When I wrote the preceding post criticizing the State Dept.’s quoted reaction to the Mohammed cartoon controversy, I did say that “left out of the Reuters report is anything that may have been said to balance this.” Well, it turns out quite a lot was left out, not only by Reuters but by the AP and AFP wire services who sent this story around the globe. When the full text of today’s State Dept. briefing came out, Little Green Footballs jumped on it (and pointed out that not only did the media distort the overall message, but they attributed the same remarks to three different people).

You’d think we’d all know by now to wait for the raw data. But there’s a never-ending news cycle to be fed, you have to understand. From the State Department’s own website, then:

QUESTION: Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just –

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven’t seen any — first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven’t seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I’ve seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don’t agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy — democracies around the world — and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may — like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example — and on the particular cartoon that was published — I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

QUESTION: That the Muslims speak out with equal vigor when they see — that’s what you’re asking?

MR. MCCORMACK: We would — we believe that it is an important principle that peoples around the world encourage dialogue, not violence; dialogue, not misunderstanding and that when you see an image that is offensive to another particular group, to speak out against that. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views.
…
QUESTION: One word is puzzling me in this, Sean, and that’s the use of the word “unacceptable” and “not acceptable,” exactly what that implies. I mean, it’s not quite obvious that you find the images offensive. When you say “unacceptable,” it applies some sort of action against the people who perpetrate those images.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I think I made it very clear that our defense of freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and media organizations to engage in free expression is forthright and it is strong, you know. This is — our First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression, are some of the most strongly held and dearly held views that we have here in America. And certainly nothing that I said, I would hope, would imply any diminution of that support.

QUESTION: It’s just the one word “unacceptable,” I’m just wondering if that implied any action, you know. But it doesn’t you say?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you caution America media against publishing those cartoons?

MR. MCCORMACK: That’s for you and your editors to decide, and that’s not for the government. We don’t own the printing presses.

Quite different to how the story was portrayed earlier today, I think you’d agree. McCormack is plowing a carefully middle-of-the-road position, which is eminently reasonable, considering (as I also noted in the previous post) that the U.S. has troops in the field who do not need the added danger of encountering protests over Danish cartoons. Nevertheless, the principle of press freedom is treated as bedrock, and the inconsistency of those who condemn these cartoons while glorying in anti-Semitic caricature in their own press is alluded to fairly strongly. As reported by Reuters, who I quoted earlier, the slant was definitive in favor of the protesters and against the press. It was said point-blank that the U.S. was “siding with Muslims who are outraged.”

Another day, another example of systematic media bias and distortion.

…

Also at LGF, see these pictures of people protesting in favor of religious tolerance and understanding.

Addendum: The quotes from the original Reuters story, attributed to “Kurtis Cooper” (and attributed by the AP to “Janelle Hironimus”) do not appear in the Daily Briefing at all. So, assuming they are legitimate, and were actually spoken by one or other of Kurtis or Janelle (or maybe both at the same time; that would be cute), they still constitute an objectionable reaction by the U.S. Dept. of State. But, McCormack’s Daily Briefing would presumably trump such remarks, no?

Sounds like it’s time for Ms. Rice to step in and make clear who owns the horse’s mouth.

...................
Share this!

Posts which might be related to this one based on a mysterious algorithm:

• “Following Very Closely”
• More Reactions to the Case of Abdul Rahman
• Slowness, Steadiness and Races