The Media Jihad On Christianity

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Mar 25, 2013.

  1. pspr

    pspr

    In November 2001, just two months after the horrific terror attack of 9/11, the Washington Post posted a video profile of a local imam who complained about the “association of Islam and terrorism.” The Post followed with a question-and-answer session with the imam on its website.

    That imam was Anwar al-Awlaki, a man considered so dangerous that just a few years later President Barack Obama ordered him shot on sight. Al-Awlaki was killed by U.S. forces using a drone-fired Hellfire missile in September 2011. His 16-year-old son Abdulrahman was killed in a separate drone attack two weeks later.

    Al-Awlaki is the perfect metaphor for media coverage of Islam in the United States. American journalists bend over backward to treat Muslims in a positive way, even to ludicrous extremes. As a result, terrorists are often called “militants”—even when they are on U.S. government terror watch lists. And any open criticism of radical Islam has typically been treated as “Islamophobia."

    In a series of high-profile incidents, Islam has been depicted as the underdog facing conservative “extreme haters.” That was the case whether it was the Ground Zero Mosque, the so-called anti-Islam YouTube video, ads in subways or anything to do with Israel.

    Contrast that with media coverage of Christianity and the result is like day and night.

    TheBlaze Magazine: Media Jihad American Journalists Embrace Islam and Assault Christianity Scandals in the Christian community have long been reported with vigor and zeal, and blame is firmly placed on faith groups like the Catholic Church. TV shows such as ABC’s now-cancelled network comedy-drama “GCB” (an abbreviation for “Good Christian Bitches”) and syndicated talk go out of their way to mock the faithful. And news outlets highlight “Christian” criminals whenever possible—remember how quick they were to blame a Norway mass shooting on a “Christian extremist.”

    Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, said the problem with journalists’ coverage of radical Islam is that “mostly they don’t” cover the issues. And when they do cover them, they spin the result. “It’s a fictitious depiction of the narrative that is served up primarily by Islamists who are actively engaged in disinforming and subverting us from within.”

    Erick Erickson, editor-in-chief of RedState.com, blamed the standard media worldview as the leading culprit in the poor coverage. Journalists have “one narrative over all others. It is victim versus victimizer, and the media like Christians as victimizers.” But it’s not just an anti-Christian bias that’s to blame, he explained, the literal danger posed by radical Muslims plays a major role in reporter reluctance to cover the downsides of Islam: “They are scared to death of Islam. First Amendment be damned, they want to live.”

    [...]

    ONLY THE BEGINNING

    Journalists using their status to push an agenda is nothing new. But they do more than that today. The media have been depicting Islam as a modern David facing off against the Christian Goliath. David, predictably, gets good press no matter how often radical Islamists get arrested for terror plots or riot around the world over cartoons or a YouTube video.

    TheBlaze Magazine: Media Jihad American Journalists Embrace Islam and Assault Christianity Christians and conservatives, on the other hand, get the exact opposite treatment. They have become the stock villains for both news and entertainment media. Every critic of Christianity—especially those in the gay community—gets treated like a hero. The institutions themselves get derided as “dictatorial” or worse for not bowing to a liberal agenda. And the faithful are forever the butt of jokes and derision—all without uproar and threats of violence from the victims of the abuse.

    The Center for Security Policy’s Gaffney warned that the coverage could get worse in reaction to pushback from Islamic groups. The recent documentary “Silent Conquest” cautioned that there is an “ominous pattern” of not being able to offend Islam. Muslim nations have been working with the United Nations to institute laws against “blasphemy.”

    In September, President Obama argued for just that result. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” he told the United Nations.

    Apparently, the American media were listening.


    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...lists-embrace-islam-and-assault-christianity/
     
  2. This is because, in the mind of the leftist media elite, there is no difference between modern day Christianity and radical Islam. They are however willing to excuse the violence of radical Islam while condemning everything Christian.
     
  3. False. Al Qaeda today are merely the Crusaders of yesterday. Both are doomed to fail.
     
  4. jem

    jem

    you really bought into the the rewriting of history.

    Do you think Islam spread across Christian lands via blogs and MSNBC?

    And it was the mean old Crusaders who were attacking poor innocent islamists?
     
  5. Are you now openly campaigning to go on ignore? I cut you slack before, but many more idiotic posts like this and you will join your pals.

    The reason your post is idiotic is the Crusaders were seeking to liberate traditional Christian and Jewish lands from muslim occupiers.

    Osama claimed the impetus for al qaeda was the introduction of "infidel", ie non-muslim, troops into Saudi Arabia to defend it from Iraq and to use it as a base to liberate Kuwait. Those troops however were there not as invaders but at the express invitation of the Saudi authorities, who are also the official guardians of islamic holy sites.

    Of course, al qaeda has followed the historic islamic path of violent occupation and oppression of a succession of countries. Bush made a terrible mistake when he absolved islam and tried to style our struggle as the so-called war on terror. We are actually engaged in a war against islmaic expansionism, but they are the only ones willing to admit it.