Sometimes very little can tell you a lot. Here’s Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News, updating viewers on protests that are linked to that famous anti-Islamic video:
Overseas tonight, new and deadly retribution from that amateur Internet film that’s enraged much of the Muslim world.
The “Muslim world” is, well, enormous–somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 billion people. A good question that doesn’t get asked enough: How many Muslims are out protesting this video anyway? A helpful analysis comes from Dan Murphy at the Christian Science Monitor (“Is the Islamopocalypse Really Upon Us?,” 9/17/12). He writes:
While sensational headlines have played up the story, the cumulative total of protesters so far in about 30 countries appears well under 100,000. At Tahrir Square on Friday, wide angle overhead shots (rather than the tight, ground shots favored by TV news producers) showed a sparse group reminiscent of Mubarak-era political protests (when people ran a major risk of going to jail for simply shouting slogans) and not the hundreds of thousands that have routinely come out to protest against their own government in the past year-and-a-half.
Murphy notes that the protests in Jakarta were tiny compared to the massive showing in 1998 that helped topple Indonesian dictator (and U.S. ally) Suharto. Protests in Egypt are tiny compared to the waves of protest we have seen over the past year.
And this does not even begin to consider the very sensible argument that some of these protests have very little to do with some hateful YouTube video.
The real question to ask is why U.S. corporate media decide to pay more attention to some protests than others. Tens of thousands of Americans protesting the Iraq War before it started? That was hardly news at all. But Tea Party gatherings of seemingly any size at all have been treated as big news. It would have been bizarre for journalists to have drawn sweeping conclusions about the prevailing political sentiment in the United States based on those gatherings, but implying–or outright stating–that the “Muslim world” is in a violent frenzy is acceptable.
This is a simple reminder that media choose to cover stories, and choose the ways in which they cover them. In so doing, they help form the impression that we have about the world we live in. As has been often noted, local TV news focuses so much on violent crime that you’d think it’s dangerous to walk out your front door. And now, not the first time, Muslims the world over are in a violent rage about a religious insult.
It’s not that people don’t learn anything from watching television; they learn a lot. And what they learn is often completely wrong, and dangerous.
You have to qualify “enraged”, don’t you?
I imagine most every Muslim – and a whole helluva lot of non-Muslims – who is aware of this bile is angered by it.
But the corpress frame is “Anger = Protest = Violence = Death”, which delegitimizes righteous anger and action.
So whether it’s fifty or fifty thousand, the stigma sticks.
And “the Muslim world” gets stuck with the consequences.
I’m curious as well as to why some protests get massive coverage and others are ignored. Most Americans had no idea that 300,000 people earlier this year were in the streets protesting a tuition increase and an unfair anti-protest law in Montreal, just over the border.
I saw a photograph years ago of JFK’s casket passing by crowds of people lining the street. There was a television in a store window on the street showing the passing of the casket and, most amazingly, many people in the photograph were watching the television instead of the live historic scene passing behind their backs.
For the cognitive captives of the electronic media, if it didn’t happen on television, it didn’t happen at all. Television validates, and most of what happens in the world still happens in the blind spot of the media.
It may be worth saying that there are a great deal of thinking people who just ignore anything said in mainstream news with the words “muslim” or “war on terror”. Thanks.
Politics define what is “news” in the CMSM not its real import. Also what makes them money also gets primary coverage.
Fair I do hope you are right.That this is all a media creation using fish eye lenses.That really all is well in the middle east.Because from what we have seen on all our news services both right and left……. is people who seem bat shit crazy.
Personally I believe this whole thing was a Karl Rove type campaign maneuver gone wrong trying to put Obama in the same position as Jimmy Carter during the hostage crisis. Some people think the Iranian Hostage Crisis was a godsend for the election in 1980. All this seemed like a possibility only after listening to events play out on the BBC the days it happened. The BBC commentators, unlike they’re big media U.S. counterparts, were somewhat confused by events and kept referring to the small crowds of protesters as being mostly made up of soccer fans. And lots of Regional commentators as well, clarifying and differentiating the “protests” from past protests. Then in Libya there was clearly a second focused armed attack as well as the precision mortar attack on the safe house. When you listened to the bizarre timeline for the Ambassador it truly sounded like a kidnapping plot gone wrong, especially when you attend to who had his body when, for how long and who dropped it off at the airport. Apparently the Ambassador died of carbon monoxide poisoning which sounds like he could of easily died after spending a long time in the trunk of a car versus smoke inhalation which is somewhat different. Then there’s the right wing petty criminal movie maker and his bizarre right wing friends in LA, very G. Gordon Liddyish. And then you have one of Romney’s statements coming out before the event even happened and then when Romney spoke to reporters and made the critique about the handling of events, he did so in a gleeful manner as noted by the BBC commentators both because Romney critiqued the events before the bulk of his statement about the events and the happy manner in which he made the critique. This ain’t me, this is the BBC. The whole time the BBC commentators sounded confused and befuddled by the non-sensicallity of the course of events, reactions and outcomes. I don’t know, I can imagine people get creative when they have 2 billion dollars to spend on a floundering campaign. Makes more sense then people being outraged by a you tube video. Especially if you’ve seen “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”(Egyptian state TV), “Valley of the Wolf: Iraq” or the plentiful hateful racist bigoted anti-semetic, anti everything political cartoons in Mideast media. The Mideast has there own “cartoons” too. Just saying.
It is not that only Muslims in Muslim world had risen in protest against the blesphemic video but the non Muslims residing in Muslim world also held protest demonstrations. The truth is that every religion and its prophets/autars are respected and sacred in whole world. For instance when any Muslim takes name of Christ he says Salam on him too so why every time the prophet of Islam (PBUH) is deserated every time. Such videos or films can cause war like situation in whole world as such we must avoid these things. The quantity of protesters was more than 500,000 in Pakistan alone on 21 Sept. as protest demonstrations were held in more than 500 towns/cities though at end it turned violent due to inefficiency of police.
Abbas no you have it absolutely 100% wrong.Such things should never cause war or death.A jewish friend of mine showed me a cartoon making the rounds.It has buddah,Jesus,and Moses having sex with a blue elephant.On top of it is a caption that reads “If you just read this cartoon notice anything?……..No one died”We all laughed and went on with our day.That sir is sanity.Our Secretary of state just went to broadway to see Book of mormon.A spoof on mormonism.Mormons are not killing anyone.Do you think we will ever see book of Islam on broadway?If you cant see the simple fact that the radical Islamists hi jacked and turned Islam into a threatening power ,with no moderating influences like freedom of thought…then I am at a loss.Yesterday the head of pakistan asked for the WORLD to outlaw blaspheme.Well sir what is blaspheme?A girl showing her face?We in this country have a funny little thing called freedom of speech.As long as no threat is given” that freedom shall not be infringed upon”.We have the freedom to call the president a bum or anything else we want.We can call the Pope a child molester(stupid of course) or any other damn name we want to call him.We can call jesus or moses pigs.No body cares.Or if they do they understand it is just one mans opinion.When did one mans opinion become such a threat to the prophet Mohamed and Islam?A dumb ass movie on the net by an Egyptian living in America(funded by his Egyptian friends)sets these people to lighting their hair on fire,and chewing the carpet as they froth at the mouth.Acting like savages.Attacking anything that moves.This is an example to other muslims of how to live the prophet Mohamed’s words of peace?They should all go home and pray that those evil men who have bastardized their faith and bathed it in blood should be brought to swift justice.The man who organized the attack that killed the ambassador was a Gittmo detainee.Hope we get this mad dog back into a cage where he always belonged.
C’mon there’s no way you know that the “man” who organized the attack is a gitmo” detainee. Or who funded the movie!
Our intelligence agencies in conjunction with their Libyan counterparts have a list of people they are seeking, and information on who was running this attack.He was a Gitmo detainee at one time is what they are reporting at this time.And they do have his name.
As far as the movie- the funding did come from Egypt.That is also the latest report.And the man is an American Egyptian.(Also a Dem if you care).Now what does that mean to me?Nothing.I could care if he were a jew or a Martian.My point is the idiocy.The absolute idiocy of attacking a countries embassy that has NOTHING to do with this cheap ass piece of shit.I swear to Christ I would love to see these crazy animals just walk into the dessert and blow off their suicide vests to show their displeasure with Chestnuts.
Michael – As usual your comments boggle the mind. You always seem to have exceptionally detailed information that no one else has read or heard. Just amazing. It even rivals your amazing logic. I’ve heard several things as well. Like so and so was involved and funded the absurd film. The truth is we’ll never really know. Clearly, the people in the film were lied to as witnessed by the actress who tried to sue the film makers for lying to her about the purpose and even the plot of the film.
None of this negates the fact that the US Press, not to mention that of some foreign countries, seem to get a real kick out of making things in the Middle East look worse than they actually are, albeit they are pretty bad in many respects. I think it is called truth stretched to the max and embellished by the propaganda machines.
Elizabeth I was not there ,and I don’t know if the information is correct.Just that..this is the latest information.That and that the man is a coptic christian.A very put upon segment within Egypt.And of course we will know exactly who did the film.This is not rocket science.Word is he has been told to lay low for his own safety by the authorities.As far as the middle east I would NOT say the press is playing UP the problems there.I would say they are playing them down.Im still hoping they all blow themselves up to protest……..Watercress sandwiches and rockem sockem robots.
More lying–really, why? Do you need to prove something to yourself? Everyone who visits this site knows your game. And for everyone’s information, the latest news is it was indeed a bona fide terrorist strike–the embassy attack was planned in advance. It makes the Obama administration look better if a bunch of screeching, irrational Muslims went crazy over a video rather than the disturbing truth of a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. The ambassador’s diary was recovered and in it he expresses his fear about an attack. FAIR’s analysis still stands here; it serves the status quo that Muslims are irrational and hate our “freedoms” (of, in this case, expression). That people in that part of the world might be enraged about something other than a video is down-played, to say the least. (See Glenn Greenwald’s work over at the Guardian for more on this.) Perhaps our President will be more forth-coming about all this after the election, but right now, it’s time to lecture those crazy Muslims about democracy once again.
I’m testing the italics one, two, three.
Dog-gone it! It must be some kind of HTML bug in the page; any pros out there know what could be causing it? I love italics, but I can’t use them until this gets fixed.
Tim dont know if your speaking to me.Using the word “liar” makes me think you are since that is what you believe of me or anyone else on the right.By the way I also believe it was a terrorist attack.Preplanned.In Libya the movie was just a coincidence.I think the insanity over the movie speaks for itself of course.We have a part of the world over there where insanity may not run…..but it sure as hell gallops.
This is now the second time this year that the liberal Newsweek ran an Ayan Hirsi Islamophobic cover story.
Any remaining doubt that the Left is as anti-Muslim as the Right should be laid to rest now.
Newsweek is “liberal”?????? what planet are you on? Listen we all know just about any of the “protesters” would happily accept a visa and a plane ticket to come live in the old USA. Think about what that means. Doesn’t mean anything other than they’d love to come here and work and live.