Everyone from Barack Obama to Glenn Beck to Sarah Palin to Franklin Graham has denounced a Florida pastor’s Quran-burning plans.
This little church planned the burning several weeks ago (as Christianity Today noted back in July), but General David Petraeus, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and now Obama seemed to open a can of worms for journalists to cover something potentially explosive on 9/11. Here’s how The New York Times describes it:
The reaction in the Muslim world, many Islamic experts said, could be as bad—or perhaps even worse—than the reaction in 2006 when a Danish newspaper published a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammad with his turban turning into a bomb. The cartoon ignited huge protests around the Muslim world. The United States stayed largely out of that, with riots and burnings directed toward Danish and European entities. But a burning of the Koran—Islam’s most sacred text—in Florida would unleash that anger directly at the United States, Muslim scholars warned.
Why no specific attribution here? Didn’t the Times just release guidelines on anonymous sources?
In her speech yesterday, Clinton said that she hopes the news media ignore it, drawing laughter from the audience. “We are hoping that the pastor decides not to do this,” she said. “We’re hoping against hope that if he does, it won’t be covered as an act of patriotism.” But Petraeus, Clinton and Obama act as the Pied Piper and journalists seem like the children who will follow them. Are they actually worsening the situation by drawing attention to it? Otherwise, would a 50-member church get such attention? Then again, if they don’t denounce it, do they get blamed later? Catch-22.
When evangelical leaders (National Association of Evangelicals and several other people like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention) denounced the burning several weeks ago, few reporters covered the story. Now you have Angelina Jolie on the trail, so I guess it becomes a story.
If we’re keeping a running list, we can add the Vatican, Stephen Harper, the National Council of Churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, Open Doors, Al Mohler and Rick Warren among many, many others. As Brad suggested earlier, when reporters cover these angles, they should attempt to explains the theological reasons for their opposition.
The Washington Post has a new story on how evangelical pastors are trying to reach out to the Florida pastor. What else are evangelical leaders supposed to be doing right now with a completely independent pastor on the loose? If they don’t address it, it might look like silent affirmation.
Some religious leaders said they fear that Jones won’t listen to strangers, or they are reluctant to fuel something that they hope will go away.
Others said the fact that evangelical leaders aren’t taking more action reflects a distant and sometimes tense relationship with Muslims and the fact that many evangelicals are skeptical of Islam.
Why the anonymous, unattributed references here?
Rachel Zoll of The Associated Press provides a helpful explainer article to help people understand that this Florida church is on the “fringe of U.S. Christian life.”
Dove’s religious beliefs are spelled out in a comparatively brief statement of faith on its website.
The church frequently mentions “apostolic leadership” and “apostolic anointing,” terms from Pentecostalism, which teaches that the Holy Spirit can manifest itself today through speaking in tongues, healing and other miracles. But Jones has no apparent ties with any major groups or thinkers in Pentecostalism, according to Vinson Synon, dean emeritus of Regent University’s School of Divinity, who has studied Pentecostals for decades.
Some people still expect further denunciations from other Christians. Stephen Prothero wrote at CNN’s religion blog that he’s still waiting for Newt Gingrich to make a statement on the burning. This raises that never-ending question of who should and shouldn’t denounce people on the fringe of religious groups. It’s the perennial question when Fred Phelps coverage pops up, and you could extend the analogy to other religious groups. It can make everyone involved a little awkward.
Unlike Prothero, Denny Burk, a New Testament professor at Boyce College, says he feels no urge to comment on the plans.
Why comment on a crackpot pastor’s publicity stunt that in no way represents how American Christians feel, much less how Americans in general feel? Nevertheless, the media has been playing this story as if Koran-burning were an evangelical pastime.
So is the media overplaying this? Kelly McBride offers some tips at Poynter for coverage. Here are her suggestions (she fleshes them out in her column).
Don’t go.
Give your audience what it needs to understand the big picture.
Be judicious about the material you publish, especially images.
Take a stand.
Cover the reaction, not the fanatic.
Talk about how you will react to confrontations ahead of time.
Help your audience understand why this is hate speech, not a simple protest.
How much of this is directed reporting, though? It deals with that ever-present journalistic consideration: the outcome of coverage. So the questions for journalists remain: How much coverage does this deserve? What should they do on 9/11?
Second image used with permission from Nick Sementelli of Faith in Public Life. This image has been updated.
 | Posted at 11:42 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (27) |
September 9, 2010, at 12:15 pm
Quick updates: Bob Smietana reports that another pastor in Tennessee is planning a similar event: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100909/NEWS01/9090347/Springfield+minister+plans+to+burn+copy+of+Quran++too
From the AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_as/quran_burning_reaction
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 12:25 pm
We’ve got a pastor here in TN who is going to burn a Quran as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 12:28 pm
Thanks, Bob. Saw that right after I published.
I also saw this piece by Michael Calderone after I published on how many outlets are covering: the burning was on the front page of more than 50 U.S. newspapers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100909/pl_yblog_upshot/plan-to-burn-qurans-ignites-media-frenzy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 12:46 pm
“General David Petraeus, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and now Obama seemed to open a can of worms for journalists to cover something potentially explosive on 9/11.”
The can of worms was already open. The link I provided a link in the previous blog that included August statements from a United Methodist pastor in the same city. He said the burning had already been reported in international news. He also said it would be good if the media would focus more on their event rather than the burning.
I saw Terry Jones on the cable shows several weeks ago. The Glenn Beck rally got all the attention for the last couple weeks.
I think the Petraeus, Clinton, Obama, etc statements were an attempt to convey the governments disapproval. To remain silent would have conveyed approval. The media would have continued excessive coverage regardless of what the government officials said, except the would have been also focusing on why Obama had remained silent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 1:03 pm
I’ve been surveying the ‘pre-reactions’, and am concerned about not finding any comprehensive picture of what the world’s Christian leaders are saying about this.
If all hell breaks loose, and it almost certainly will if the books are burned, it will be Christians who get it in the neck, some perhaps literally.
Now I seriously doubt that the ‘usual suspects’ are going to be moved one way or the other by such reporting, but I am concerned that the media at least have an obligation to
put the case for what I assume is the vast majority of Christian leaders finding this stunt repugnant and morally offensive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 1:12 pm
I’ll go further than albion. I’ve been very curious about how the media in the Islamic world is covering this. I was really both heartened and amazed by al Jaeera’s coverage. I learned things from reading this story that I had not read in the American media. I’d really like someone to do more of a survey of the press, especially Arabic press/TV coverage.
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 1:20 pm
I daresay the media were following David Petraeus more than Angelina Jolie in covering this. And that Petraeus was doing more than expressing the government’s disapproval; he is realistically concerned that he could lose lives among his troops over this.
In the greater scheme of things it doesn’t matter if the MSM cover this or not. It will get out over the Internet if only by cell phone video, and will go around the world. Danish cartoon redux, only with American interests in the cross hairs. Thanks a lot, Reverend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 1:27 pm
Jerry, we’re probably not done yet. I was focused on some U.S. coverage after Obama, Clinton and Petreus’s remarks, but feel free to send us more tips on international coverage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 1:28 pm
From Romenesko: ‘The AP will not distribute images or audio that specifically show Qurans being burned’ http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=190355
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 1:36 pm
Yesterday, under another post involving the Quran-burning — I pasted part of an e-mail that the Council on American Islamic Relations sent to journalists all over the world, on how to cover this story. The gist of it was to point out that this little group in Gainesville is in no way representative of American Christians. I don’t have time to dig up the link now, but I’m sure its on their Web site. Journalists in Muslim-majority countries all over the world get CAIR’s e-mails.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 1:47 pm
Thanks. This is why I found the repeated emphasis on the tiny size of the Florida church kind of besides-the-point: I may have missed something but I hadn’t come across anyone in the MSM who tried to depict them as somehow typical of Christianity.
I also suspect that all the condemnation by other Christians is exactly what folks like this are after. It’s proof of their fidelity and, more importantly, the apostasy of the rest of the Christian world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 1:51 pm
One more thing: I’m fairly confident that there aren’t 18 million American Muslims, as the graphic indicates. Estimates I’ve encountered put the number at between 2.5 and 3.5 million.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 2:02 pm
We seem to be terrified of the Muslim reaction to this minor character. That is the really story — how terrified we all must be to put so much energy into appeasing Muslim sensibilities.
We seem to agree the guy is trivial and that this is his right of free expression. The local ACLU is representing two of his parishioners over their children wearing “Islam is of the Devil” t-shirts to school last year. So why aren’t our leaders using this as a teachable moment about America and free speech?
Because we think (know?) Muslims are violent and irrational and will do us harm over this trivial stunt. Isn’t that the real story.
Wouldn’t thinking Muslims will commit acts of violence over a trivial free speech issue be Islamophobia? But who has generated this fear? Is it irrational?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 2:27 pm
Sarah, I also should say that I absolutely loved the graphic image that shows the relationship between the vast majority and the tiny minorities that are doing their best to make our lives hell. I really wish that were on page 1 of every newspaper and on every TV news show.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 3:08 pm
Ann, thanks for adding that. Roberto, I pulled the graph from someone else, but do you have any more info on that? I might be able to update it. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 4:00 pm
That is the really story — how terrified we all must be to put so much energy into appeasing Muslim sensibilities.
That’s sort of it, isn’t it. I mean, just a few weeks ago, media folks, politicians, religious leaders, all were saying that anyone linking Islam to violence (apart from the allowed reference to terrorism) was simply acting out of bigotry and/or ignorance. Yet I heard on the news today that the state department is issuing warnings to embassies across the Islamic world. Reminds me of the parable Jesus told about the two sons, one who says he will do the father’s will but doesn’t. And one who says he won’t but ultimately does.
For weeks, we heard almost anyone who linked 9/11-Islam-Violence in any way was an Islamaphobic bigot. That seemed to be the base assumption in the coverage of the GZM debate. Now, however, people aren’t saying Islam=violence, but they sure as heck are acting as if it does. Which, I wonder, speaks louder? What do we really believe? And what do we merely feel pressured to say we believe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 4:58 pm
For starters, his bank has demanded that he immediately repay the church’s mortgage balance, and his insurance company cancelled the church’s policy. Furthermore, the local authorities, citing strict fire codes, rejected twice his application to burn the holy book
As a child of the post-60s, when such tactics were always - always - compared to McCarthy, this doesn’t comfort me. I wonder how the media - which always comes down on the side of free speech - will cover this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 5:26 pm
Well, I Googled it and that was the range that came up. CAIR and other groups put the number at 6-7 million but no one who has studied the question thinks that is right. Here’s a link to a Daniel Pipes column on the subject: Pipes.
Pipes is hardly a disinterested scholar but he’s quoting people who are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 5:29 pm
Here’s another math lesson I would like the media to help me with. Again, it’s been pretty clear that Islamaphobia is a major concern in America, what with the rise in violence against American Muslims and all. And according to a CNN round table last night, this sort of thing (the book burning) is just one more case of a long history of American intolerance of minorities (just like we treated Catholics, Jews, and other immigrants). Now, it hit me. This sort of thing - a 50 member congregation - means all this: traditional American bigotry, modern American bigotry, basically American bigotry. Why is that? Why is that the narrative? That 50 some member congregation makes about .00000016% (I had to figure that by hand, since the number was so small it presented an error on my calculator) of the American population. Yet a pew research survey found that a whopping 78% of the American Muslim population rejects suicide attacks against innocent people. About 4-5 million Muslims live in America (the estimates are from 1.5 million to 7 million, so let’s take an average). That would be, if my math is worth a darn, about 1.1 million American Muslims who actually do support suicide attacks and terrorism - at least some of the time. Which is actually a little high compared to overall studies, since the AP reported on a study released a few weeks ago that found support in the Muslim world for terrorism was on the decline, down to just below 10 percent (based on the graph numbers, that would be around 150 million Muslims who support terrorism). Now, all this is to ask, would someone please tell me why that just goes to show us how peaceful Islam is, while the 50 member church being condemned by just about everyone in America goes to show how much Islamaphobia and bigotry are a problem in America? That’s the narrative I’m catching from the media. Would a journalist like to step up and explain how math is studied in journalism schools across the world to arrive at this? I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying my old fashioned way of doing math just isn’t arriving at the same numbers. Or the same conclusions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 8:04 pm
sorry but that VENN diagram is highly inaccurate. Even CAIR estimates that there are only about 7 million Muslim Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 8:57 pm
Adherents.com puts the county at 2.8 million.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_islam_usa.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10, 2010, at 4:41 am
Dave G.,
Maybe the perceived wisdom about McCarthy is what is wrong?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10, 2010, at 4:46 am
Dave G. (#19),
because traditional American anything is perceived bad by CNN and the like.
And why are these 50 people are called “radical” Christians? Doesn’t that imply that Christianity is at the core about book burning and hating Islam?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11, 2010, at 12:41 am
Most Evangelicals are not Pentecostals, so their potential to change the situation can be over-stated.
Also, since national Evangelical leaders were denouncing this weeks ago, to call it ambivalence towards Muslims is to miss the point.
Anyway, based on the graph it almost seems there is an attempt to claim that murdering thousands of people is the same as burning a book. At least to me, this is a poor waying of the value of life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11, 2010, at 9:20 am
I remain unconvinced this is “hate speech” and “not a protest”. I have not even seen an attempt to explain this.
Is burning a flag hate speech? Is burning the Book of Mormon at the entrance of a Mormon Church hate speech?
Wonderful point. That’s what I’ve been getting at. The coverage, the assumptions, the terms have all changed. Suddenly, he’s the baddie. Suddenly, this is unacceptable, a violation of what it is to be an American (dare I say, unAmerican). When and where did all this happen. And why now? Why is the Muslim world reacting now. There were two cases of Koran burnings already, and no one cared. No protests, no death to America chants, no warnings from our military. Yet I knew they happened. It was discussed all over the Internet. Why did no one care then, and now they do - not just in the America/Western media, but the Islamic world as well. All questions I would like answered, for what it’s worth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 11, 2010, at 11:19 am
Regarding the demographics, as I recall, the 18-million Muslims in America figure was widely circulated in the weeks following the 9/11 attack. It was de-bunked within a couple of months as being based on the faulty assumption that immigrants from Muslim countries were mostly Muslims. Actually those immigrant families were mostly non-Muslims fleeing the persecutions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 16, 2010, at 5:31 pm
Responding to some of you about the graph, I have updated the graph from Faith and Public Life. Thanks for your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0