The demise of objective reporting

"Our ignorance of Islamic culture and thinking persists years after 9/11 because the American media simply do not want to know. The American media continue to try to force the world and its news into their own mold of what they wish it to be. Objective reporting of facts is dead."

– Doug Wead, historian, New York Times best-selling author and former special assistant to U.S. President George H. W. Bush.

Not to belabor many salient points made here last week by HCP columnist Gary Lewis, but it needs repeating: This nation's liberal media are a collective disgrace.

Presidential historian Doug Wead is correct. Objective reporting of facts is dead, at least by the nation's mainstream media.

In the immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon terrorists' attacks (yes, plural, in both cases), many speculated that the bombings may have been related to Patriots Day or the April 15 tax filing deadline. The suggestion being that this horrific massacre might be – in some sad, sadistic way – connected to the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party.

More than one person suggested as much to me. David Axelrod, a political adviser to Presidents Clinton and Obama, suggested it to the entire world.

Where Lewis was salient, Axelrod was, at a minimum, salacious.

My initial response to the Boston attacks was this: Let's allow the law enforcement authorities to sort it out before leaping to any hasty – and incorrect – conclusions.

Of course, as P.J. O'Rourke put it: I'm not a liberal (unlike Axelrod), so I'm not an expert on things I know nothing about.

Following days of speculation and an intense manhunt, we have learned that American Chechen nationals Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings.

In other words, this was not a TEA Party act of terror. It was, much like 70 other acts of terror committed against the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001, an act of terror with ties to radical Islam.

By the way, the term "Islamist" was first added to The Associated Press Stylebook in 2012.

The definition initially read: "Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi."

(A "jihadi," by definition, is a person involved in a jihad; an Islamic holy war undertaken by Muslims against unbelievers.)

The AP, in its infinite wisdom, now thinks its original usage was a bit too insensitive.

Earlier this year, the AP redefined its acceptable use of the word "Islamist" as follows: "An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam."

The AP also added this rule of usage: "Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists."

The AP is a collective joke, by the way.

Mr. Wead offers this perspective on today's mainstream media: "Wars in Africa are reported, with numbers of those killed, while any explanation for what motivates the killers, including any ties to Islam or the victims’ ties to Christianity, is censored. It is as if the news media are embarrassed by the whole idea of Islamic radicalism and refuse to recognize that it exists.

"This collapse of journalism in America sometimes leaves giant holes in our understanding of events."

Editor Glen Roberts (reportedly a pseudonym) manages a website, www.thereligionofpeace.com, which tracks Muslim-related attacks against America.

By his count, 70 Muslim-related terrorist attacks have left 3,101 dead, including a March 24, 2013 shooting in Ashtabula, Ohio.

In the Monday, April 22 edition of the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald, a headline reads: "Chechnya's unrest casts long shadows."

Carol Williams reports – in cooperation with The New York Times: "A massive Russian crackdown on Chechnya's bid for independence in the 1990s and the installation of loyal leaders there pushed the Caucasus Muslim enclave from the headlines years ago. But resentment has festered and, at times, bled into the global holy war being waged by Islamic militants.

"While it is unclear what link, if any, events in Chechnya have to do with the attack on the Boston Marathon, blamed on Chechen emigre brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the unhealed wounds of the Chechen conflict, which raged for five years after an uprising in 1994, serve as a reminder that religious and ethnic tensions can spill across borders."

"Tolerance is a good thing, but not when we allow it to be used cynically against us by those who have no use for it once they obtain power," Roberts writes. "We need to back away from the altar of political correctness and throw out our preconceptions. We need to rediscover critical thinking. The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace and it is not like other religion. Sometimes, the truth isn't comfortable. Sometimes the truth offends. But it is far better that we offend others than lose our own freedom."

Three years ago, a Seattle newspaper (Seattle Weekly) editorial cartoonist lost her freedom, after Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Islamic cleric, declared Norris a target for execution.

Norris was "guilty and condemned to death" due to her parody of a "South Park" parody.

(Apparently, "parody" is a concept not fully understood nor ever accepted by the likes of guys named Anwar al-Awlaki.)

According to writer Pete Jackson (which may or may not be his real name), Norris (which used to be her real name) "launched a facetious protest that proclaimed May 20 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.' The faux sponsor's Twain-esque name? 'Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor.'

"Sadly, at least among a select class of extremists, irreverence of the cartooning sort is a big no-no. And in the 21st century, satire can get you killed."

Jackson (or was it Johnson?) continues: "Politically and ethically, the Norris question is as clear as it gets. 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,' reads Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By any measure, Anwar al-Awlaki's fatwa does violence to free speech, religious pluralism, and the sanity of Muslim Americans who are forced to explain and disavow a maniac (for the record, most fatwas are religious legalisms that don't call the faithful to race out and murder writers and artists). …

"Ironically, there's nothing more illiberal for Seattle liberals (like me) than the cloistered world of al-Awlaki," Jackson said. "Think of the death penalty or women's rights or freedom of the press or gay marriage. Are we like cultural relativists and anti-universalists fearful that we might indirectly arouse anti-Muslim sentiment?"

Yes, Pete, you are.

As National Review wrote in its Oct. 18, 2010 edition: "Norris quickly disavowed the exhibition, but that did not stop the threats of murder. Worse, it was the FBI – a top pitchman for government's 'religion of peace' narrative – that advised her to 'go ghost' because she could not be protected. (And) far from condemnation, journalists and writers have gone silent.

"'There is no more Molly,' the Seattle Weekly said.

"If this pattern continues, at some point there will be no more freedom of speech, either."

Consider: Newspaper editorial cartoonists can and have lampooned everything from popes to presidents to Jesus Christ himself, without fear of a fatwa.

But make a sarcastic comment about Mohammed and all bets are off.

Just ask Salman Rushdie.

So, we're left with this question for the liberal mainstream media: How many more Americans will become victims of terrorist attacks before you will accurately report on the most usual perpetrators?

Here's a clue. They're not always who you wish them to be.

Rory Ryan (not his real name) is publisher of The Highland County Press.