I watched a lot of news yesterday and listened to a lot of radio today, and here is what I can conclude: NPR and MSNBC do a lot more to propagate a negative image of Muslims than Fox News. It got to the point where I had to switch off NPR because I realized that I was starting to experience feelings that I didn’t experience before listening and those feelings were scaring me. It’s easy to rant about Trump and Fox News but nobody wants to look at how they are contributing to a shared narrative of hatred.
The MSNBC and NPR shows I’m talking about featured maybe a couple dozen Muslims who were saying the same thing: they are angry with Obama’s speech because “he wouldn’t ask any other community what he asked ours. Why are we expected to when nobody else is.” The words “why not any other community” were repeated, in a drone-like manner, by the majority of the speakers who sounded as if they were reading from a script. Nobody said ANYTHING that would depart from the script.
Forget about the content of the message and think about the format. What message does one get from observing these interviewees? Obviously, that all Muslims are the same and very much given to groupthink. The idea that 2 billion Muslims can’t all be the same gets overshadowed by the spectacle of such totalitarian unanimity. Fox News, at least, featured different Muslims who said different things.
As for the “why did Obama single out our community” message, it transmits the image of Muslims as oblivious, entitled, and dishonest. I mean, at this point in time, Obama is your biggest enemy? Really? If after Theo Van Gogh, 9/11, London subway, Atocha, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, San Bernardino, etc Obama said, “Buddhists should start looking carefully at their own communities, trying to eradicate the message of hate,” it would be understandable if Buddhists were puzzled. But for Muslims to ask, “Why is our community singled out?” is not a thing that provokes huge respect. Because it’s not happening in any other community, that’s why!
I have no doubt that it would take NPR, MSNBC and the New York Times under 10 minutes to find Muslims who have something else to say and an interesting analysis to provide. But they are not even trying because, I believe, there is confirmation bias at play here.
I have a growing suspicion that a lot of outrage directed at Trump is not really about Trump. I think that many people are scared of their inner Trump and need to repudiate him loudly to distance themselves from these nasty feelings. But the nasty feelings are slowly winning out.
It’s not just Trump, folks. He sprouted in a ground that had already been fertilized and prepared in a million insidious and, I’m sure, mostly unconscious ways. I believe that we all made this happen and now we should all start undoing the damage. And yelping self-righteous about Trump The Fascist is not nearly enough.
Clarissa's Blog 
Christians need to repudiate people like Dylan Roof (if I remember his name correctly.) I have heard very few do so. I think all Christians are responsible for the behaviour of Christians who shoot people in churches, Planned Parenthood clinics, etc.
It is indeed an outrage that Muslims are singled out like this. In this country, Christians carry out far more violent attacks than do Muslims
LikeLike
I thought we were going to have a serious discussion. But if that’s too hard, I don’t mind switching to discussing the weather. Even that will be less boring than this narrative you are advancing.
LikeLike
I am very serious. Christians should be held responsible just as Muslims are. How is this not serious?
LikeLike
You are seriously trying to tell me that I haven’t ranted enough on this blog about my hatred of fundamentalist Christians? I never had anything negative to say about the Russian Orthodox Church? Really? This is simply insulting.
And “in this country”? Was Theo Van Gogh murdered in “this country”? Is the London subway in this country? Is Paris? Is Atocha? Or didn’t I mention them in my post?
If people want to fake obtuseness and pretend that individuals and groups that identify as Muslim are not massively freaking out and conducting terrorist attacks all over the world, there are tons of places this can be done. I want to have a serious discussion instead. If that’s not possible, I’m fine with having no discussion about this at all.
LikeLike
It’s group morality (individuality has a very precarious toehold in most majority muslim societies).
If outsiders seem to be attacking your group you show loyalty to your group and you don’t criticise them to outsiders or agree to anything bad said about your group by outsiders. Even if you believe the outsiders have a point you do not say so, you maintain your loyalty and take care of matters privately.
Most people with individualist mentalities (like your readers) can’t get inside the collective mentality. I find it a struggle and I at least understand some of what’s going on here.
I think that group shaming is the only tactic that will work though as it requires a bunch of collective mentality steps that modern individualistic societies don’t want to carry out.
LikeLike
Knowing how careful and responsible American journalists are not, I think this situation is manufactured in order to titillate the self- flagellating needs of certain Liberals. Especially those who emerged from Christian fundamentalist environments (khm, khm) and still need to let the world know they have, indeed, emerged. (KHM, KHM, David.)
LikeLike
“Knowing how careful and responsible American journalists are not”
It wasn’t always this way… I remember when journalism was an honorable career (tears up). It’s just like a circus in whore town now.
“manufactured in order to titillate the self- flagellating needs of certain Liberals”
Now you’re talking about half of all media in the US.
LikeLike
Yes, absolutely. The Liberals who ridicule the viewers of Fox News while gobbling up MSNBC and Co are simply pathetic. Because the difference between them is cosmetic.
LikeLike
I think it’s difficult to have a substantive discussion about Islam and terrorism beyond “Islam is good/Islam is bad/#notallMuslims” if the discussions are all pitched at level of people who don’t even know basic categories or how Muslims are different from each other. Sunni/Shia/Sufi/Wahabi? Who knows? Who cares? People mostly can’t be bothered to know that Sikhism and Islam are different religions; we saw this with the Oak Creek massacre with the shooter and journalists. Why would you expect them to differentiate between Muslims or take non globalizing statements seriously?
Imagine a similar discussion in a non Christian country about Christianity and terrorism among people who don’t know the difference between Catholics and Protestants or that FLDS is very different than Unitarian Universalists or that Amish are different than Methodists. Imagine that they don’t care to know. You’d get a very similar type of discussion where people trade conflicting monolithizing statements.
LikeLike
This is true, people are extremely ignorant. And these journalists are feeding the ignorance by promoting this image of Muslims. This is a great, great problem and repeating ad nauseam, as some people (not you, obviously) do, “Trump – bad, fascist. Me – good, not fascist” will not solve it.
LikeLike
Sunni, Shiite and other branches of Islam are different and their respective members have been killing members of the other branches for centuries because of those differences. Even members of different clans within the same branch of Islam despise, and sometimes kill, members of other clans within the same branch of Islam. The clan mentality is well described in Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s autobiography, Infidel. The high level of infighting within the “religion of peace” explains why we hear, repeatedly, that Muslims kill more Muslims than adherents to other religions. In that connection, I have never heard of concerted efforts by Episcopalians to kill Unitarians, or vice versa. Or, for that matter, to kill Muslims qua Muslims. What might that suggest?
Despite their differences, the various branches of Islam have in common their desires for one Islami caliphate, each under its own banner. The Sunnis (Saudi Arabia, for example) want one and the Shiites (Iran, for example) want one. There can’t be two.
How many Muslims are radical, extremist or mainstream? Such characterizations have little meaning and, in an increasingly secular western society, we attach far too little significance to the impact of Islam in Islamic lands — or, of late, on non-Muslims elsewhere,
LikeLike
I don’t think framing it as a media phenomenon is helpful. Yes, the media is terrible. Yes, they’ll gin up any controversy for ratings. Yes, they pander to their market segments. This is all known.
I’m more interested in why his rhetoric seems to have been accepted by a significant percentage of the population. Clearly he’s bringing out some previously-latent emotions in them. Why is it happening? If/when he fails in his bid for presidency, will these emotions dissipate? Or are they here to stay? Has he fundamentally changed the political discourse in this country?
LikeLike
Exactly! The media are offering this up because there’s demand for an image onto which they can expel the qualities they can’t accept in themselves. The way “the Muslim” is constructed is important because of what it says about those who construct the image and not about any actual Muslims.
People get together, either physically or emotionally, and engage in these collective rituals of exorcising the “demon.” The qualities they condemn in the demon bother them in themselves.
Most importantly, THIS IS NOT AM ACTIVITY THAT HAS POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS. It’s much more vast than some or even all Republicans. And no, this is not going away until we start discussing this honestly.
LikeLike
Let’s also remember that 20 minutes ago we were all collectively expelling a devil called “the Mexican.” That devil had a different name but the exact same characteristics attached to him by both sides of the political discourse.
LikeLike
Gee, ten comments in a post entitled “Let’s Talk About Trump” — and Trump is only mentioned ONCE, in a comment by the webmistress herself. Looks like the discussion wandered a little off topic.
Okay, I’ll give my opinion about TRUMP (and it hasn’t changed in all the time that he’s been screwing around doing incredible damage to the Republican primary process):
I detest Trump. He’s a clown and a buffoon who has no real goal other than calling attention to himself. But it’s a waste of time getting worked up and indignant about his idiotic pronouncements, because he HAS NO REAL POWER, and he NEVER WILL, because he’ll never be President. So he poses no actual threat to immigrants, Muslims, or any group in this country except the Republican Party.
The worst thing that Trump may actually accomplish is giving the Presidency to Hillary Clinton — and the U.S. will survive nicely. It always does.
LikeLike
“The worst thing that Trump may actually accomplish is giving the Presidency to Hillary Clinton — and the U.S. will survive nicely. It always does.”
I hope you are right. But Reagan was elected President, so all bets are off.
LikeLike
“Gee, ten comments in a post entitled “Let’s Talk About Trump” — and Trump is only mentioned ONCE”
LikeLike
The entire Republican Establishment non-Establishment types have condemned Trump’s suggestion that Muslims be banned from entering the U.S. until things get “sorted out.” The chances of his suggestion being implemented are, at best, de minimis.
Perhaps Trump’s suggestions will help others to find viable solutions to the problem of Muslim immigration as shown by the Islamic “invasion” of Germany and the rest of the EU.
LikeLike
Politicians might condemn but regular people like Trump’s suggestions. Just two minutes ago on TV I saw a reporter stopping a well-dressed couple in the street who said they support Trump’s suggestions. No matter how hard the reported tried to get them to reconsider, they didn’t budge. “Trump might be a little too much,” they said, “but at least he’s suggesting something. Nobody else has said anything useful at all.”
LikeLike
Then “establishment” Republicans should devise plans that will (a) work and (b) be sufficiently popular to attract lots of voters. Then, if elected, they should try the novel approach of sticking to them. Instead, they jump on Trump. Is that easier or just more fun during an otherwise boring campaign?
LikeLike
Trump is useful. He makes their positions look nice and “moderate” by comparison. Look at all of the Godwin rule violations the guy is eliciting!
More Godwin, no Trump, far more uncomfortable
I mean, he’s just shifting the Overton window further right, so the position “do not freak out more than the nation did after 9/11” is some kind of extreme leftist position.
LikeLike
Good point! Even George W. Bush is now some sort of a quasi-leftist icon. It’s creepy.
LikeLike
The news media are breaking Godwin’s Law left and right today with respect to Trump as Shakti points out.
LikeLike
Here’s a new quiz for you.
“So how dissimilar is Mr Trump’s rhetoric to that of the Nazi dictator? We’ve created a quiz to see if you can tell who said what: Donald Trump or Adolf Hitler.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12038640/Who-said-it-Donald-Trump-or-Adolf-Hitler.html
LikeLike
I took the quiz, and most of those quotes are so innocuous that they could have been said by a high school drama teacher.
Hitler and Trump also probably both said, “What’s for dinner?” and “I have to go to the bathroom.”
LikeLike
Yes, the quotes are very harmless. I’m not sure what the quiz was trying to prove.
LikeLike
Here’s an idiotic test on “Salon.com” that tells me I’m a LIBERAL!
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/08/get_ready_to_argue_this_optical_test_is_our_new_the_dress_but_for_politics/#comments
LikeLike
OK, this is fucking insane. According to the test, I’m a conservative.
LikeLike