"In Her Words" (Not Ours)
29/8/10 17:07![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI was watching local coverage of the arson in Murfreesboro Tennessee. Some of you may have heard about it. It’s just one of a series of vandalisms and/or arsons aimed at American Muslims. In this case:
So I’m watching the video and a few minutes into it, something about the narration seemed a bit odd:
Huh? Not just “the site of the future mosque” but “the site of the future mosque say Muslims… It’s not an objective fact that it’s the site of a future Mosque? That’s just something the local Muslims tell everyone?
This could have been shrugged off as a slight blip in the writing, but the reporter went on:
Again, it seems to me that setting fire to construction equipment can objectively be described as kicking it up a notch from simply breaking a sign. And the “local Muslims proclaim?” “Proclaim” is one of those words used when you want to denigrate what someone is saying. The implication is that the “proclaimer” is exaggerating, making a big deal out of nothing.
And finally:
God forbid it should be in the reporter’s words that the Muslim community is the victim when someone deliberately sets fire to construction equipment on their building site.
Was some paranoid news writer or editor afraid to say outright and simply, “Local Muslims were the victim of an apparent hate crime when someone escalated the vandalism of a planned Islamic center by setting fire to construction equipment?"
Yes, the bits I've noticed could just be clumsy writing. But the clumsiness tends in a consistent direction – that of pointing at the local Muslims and insisting, “they’re saying it (not us!)”
What do you think?
Federal agents have been called in after someone poured flammable liquid on four pieces of construction equipment early today at the site of a planned new Islamic center and mosque just outside Murfreesboro. A CBS television affiliate is reporting that it is being investigated as arson.
So I’m watching the video and a few minutes into it, something about the narration seemed a bit odd:
Narrator: The scene? The site of the future mosque, say Muslims who’ve existed here twenty some years…
Huh? Not just “the site of the future mosque” but “the site of the future mosque say Muslims… It’s not an objective fact that it’s the site of a future Mosque? That’s just something the local Muslims tell everyone?
This could have been shrugged off as a slight blip in the writing, but the reporter went on:
Narrator:There’s strong opposition. The site’s sign’s even been destroyed twice. But this takes it to a whole new level, local Muslims proclaim…
Again, it seems to me that setting fire to construction equipment can objectively be described as kicking it up a notch from simply breaking a sign. And the “local Muslims proclaim?” “Proclaim” is one of those words used when you want to denigrate what someone is saying. The implication is that the “proclaimer” is exaggerating, making a big deal out of nothing.
And finally:
Narrator Spokeswoman Camie Ayash says it’s another violent act in which Muslims haven’t been the villain.
Cammie Ayash: this is definitely something we do not deserve” -
Narrator: in her words -- they are the victim.
God forbid it should be in the reporter’s words that the Muslim community is the victim when someone deliberately sets fire to construction equipment on their building site.
Was some paranoid news writer or editor afraid to say outright and simply, “Local Muslims were the victim of an apparent hate crime when someone escalated the vandalism of a planned Islamic center by setting fire to construction equipment?"
Yes, the bits I've noticed could just be clumsy writing. But the clumsiness tends in a consistent direction – that of pointing at the local Muslims and insisting, “they’re saying it (not us!)”
What do you think?
