is, well, a godsend. Some people hate him, others love him—and neither side is shy about expressing its opinion. Not surprisingly, Pastor Rick is catnip to the media. After Obama selected him to speak at the inauguration, endless news cycles examined, analyzed and opined on why Obama did it, who'd benefit, what Warren would say, where the GLBT community would go, when Warren would don Billy Graham's mantle, and how the country would react if he used the “J” word.

Dismissing all the palaver, regular folks didn't much care. A Gallup poll on the eve of the inauguration found a majority of Americans didn't have an opinion about Obama's choice of Warren, 39 percent approved of it and only 9 percent were unhappy. The bottom line: “News media accounts . . . reflect more of the vocal positions of interest groups than an opinion that is shared by the majority of the American public.”

Now Warren has a new plan to directly reach that majority. This week, Purpose Driven Connection (PDC), a quarterly magazine debuts. Published by Readers Digest Association, it arrives on a multimedia platform that includes a magazine, DVDs, workbooks, and access to a new social networking site, marketed as a Christian Facebook. Hoping for a broad market, the package has a $29.99 yearly fee that is discounted to $19.99 for congregations. Retail outlets will offer the magazine alone for $9.99.

PDC's initial run is about 500,000, and the publisher hopes to hit one million by year's end. Despite the weak economy, backers hope that Warren's popularity will make the magazine a must-have for evangelical homes. Unlike most glossies that focus on getting and spending, PDC's content is faith-driven. Articles in the first issue explore what the Bible promises for hard times, reaching the hip hop generation, tattooed bikers, and an “exclusive” interview with President Obama.

Warren's fertile field may be Readers Digest's next big market: the target audience looks like Millennials and Gen X, and if it's youth-oriented, Boomers won't be far behind. Most obvious: will it work, for whom, what's the next step and whither the social networking piece? The 10-pages available on the Website featured almost all-white faces. They were young, tattooed and half-naked—but I only counted one Asian (and no other non-Anglos) among them. The lay-outs were bold and image-driven with very little copy.

If this succeeds what are the ramifications for the publishing industry: New delivery systems? Alternate content? More celebrity projects? And what does it bode for the continuing interpenetration of religion and public life? Warren isn't launching Guideposts or Christianity Today, he has a mainstream market in mind that crosses, or even erases formerly sacrosanct boundaries of denomination, theology and praxis.

So, today's question: Can we get beyond the Good Rick/Bad Rick narrative? Warren's popped up again with a new idea that could turn around the publishing industry as well as the religion world. I know mallets are poised to strike, but maybe it's time for a different game. Anyone ready to grab the brass ring?
 
Diane Winston
 

Most of the time I look to TV for diversion. When I'm weary of war, bank failures and Bernie Madoff, there's always something to give me hope. Hiro saves the cheerleader, Derek saves Meredith, and House saves almost everyone at Princeton-Plainsboro Hospital. But this week is different. This week I'm watching the news to forget.

Battlestar Galactica is back; and all the love, hope and hoopla emanating from Washington D.C. can't save me from the fleet's despair: Their dream is dead. But it does raise a reality-based concern: How to hold onto our vision and how can the press help?

For four seasons, BSG focused on the audacity of hope. Humankind was nuked, survivors hunted down, and good people felled by very bad things. But religious faith, political courage and belief in the Promised Land kept hope alive. Alas, when the much-pummeled pilgrims found their City on a Hill, it turned out to be a heap of radioactive rubble. Cut to booze, brawls and gunplay.

Back here in reality-land, it's (almost) morning in America. An eight-year nightmare is over, but that doesn't mean we can slip into another reverie. I like Bono and Beyonce as much as the next person, but the international situation is tense, an economic crisis looms, and we're fixated on outdoor concerts and inaugural balls. Sure, we can be happy that the Bushies are gone, but let's balance faith in change with the hermeneutics of suspicion. What can we realistically expect of our new government? How do we hold it accountable? And why did we allow ourselves to get into this mess in the first place?

That's where the press corps comes in. An absence of critical thinking, in-depth reporting and sustained investigation facilitated the nation's acquiescence to the Iraqi War, the suspension of civil liberties, the denial of human rights and an obscene lust for money. Some reporters, columnists and bloggers spoke truth to power. But in the wake of 9/11, many others were cowed by fear of appearing unpatriotic. (And even if they weren't, their corporate owners were mindful of the proper parameters for debate.)


So at the very moment when we need a critical press, not the Dallas cheerleaders, the mainstream media—desperate for eyeballs—serves up what (it thinks) we want rather than what we need. We need unpleasant facts, horrific narratives, and ghastly truths. We need to remember that the press has a key role in safeguarding democracy and that doesn't always include rooting for the home team.

After his own bout with drink and despair, Admiral Adama offered a new vision to his fleet: We don't need the Promised Land, but we do need to unite and push forward. Obama has been saying as much, but I'm not sure the press is listening. It's echoing the words, but it's not getting the message: we're on a long, hard journey.

In his 1986 book, Exodus and Revolution, Michael Walzer described that journey as a slow slog of compatriots:
 
“We still believe, or many of us, do, what the Exodus first taught, or what it has been commonly been taken to teach, about the meaning and possibility of politics and about its proper form:

“–first, that wherever you live, it is probably Egypt;
–second, that there is a better place, a world more attractive, a promised land;
–and third, that the way to the land is through the wilderness.

“There is no way to get from here to there except by joining together and marching.”

Marching together through the wilderness, we'll need the press to help make sense of what we see. It won't always be entertaining, but it is journalism.

Diane Winston

What do people want from the news? The question struck me when a friend, recently returned from Israel, complained about the biased coverage of events in Gaza.

I'd asked her what it was like to be caught up in the year's biggest story, and she launched into a critique of American reporting. In short: Israel is in the right, but worldwide press reports portray it as callous and culpable. The very next day, the New York Times ran a story capturing her perspective and its pervasive hold on Israeli public opinion. According to reporter Ethan Bronner, “the Israeli news media are not so much determining the national agenda as reflecting it.”

Like my friend, most news consumers value reporting that mirrors their view of reality. If their opinions are confirmed, then the coverage is objective. But if the story is at odds with their outlook then it's obviously distorted.

In other words, news consumers make it hard on reporters who are doing their jobs—that is, seeking balance and neutrality.

As difficult as it is for readers to untangle the knotted skeins of culpability, victimhood, aggression and self-defense in Gaza, it's also hard to report and write about them. Choosing which story to pursue and what sources to interview is complicated when your decisions convince readers that you're either benighted or bonkers.

Reporters' choices construct the news in ways that many of us, much of the time, prefer to overlook. But in situations like Gaza, where partisan passions are strong, mundane news decisions are held up as evidence of media bias. Ask an angry reader about press standards of objectivity and evenhandedness, and it's possible Jack Bauer might get higher marks for observing the Geneva Conventions.

Last week, the New York Times ran a front page story (and four related articles) on the plight of the Samouni family. Thirty members of this extended clan died during an Israeli campaign in their neighborhood.

“The story of the Samouni family has horrified many since Red Cross officials on Wednesday publicized their discovery of four emaciated Samouni children trapped for days in a home with the corpses of their mothers. The Red Cross said the Israeli military denied its paramedics access to the area for several days after the ground invasion began on Jan.3, part of the offensive against Hamas that Israel says is intended to stop the firing of rockets into southern Israel.”

Some readers felt it was right for reporters to cover the human cost of Israeli aggression; others lambasted the paper for taking wartime acts out of context. Did the New York Times find a balance? Here's Al-Jazeera's take on the plight of the Samouni family. But when I searched online Israeli sources (Jerusalem Post, H'aretz and Yedioth Ahronoth) as well as some American Jewish ones (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, The Forward), I struck out. (I didn't look for coverage on blogs, broadcast venues or news portals but it would be instructive to see who said what and how.)

Happily, there are readers who come to stories with a (fairly) open mind. In a recent Jewish Journal column, my colleague Marty Kaplan artfuly illustrates the intellectual whiplash that occurs when you engage both sides of a dilemma.

Kaplan implicitly suggests that in a case like Gaza, where all reporters are suspect, the best alternative is to monitor as many news sources as possible. So if your mind isn't already made up or if you're willing to peek at alternate perspectives, there are scores of informative news organizations, bloggers, and NGO and academic sites. Moreover, the front page of the New York Times, or any major American newspaper, is only the tip of their coverage. Check this out for a range of perspectives or this for daily briefings.

Usually I think it's helpful to look at how reporters shape stories by their selection of narratives, sources, and even word choices. But when it comes to the Middle East, news consumers need to quit blaming the messenger.

Diane Winston

The gifts are all gone and 2008's best list lists are, well, so last year. Well, maybe not this one mention  (and he's right, dear readers, we do need a new name). What's new and noteworthy—or, better yet, what's not yet noted as newsworthy? Some thoughts on the stories brewing at the start of the New Year.

After endless boring reports about atheist eliterati like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett, I was delighted to read that non-believers are taking it to the streets. Literally. The first ever atheist ad campaign in Britain was launched this fall, and the fundraising went so well that this month the campaign plastered signs on some 200 London buses. Plus another 600 buses will carry the “There's probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life” message throughout England, Wales and Scotland.

According to the Telegraph: “Ariane Sherine, a writer who first thought of the atheist bus adverts, said: 'You wait for ages for an atheist bus, then 800 come along at once. I hope they will brighten people's days and make them smile on their way to work.'”

So will it be a year of smiles for the faithless—or, perhaps, the faithful? A lot depends on the economy. Religion didn't fare particularly well during the Great Depression. Despite the seeming need for alternative realities, church attendance didn't swell in the 1930s. At the end of last year, though, some evangelical churches said attendance was growing, and many pastors spoke of the need for spiritual affirmations amidst the financial freefall.

I'm watching this story because Americans' religious response to the economy says a lot about the nature of belief, creed and community in this country. Ever since the Puritans landed, Americans have found novel ways to sanctify getting and spending–notwithstanding what the Bible has to say about rich men, camels and the eyes of needles. We've also had an ambivalent attitude toward those in need, never sure whether they're blessed or cursed, saints or sinners.

How churches square biblical teachings, American values and new economic realities will say a lot about the present changes and emergent trends. I'd start by looking into what's being preached and what's being practiced. Where are resources directed and who is deemed worthy of help? What questions are believers asking and what answers are religious leaders offering? Bottom line: How, what and why will individual and corporate religious commitments shift vis-à-vis social concerns, political issues, and moral stands when less really is less—and more is not an option.

I wonder, too, who will be smiling (more or less) when the smoke clears from Gaza. As important as covering who's winning and why, Americans need reporting on how religious communities here—be they Jewish, Muslim or Christian—respond when religious entanglements become politicized and political entanglements become sacralized. I'd like to read a story about American Jews who love Israel but question Israeli policy (and who aren't savaged by other Jews for their opinions). Or what about one on American Christians who view Israel as something other than (1) a pariah state, (2) a mission field, or (3) the backdrop for Armageddon. Or maybe on American Muslims and Jews modeling new relationships?

How to find these stories? I'd look for chinks in religious, philanthropic and communal groups: new ways of looking at longstanding problems, young leaders offering alternative visions, and philanthropists supporting new models. These stories need to be teased out online or pursued on the ground—venues far from the politicos, pundits and PACs that have dominated the discourse for far too long.

And this is just a start; there's much more: whither Rick Warren, Anglican schism, gay unions and—last but hardly least, the Obamas on Sunday mornings? But before succumbing to the pursuit of the obvious, let's not forget the stories beneath, behind, above and below what we're seeing on economic and political fronts. That's what good reporters always do—and covering religion in 2009 will demand nothing less.

Diane Winston

Last December, to acknowledge the holiday season, I recalled writing the dreaded (and frequently dreadful) Christmas story. This time around, I wonder how many more of those we'll see. It's been a bad year for journalists and journalism, but I'm not going to hawk any sad stories–just a top ten list of holiday presents for my fellow hacks. In no particular order:

10. For those in need of a post-holiday buzz:
Cappuccino Menorah

9. When the publisher wants a word with you:
WWBD T-shirt

8. A small token for your favorite editor:
Non-raptured Mousepad

7. For that extra special gift:
Rosary Credit Card

6. For the man in your life:
Joan Doll

5. For the other man in your life:
Bratz Doll

4. When writing the Prop 8 story:
I Heart Mormon Boys T-shirt
(Scroll past the Mormon Beefcake calendar)

3. For multi-media platform multi-tasking:
Shiva Watch

2. For your Christian friends:
Jesus Pops

1. For everyone else:
Intentional Chocolate

Please note: We'll be doing a lot of merry-making (and not so much blogging) until the first week of the new year. Stay tuned!

Call me Scrooge, but I just don't want to see or hear another story about finding the “Christ” in Christmas, plumbing the spiritual upside of the recession or tracking the newly fervent faithful. (I won't link to these stories but you know who you are.) There's nothing wrong with these pieces except they hide the real issues that plague our public life and economic well-being.

Questions and concerns about how and what the news media covers hit me when I saw an article in the Daily News, Egypt's self-styled “only independent newspaper in English,” headlined “Business Beat: 'Mastercard Can Be Very Islamic' Exec Says.”

That is news to Muslims who believe that Sha'riah, Islamic religious law, prohibits participation in business ventures or financial transactions that charge interest. But, since Muslims make up almost one-quarter of the world's population, many financial institutions are trying to figure out how best to serve this population and still observe the spirit of the law. For example, last year a Pakistani bank  issued that country's first Islamic credit cards in consultation with Islamic financial experts.

According to the Daily News, Egypt's large population and “cash-based economy” make it an attractive target for debit products.  But here's the paragraph that caught my eye:

“The banking system in Egypt is relatively shielded from the [current financial] crisis, analysts say, because it has not adopted the complex derivatives at the heart of much bad debt. The sector's loan-to-deposit ratio is generally quite low, meaning most banks have plenty of cash on hand to weather the credit squeeze.”

In other words, Egyptian banks are healthy, and Egyptian citizens aren't drowning in debt—hence, a business opportunity if you're a credit card company looking to “sell” debt in a market where people don't already have a lot of it.

No matter how you see the winter holidays—as a season for buying and spending, spreading good will or sowing on peace on earth—there's a hook for this story. Why is there a financial crisis and what is our role in creating and extending it? Why would a religion set guidelines for a moral economy and do its followers have anything to teach us? And last but not least, WWJD if offered a MasterCard? Now there's a story.  

Diane Winston

J517: Final Investigative Reporting Story
by Brooke-Sidney Gavins

Terrorism. Terrorists. Since the planes flew into the World Trade towers on September 11, 2001, these words have become almost synonymous with Islam and being a Muslim. For many Islamic believers in Southern California, the aftermath of September 11 didn't result in physical harm or even personal attacks, although there were some incidents. Muslims in Southern California express a different pain – the hurt of having their religion constantly associated with terrorism and violence.

From the front page of the daily newspaper to the broadcast channels on television, Southland Muslims said they feel the effects of this post 9/11 characterization of the religion that they care for and believe in deeply. For many, the Islam depicted in the media rarely resembles the one they practice.

“This event had a lot of effects on everybody, especially Muslims,” said Idris Traina, the President of the Board of Directors of the Islamic Center of Hawthorne, California. “The media associated this event with Islam, not a group of people who were terrorists. That's the problem. That's the stigma that happened with 9/11, and it has had a large effect on Muslims here and everywhere.”

Traina, who is also a member of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California estimates there are more than a half a million Muslims in the Southland. He admitted there isn't an official census of the Muslim community, but used the figure given by the Islamic Shura Council that compiles this information.  The Council, which started in 1995, is an umbrella organization of Southern California mosques and Muslims organizations.

The Islamic leaders and Muslims of Southern California expressed a consistent response concerning their present life after September. Essentially, they think their lives are plagued with a persistent misunderstanding of their religion due to Islam's repeated association with terrorism. And many Southern California Muslims think America has developed an anti-Muslim sentiment or Islamophobia, which can be seen in the mainstream media.

“Too many Americans associate Islam with terrorism and extremism,” said Malik El-Amin, a 33-year old African American Muslim. “The American public is much more aware of Islam now than before 9/11, but the awareness derives almost entirely from negative stories, stereotypes and misconceptions.”

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey in 2007 found that “public attitudes about Muslims and Islam have grown more negative in recent years.” Thirty-five percent of Americans polled expressed a negative view of Muslims in 2007, up from 32 percent in 2004 and 29 percent in 2002.

In addition to negative impressions, “twice as many people use negative words as positive words to describe their impressions of the Muslim religion (30% versus 15%),” according to the 2007 Pew Report. The survey also found that “fanatic”, “radical” and “terror” were the most frequently used words to describe Islam.

The American association of the Muslim religion with words like “fanatic” and “terror” serve as examples to what many people now call Islamophobia, which has become a recognized form of intolerance alongside Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism since the 2001 “Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance.”

The Council for American and Islamic Relations (CAIR) defines Islamophobia as “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam.” CAIR is America's largest Islamic civil liberties group and has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”

With regard to Islamophobia, the CAIR organization thinks “this fear and hostility leads to discrimination against Muslims, exclusion of Muslims from mainstream political or social process, stereotyping, the presumption of guilt by association, and finally hate crimes.”

“Now there is often an assumption in political discussions that I sympathize with terrorists,” said Malik El-Amin, a 33-year old Muslim actor in Los Angeles who said he is often stereotyped. “More people assume that my views are intolerant of other perspectives. I run across this assumption much more now than I did before 9/11.”

Muslims in Los Angeles and across the nation think Islamophobia is increasing.
“Islamophobia continues to rise, assisted by a veritable cottage industry of extremists who pontificate with great certainty about the cause-effect relationship between Islam and terrorism, when none exists,” said Parvez Ahmed, the Chairman of the CAIR Board.

CAIR along with the independent media watchdog organization, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), point to a link between Islamophobia and messages presented in mainstream media.

“In the last seven to eight years, America might have gone a little bit backwards on Islamophobia and tolerance towards Islam,” said Steven Randall, a senior analyst at FAIR, who examines the media's role in Islamophobia. “Anti-Muslim bigotry can be seen in mainstream media.”

The 2007 Pew report also found that “the biggest influence on the public's impressions of Muslims, particularly among those who express an unfavorable opinion of Muslims, is what people hear and read in the media.”

And “about a third of the public (32%) – including nearly half of those who offer a negative opinion of Muslims (48%) – say what they have seen or read in the media has had the biggest influence on their views.”

“Islam is under attack to a certain extent by certain members of the media,” said Galal El-Kholy, a board member at the Islamic Center of Southern California, which has an estimated 5,000 Muslim attendees.

Steve Randall, Isabel Macdonald and the members of the Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting organization characterize this attack as the media “smearing” the name of Islam. The organization recently published a six article series about Islamophobia. Their October 2008 issue is called “Smearcasting: How Islamophobes spread fear, bigotry and misinformation.”

Randall, who researched and co-wrote “Smearcasting,” said one of the report's goals was to expose the widespread acceptance of Islamophobia, which now permeates mainstream media.

“Liberal media groups, like NBC and Disney, are sponsoring this hate, which is the reason why we coined the term 'smearcasting,'” said Randall.

The report gives examples of well-known media executives and journalists, like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and Glenn Beck formerly with CNN, giving Islamophobia or anti-Muslim views on major American media outlets.

One of the biggest examples the “Smearcasting” report cites of the media supporting Islamophobia is the September 2008 distribution of 28-million copies of the movie, “Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West (2006)” on DVD to Americans across the country through 70 different media outlets, including dozens of newspapers ranging from the St. Petersburg Times to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

The report also mentions the adoption of the term “Islamofascism” by politicians and the mainstream media.

“The pairing of 'Islam” and 'fascism' has no parallel in characterizations of extremisms tied to other religions, although the defining movements of fascism were linked to Catholicism –indirectly under Benito Mussolini in Italy, explicitly under Francisco Franco in Spain,” said Boston Globe columnist James Carroll.  “Protestant and Catholic terrorists in Northern Ireland, both deserving the label 'fascist,' never had their religions prefixed to that word. Nor have Hindu extremists in India, nor Buddhists extremists in Sri Lanka.”

Southern California Muslims point to the unequal application of the term terrorist to their religion and not to others.

“It's wrong to associate religion with terrorism,” said Traina, an Arab Muslim who moved to America more than 30 years ago from Libya. “People are not calling America's war with Iraq and Afghanistan 'Christian terrorism,' even though Bush used the word 'Crusades' with the Iraq war.”

Bakr El-Tawansy, a member of the Islamic Center of Southern California disagrees with Islam's association with terrorism.

“You can't stick all terrorists with Islam,” said El-Tawansy. “Terrorists have no religion.”
The 2007 Pew report shows that Americans view the Islamic religion as different from other religions. “Fully 70 percent of non-Muslims say that the Muslim religion is very different from their own religion, compared with just 19 percent who say Islam and their own religion have a lot in common,” according to the report. This viewpoint has increased over recent years; only 59 percent viewed Islam as very different from their own religion in 2005.” These numbers are up from 52 percent in November 2001, immediately following the September 11 attacks.

“They think Muslims are bad people, but that's because most people are ignorant and don't educate themselves about the religion and the people that follow it,” said African American Muslim Sabah El-Amin, when asked how she felt Americans viewed members of her faith. “Ignorance is America's curse.” 

Almost 60 percent of Americans surveyed in the CAIR 2005 Poll on American Attitudes Towards Islam and Muslims said they “are not very knowledgeable” or “not at all knowledgeable” about Islam. The survey even found that 10 percent said Muslims believed in a sun god.

The 2007 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey had similar findings. In the individuals polled, 58 percent said they know little or nothing about Islam's practices.

Although the CAIR organization said Islamophobia could lead to an increase in hate crimes against Muslims, Islam practitioners in Southern California have seen a decrease in hate crimes in 2007.  According to the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations, hate crimes against Muslims decreased 73 percent from 2006 to 2007. And hate crimes targeted at people of Middle Eastern descent remained approximately the same, comprising only 1 percent of the total hate crimes in Los Angeles. Similar results were also found in the hate crime reports of Orange County.

Southern California Muslim believers say the crime is media's depiction of Islam.

“The way Islam is described in the main media, when I hear it, I say 'this is not the Islam that I know,'” said Traina, whose mosque in Hawthorne, California serves up to 4,000 Muslims. “The media twists everything to make Islam bad. When they talk about Islam, I feel like by their definition, I can't be a Muslim if I think of how they describe Islam.”

Traina and other Muslims in Southern California think the lack of knowledge about Islam is one of the main reasons for Islamophobia. Several Muslims think education and dialogue is the key to changing the tide of anti-Muslim sentiment.

“It is incumbent upon Muslims to do the bigger share,” said El-Kholy. “We must continue opening up and being accessible to those who want to understand Islam. It is our main responsibility.”

Although she feels there has been a lot of damage done already, Sabah El-Amin still has a glimmer of hope that the American perception of Islam can be improved.

“Ideally, it would have to start with each individual wanting to educate themselves, and for the government and the news to stop spreading fear about Muslims,” she said.

Randall of FAIR in addition to Islamic leaders in Southern California think the media and journalists should educate themselves on Islam and unpack rumors about Muslims.

“The media should come to us and ask what we stand for,” said El-Kholy. “They should be informed. A lot is uninformed and they are doing the public a great disservice.”

Based on his understanding of the growth of Islamophobia, Randall of the FAIR organization doesn't see the tide turning towards a more sympathetic and tolerant view of Islam any time soon.

“I don't think there is a lot of hope at this point because things look pretty grim,” said Randall. “I don't know what more Muslims can do. They are being blamed for so many things.”

However, El-Kholy, a member of the board of directors for the Islamic Center of Southern California remains hopeful.

“I think Muslims can work towards overcoming Islamophobia by having more communication between us and the American people,” said El-Kholy. “We are all Americans and believe in the freedom given here.”

To illustrate his point, El-Kholy presented a story from his days as a lawyer in Cincinnati, Ohio.  He recalled the judge's words on a case he was involved in concerning a first amendment ruling after the court had closed the proceedings to the press.

El-Kholy said, “So the judge says 'democracy dies behind closed doors.' And then a lady in the audience spoke up and said, 'It's not democracy only that dies, religion also can die behind closed doors.”

“I couldn't agree with you more,” El-Kholy said, “So, let all the walls come down.”

Barack Obama, in the first newspaper interview since his November 4 victory, revisited two defining topics of the campaign: race and religion.

Eschewing blogosphere blather as to whether or not his election represents a new day in American race relations, Obama was characteristically pragmatic.
 
“The biggest challenges we face now in improving race relations have to do with the universal concerns of Americans across color lines,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “If we are creating jobs throughout the economy, then, you know, African-Americans and Latinos, who are disproportionately unemployed, they're going to be swept up in that rising tide.

“I think that, more than anything else, is going to improve race relations.”

Undoubtedly, race relations fare better in a strong economy. When all hands are at work, there's no time for finger-pointing and the insidious identity politics that deflects energy from solving systemic problems. So if Obama opted for practicality in addressing race, did he likewise sidestep contentious religious issues?

It's hard to know from the Times story.

Obama told reporters that he would use his full name–Barack Hussein Obama–when he takes the oath of office.

But what does that signify? Here's where decisions entailed in reporting, writing and editing get interesting. In the Los Angeles Times story, immediately after the paragraph noting Obama will use all three names, the president-elect is quoted as saying, “I think we've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular.”

So—that suggests he is signaling that he is proud of (well, at least at peace with) his Muslim heritage, right?

Keep reading. Further down in the article, Obama insists that using “Hussein” is not “a statement.”

“I think the tradition is that they use all three names, and I will follow the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other,” he said. “I'll do what everyone else does.”

Come on, Mr. President-Elect: You can't have it both ways. Are you rebooting America's image or simply following a historical script? Perhaps you were quoted out of context? If so, which statement explains your decision to use “Barack Hussein Obama” at the inauguration? It makes a better story to use the reboot quote after the news. But is the future leader of the free world sending a message, or did pragmatism compel him to follow tradition?

Race and religion may not be determinative political variables. In fact, a new poll indicates neither was key in Obama's election. But they do carry symbolic weight, cultural significance and social relevance. Understanding the difference between these factors and political clout is something many reporters failed to do in the recent election (See: coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright). Let's hope there's better days ahead—beginning with clarity about Barack Hussein Obama's inaugural intentions.

Diane Winston