|
put it in the wrong context, distorted it, twisted facts and gone out of their way to make Livingstone look bad. They're as bad as WaPo and the NYT doing articles on, say, Hugo Chavez.
Let's look at it...
Their headline: "Livingstone likens bomb apologist to reformer Pope John"
What the article actually says about Al-Qaradawi: "Al-Qaradawi condemned the terrorist attacks in London but he has described suicide bombings in Israel as martyrdom operations. He has also been criticized by Jewish and gay rights groups who accused him of anti-Semitism and homophobia."
Ah, so! He CONDEMNED the London bombings! Hm-m. But described Palestinian suicide bombers as "martyrs"--as they see themselves. Is that being an "apologist," or is it having compassion for their desperation? Just giving them a sympathetic word makes him an "apologist"? Doesn't "kamakaze" mean something similar? Martyr for the Emperor? Are we wrong to use the Japanese word for what the Japanese "kamakaze" pilots thought they were doing?
"...condemned the terrorist attacks in London...".
------
And here's what Livingstone said (if the Times can be relied upon to even quote him accurately--they start off without quotation marks):
"He said that Sheik Qaradawi was a leading Islamic scholar calling for Islam to engage with the world, supporting democracy in the Middle East and calling for Islam to accept the changing role of women. 'Of all the Muslim thinkers in the world today he is the most positive force for change,' he said."
His topic was NOT suicide bombers, the London bombers, or martyrdom. His topic was: where is there hope among Islamic scholars?
And bear in mind that this is the MAYOR OF LONDON--not likely to give much quarter to anyone who promotes suicide bombing. He sees hope there. That's all he said. Because of some things the scholar said about opening up and liberalizing Islam.
Is this Islamic scholar in any different position than a western politician who might have to make some statements appeasing Israel--and ignoring or justifying her more aggressive and violent acts--in order to get a peace negotiation going?
------
"Livingstone likens bomb apologist to reformer Pope John."
------
I am very familiar with the writings of Pope John XXIII and with the ecumenical movement that he started, and I quite agree with Livingstone that Pope John XXIII would have favored the pursuit of every opportunity for dialogue, and for the peaceful resolution of differences and disputes.
If Pope John XXIII were alive today, he would likely be searching the horizon for Islamic scholars who provided some common ground. And what Sheik Qaradawi said about Islam is, indeed, what Pope John said about Catholicism--to engage the world, to support and be comfortable with democratic process, and to acknowledge the changing role of women. (It was during his tenure that woman were first permitted within the altar sanctuary during Mass, as deacons and altar girls--in 1,500 years!)
-------
"Livingstone likens bomb apologist to reformer Pope John."
That is a truly rotten headline. The article then quotes two Blairites who disagree with Livingstone, and no one in support. And they bury way down in the article Livingstone's remarks about safety measures in London (against terrorist bombings).
It truly resembles our corporate media hit pieces. Nasty headline. Opportunity for the right to react and characterize. The target left dangling in the wind. (Lack of quotes and facts that support the target.)
-------
The U.S. media describes Hugo Chavez as "increasingly authoritarian," "according to his critics"--no quotes, no names--and then they fail to mention that he was twice elected by 60% majorities in heavily monitored elections; that all such monitors including the Carter Center said the elections were honest; and they give not one shred of evidence of Chavez's "authoritarianism," and ignore much evidence to the contrary.
--------
"He has also been criticized by Jewish and gay rights groups who accused him of anti-Semitism and homophobia." --Times of London
No quotes, no names, no evidence. Use of the passive tense ("he has also BEEN CRITICIZED"). Are these criticisms even correct? (anti-Semitic? homophobic?) (Is Sheik Qaradawi any more homophobic than the Catholic Church is? Is he anti-Semitic, or is he anti-Israel, or anti-rightwing Israel? No clue.)
Two targets here--Livingstone, whose remarks are mischaracterized in the headline and mistreated in the text. (Pope John WAS ecumenical!) And Qaradawi, whose condemnation of the London bombings is very inacurately left out of the headline, and whose critics are allowed free reign, with no accountability (no names, no quotes, no facts, no way to track these opinions down and judge their accuracy).
---------
The London Times is about as trustworthy of our own corporate press. Not very.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
