Posted on 03/24/2010 8:58:33 PM PDT by FenwickBabbitt
If there is one major news outlet that would be expected to leap to the defense of free speech when that vital linchpin of liberty is under attack, one would expect that Fox News would be the one organization to do so. After all, it wasn’t so long ago that the Obama administration tried to cut Fox out of access to the White House. To their credit, Fox’s competitors leapt to defend – not Fox, whom the rest of the mainstream networks despise – but free speech. That episode makes the way that all the networks, and Fox in particular, are ignoring the Geert Wilders trial so troubling and, in the case of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., rather mystifying, at least until one scratches the surface a bit.
Nobody expects CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. to cover the Wilders trial because those networks have established beyond any reasonable doubt that they are not going to cover issues related to Islam if the story in question doesn’t fit neatly within their “Islam isn’t the problem, it’s just a few explosive bad apples” narrative. Journalists who bend over backward to disconnect Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan from his jihadist inspirations aren’t likely to care about a political leader living across the pond who is obviously nothing more than a fringe, right-wing Islamophobe. But Fox? We’ve come to expect more from Fox. Perhaps it’s time to start expecting less, at least when issues involving Islam are involved.
What’s ironic about Fox ignoring the Wilders’ story is that the most important part of the attack on this Dutch politician doesn’t involve Islam at all, not really. If Fox editors and pundits honestly believe that Wilders is a fringe politician, spouting paranoid nonsense, fine. They’re wrong, but their opinion of Wilders and his ideas are irrelevant. What’s at stake here is a principle that is vital to western civilization: the basic right of free peoples to formulate and express their ideas, even when one finds those ideas abhorrent.
In addition to ignoring the fact that free speech is on trial in the Netherlands, some Fox commentators have recently attacked Wilders and his ideas, the implication being that even if a viewer is astute enough to realize that this Dutch politician is on trial for what he has said, Wilders is merely a nut job who’s not worth worrying about anyway. On March 9 Glenn Beck characterized Wilders as a “far right” politician, then when on to ominously observe that “the left – in Europe – is communism; the right is fascism – in Europe.” A first grader could connect those particular dots, as Beck intended. This is the same Glenn Beck who, a year ago, welcomed Wilders on his show and was downright sympathetic to the attacks on Wilders’ right to free speech that the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party had endured. Wilders experience, Beck declared, was a warning to America: “If you want to see what our future looks like, all you need to is look to Europe.”
Beck has apparently forgotten what he said, or has decided that free speech isn’t really that important a principle after all. Ironically, Wilders is hardly “far right” in his political views. Rather, his politics defy any sort of easy categorization. What Wilders understands is that an Islamic state has no use for the kind of healthy debate that makes democracy work. When Sharia Law is implemented, it’s the Quran’s way or the highway. Wilders’ political goal is to put measures in place that will ensure that the Netherlands remains a free, democratic nation. Wilders’ legal fight is about the freedom to work toward that goal.
Wilders criticizes Islam, not Muslims, because he believes that Islam is ultimately employed as a totalitarian system of governance, whatever it’s attributes or flaws as a religion. Otherwise sensible conservatives, like Charles Krauthammer, dismissed Wilders’ concerns out of hand:
“What he (Wilders) says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam]. The untruth of that is obvious. If you look at the United States, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. are not Islamists. So, it’s simply incorrect. Now, in Europe, there is probably a slightly larger minority but, nonetheless, the overwhelming majority are not.”
But what Wilders is saying and what pundits like Krauthammer think Wilders is saying are two different things. Of course most Muslims living in the United States are not Islamists. Of course the majority of the Muslims living in Europe are not Islamists. It’s safe to wager that the majority of Muslims living in Iran are not Islamists either. That’s not the point. Wilders, and any rational thinker, can’t help but observe that Muslim nations are overwhelmingly ruled by governments that are, in effect if not in name, theocracies. Sometimes those theocracies are dangerous, hostile tyrannies, as in the case of Iran, and sometimes they are indifferent, if occasionally useful, friends of the west like Saudi Arabia. At either end of the spectrum, no Muslim-ruled nation respects western traditions and values like freedom of speech, the equality of peoples and the right of dissent. Wilders hasn’t been trying to demonize individual Muslims, he’s been trying to keep the Netherlands from turning into an Islamic state. One may disagree with his methods, but to say that he doesn’t have the right to employ those methods because the theocratic system he opposes is so violently hyper-sensitive is patently ridiculous and downright cowardly.
So, why is Fox following its brethren in the media by ignoring the Wilders trial, a story that is full of so many themes that might otherwise attract Fox’s attention? Could it have anything to with Saudi Arabian prince Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s stake in News Corp.? Might Murdoch’s increasingly cozy relationship with Arabic media giant Rotana Group have something to do with it? Murdoch’s maverick news organization appears to playing a subtle, yet dangerous game.
Unlike its fellow networks, Fox is ready and willing to denounce radical jihadists who threaten not only the west, but who – if left unchecked – will upset delicate power structures in Muslim theocracies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that lean toward the west. But, for Fox, calling out the religious system of governance that empowers and enriches the princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE seems to be out of bounds. Free speech, it would appear, has it limits – even at Fox News.
By the way, beyond his stance on Islam, Wilders supports substantial tax cuts, a smaller, de-centralized government, less EU control over the Netherlands, and a very tough stance on crime. I’ve even seen a video clip of him making fun of global warming and comparing his Dutch opposition to Al Gore. The only things that he supports that could be construed as liberal are increased government support for the elderly and animal rights (however, even these are tied in with immigration, as he seems to mainly oppose Islamic halal slaughter of animals as inhumane and he has on many occasions complained about retirees' pensions going to fund young immigrants on welfare). He has also called for tighter regulation of marijuana usage in Dutch “coffeehouses.” The Dutch press often refers to him as a “populist,” because he constantly attacks the Dutch elites who are forcing Islamization on the people without their consent. Overall, I think that Wilders is someone whom most American conservatives could easily support.
I agree with you that Wilders is getting a bum rap and conservatives everywhere need to come to his defense. In terms of new coverage, Fox is about ratings and fairness.
This story simply is not a ratings getter. Quite frankly, Americans are more concerned with what is going on here than elsewhere (no opinion offered if this is good or bad -- simply a stmt of fact). Furthermore, the healthcare reform and the crap going on under the supervision and direction of der Fuhrer is of major concern to Fox viewers.
Personally I am far more concerned about what is going on by our government and what it is doing to its people at the current moment. I support Wilders, but I feel like I am in a major fight for my own rights.
All of the ‘TV’ media are useless.
All we have left is the internet, at least for as long as they allow us to keep it....
With that the government has done, and is looking to do, we could be approaching an ‘end game’ situation.
I quit watching FOX so have to rely on what I hear. When their ratings drop enough, maybe they'll wise up, but with the Saudi influence I wouldnt bet the farm.
I agree with you in general mlocher, but I think that it is a shame that more attention isn’t paid here to what’s going on in the rest of the world. What happens in Europe affects the U.S. and vice-versa. The entire Western world has been infected with the same authoritarian, politically correct nonsense that allows for no contrary opinions. This is extremely dangerous to personal liberty. If it weren’t for the first amendment, the PC police would probably already be trying this in the U.S. The shutting down of free speech in Europe and the government take-over in the U.S. are all symptoms of the same Marxist disease in my opinion.
And besides, the most significant events in the Wilders trial happened earlier this year well before the health care bill was rammed down everyone’s throats. Fox could have covered both. After all, last year Fox did cover Wilders’ trial and short film, Fitna, a little bit. Beck and O’Reilly interviewed him then. However, the trial didn’t really get underway until this year—and now they’re ignoring it. Why the change?
Wonder why a group of wealthy conservatives couldn’t start up their own network—donations, shares, attract advertisers? There is a vacuum in the news, but nothing rushing in to fill it.
I actually am very interested in world events. When I switched cable companies I had Bloomberg News, which gave a broader financial and world coverage. It took me about a month to realize these guys are packaging the Obama message as financial and world news -- so I stopped watching. As you stated, Fox did some minimal coverage of the issue.
There seem to be 2 things in play. As I mentioned earlier -- ratings. Second is that you need to pick your battles carefully. It is clear to me that FNC and FBC have made a clear choice to give their full attention to exposing Obama and showing the impact on our society and on our economy.
I don't think there is anything else behind it. What are your thoughts?
FOX has turned on all of us. At one time, it was always on at my house. I stopped watching it two weeks ago. They just piss me off these days and I don’t “do” propaganda. They’ve all become Obamanoids.
Fox = Saudi Arabian owners.
Fox news is part of the good cop, bad cop ploy. However, it is just part of the elitist agenda. It plays good cop to conservative leaning people but it still marches lock-step with the rest of the socialist scum.
Anyone fighting Islamism is on our side. If we don’t care about the few lone voices fighting Islamism, we are both stupid and heartless.
Saudi Prince Taweed (something or other, Frantzie knows) owns a chunk of FOX. They kiss Saudi butt. They’re disgusting and little if any better than the other “news” pimps.
Many in the blogosphere have commented on Fox’s and Murdoch’s ties to the Saudis, including a Saudi prince who is a major Fox News stockholder. I really don’t know if I buy this theory. I certainly hope that it is not true that Muslims are influencing the channel, though I wouldn’t put it beyond the realm of possibility. If Murdoch is trying to get in close with the Saudis and the UAE then naturally he would not want to cover things that might paint Muslims in a bad light.
At any rate, ratings undoubtedly play a big part in everything that Fox chooses to cover. However, I do believe that one of the reasons that most Americans are not too interested in foreign affairs is because most of our news outlets barely report on world news. Thus, Americans are largely ignorant of it, and it seems strange or irrelevant to them. If they were more familiar with it, they would find it more interesting and would see its relevance more easily. I do not really believe that it is a good idea to go over the same news topics again and again and again, when there is so much else of importance also going on. Radical Islam and the clamping down on basic rights in the West are both rapidly growing threats, and Americans need to know about them.
As far as Glenn Beck’s criticism of Wilders is concerned, I hope that that was merely a sign of his own ignorance of the situation. Still, in the two times that Beck interviewed Wilders in the past, he seemed largely supportive of him (esp. in his CNN Headline News interview). However, because Beck, Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and at least one other Fox News contributor attacked Wilders all in the same day or two, I could not help but think that this was the “line” that the network suggested they follow in regard to Wilders. I could, of course, be very wrong about this, but it is suspicious.
Prince Alwaleed (dirty Saudi) seems to be calling the shots at Fox. He can probably veto any story he wants, especially anything critical of the dirty moslems and their throat-slashing over the past 1400 years.
Fox will lose audience with their Saudi kowtowing. Omoslem bowed to the Saudis, and now Fox is in bed with Saudis.
Bad move, Fox.
Lie down with moslems, get up with fleas, hepatitis, stinky smell and no head.
The Prince owns 7% of Fox but I bet it is secretly more. Murdoch probably get s a credit line of billions plus access to middle eastern markets which is waht he cares about.
Whenever I read anything about TV, I am so thankful I don’t have one.
You have a computer, so what is the difference?
More reasons for me to chuck the TV especially FOX who is allegedly conservative, allegedly pro-American. As for Shep Smith, he’s very lucky he didn’t live during WWII as a newsie, he would have gone to prison .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.