Strange it might be, but Cordoba House has become a major story—at the moment perhaps the biggest story in the country. Inaccurately and misleadingly known as the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy, it has been fed not by any news peg, but by talk. Talk on cable news, talk in newspaper columns, talk on blogs, and, notably, talk from politicians, including the president. Now, the nation is talking.
With no hard news peg or new developments beyond the latest “talk”, but an insatiable demand for more coverage, we’re left wondering how to cover the controversy in a fresh, intelligent, and enlightening way. So our News Meeting question today is this: You’re an assigning editor and, like it or not, Cordoba House is a story. How do you cover it? What is your angle? And what do you tell your reporter to report?
A $100 million mosque (use whatever euphemism you want but it’s a fucking mosque), funded by God knows who, is being built so close to the site of the former world trade center that the landing gear from UA175 essentially evicted its last tenant, by a group whose Imam said that Osama Bin Laden was “made in the USA”, says the US was culpable for 9/11 and considers Hamas a legitimate political organization, and you think its “strange” that this is now a major story?
Had it not been for talk radio and the blogs, no one would know what going down in New York with respect to the Ground Zero Mosque. Its pretty clear that the MSM missed the boat on this story and is scrambling around like a pack of headless chickens to push the preferred narrative .
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 24 Aug 2010 at 03:21 PM
Actually the media didn't miss it. The NY Times did a story on it in December and on FOX News, The O'Reily show, the Imam's wife was interview and told it was a good idea basically gaining the support of FOX. The only reason this is a news story now is because state primary elections began and politicians need talking points.
#2 Posted by Faux, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 01:26 AM
I'd like to hear some mention of why it's called the "Cordoba" House; Cordoba being the capital of al-Andalus, where Christians, Jews and Muslims lived amongst each other for some 800 years in a state of relative peace and tranquility that was extremely rare for its time.
#3 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 10:48 AM
Isn't 'Ground Zero' itself a euphemism by the standards to which the protestors are held? Don't want to shake up your brains, but 'Ground Zero' became a term used to refer to the WTC 'footprint', though the attacks damaged other buildings outside the footprint - including the building intended to be the site of the Islamic Center. It's like saying that the atomic bomb was not dropped on Japan, because not every inch of Japan was thus attacked. This semantic obsession has been taken up by the losing side of public opinion on one of those issues that mark the divide between knee-jerk conservatives and knee-jerk liberals - the latter category, predictably, including the mainstream media and CJR. Come off it. There are good arguments on both sides of this - a concept with which CJR seems to have difficulty.
#4 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 12:26 PM
Isn't 'Ground Zero' itself a euphemism by the standards to which the protestors are held? Don't want to shake up your brains, but 'Ground Zero' became a term used to refer to the WTC 'footprint', though the attacks damaged other buildings outside the footprint - including the building intended to be the site of the Islamic Center. It's like saying that the atomic bomb was not dropped on Japan, because not every inch of Japan was thus attacked. This semantic obsession has been taken up by the losing side of public opinion on one of those issues that mark the divide between knee-jerk conservatives and knee-jerk liberals - the latter category, predictably, including the mainstream media and CJR. Come off it. There are good arguments on both sides of this - a concept with which CJR seems to have difficulty.
#5 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 12:27 PM
Mark writes an interesting rejoinder (twice, actually) to a piece that isn't here. The piece asks a pretty simple and even-handed question: how do you cover a story that isn't driven by real-world events? If the story exists primarily in the blogosphere, what do you send a reporter to cover?
Mark's piece sounds like he is responding to an Op-Ed.
I sense some projection going on here.
#6 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 12:37 PM
Hardrada,
"...Christians, Jews and Muslims lived amongst each other for some 800 years in a state of relative peace and tranquility..."
That was the exact reason that they chose the name. On the other side of things is the government of al-Andalus (Muslim), and how they came to power (conquest).
And now you know why they changed the name to "Park 51."
#7 Posted by Peter Eng, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 03:09 PM
To garhighway, I dunno, maybe it was that lead sentence 'Inaccurately and misleadingly known as the Ground Zero Mosque controversy . . . ' that led me to think that the Editors had an agenda hostile to the protests (if we don't think it's a story, it's not a story, and of course that judgment has nothing to do with the fact liberal social types want this story to go away), as tipped by the all-important framing of the question.
By the elevated standards to which this story is being held, I can't think of much 'news' that isn't all 'talk'. Today's NY Times front page features 'Dire Predictions for Drilling Ban Are not Yet Seen' (seen by whom?), and 'Relieved Chile Braces for Arduous Mine Rescue' (talking about talk, in connection with a real event to be sure - but so is the Ground Zero story).
I'd tell my reporter to monitor the blogosphere, because there is information there as surely as in newspapers - which have also had their episodes of overkill on stories that only interested, well, journalists; I'd try to ask some hard questions of both sides; I'd look into the genesis of the project in terms of building ownership, permit applications, the mechanics of approval, the financing of the project, and the initial reaction of the families of 9/11 survivors (there was a lot of coverage of the 'Jersey Girls' some years back, remember?) and their determination to have their voices heard on this matter. We have stories in the news all the time about efforts to have the Confederate flag barred from public sponsorship, or about efforts by urban activists to prohibit the construction of a Wal-Mart within their sacred precincts. Neither is an 'exact' match, but all usually figure some activist group ginning up opposition to something happening, whether it is an emotional symbol or a development that does not match the aesthetics of the neighborhood. In this case, these elements combine - that the protesters object to the emotional aesthetics of the site. I'm not even on the side of the protesters, and I'm irked by the let-them-eat-cake attitude of CJR here. CJR would seldom, if ever, be so dismissive of a 'manufactured' story with a left-wing motive. Oh, you didn't know there were such stories?
#8 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 05:25 PM
Excuse me, should have said 'the families of 9/11 victims' above.
#9 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 05:27 PM
Mark, I respectfully disagree with your premise that denoting the inaccuracy of the term "Ground Zero Mosque" is a tell.
It ISN'T at Ground Zero (I just swung by the proposed location of Park51, and believe me, it's hard to find a less remarkable or meaningful block downtown) and calling it a mosque is as accurate as calling it a gym or performance space, since it will contain those, too.
A story about the Chile rescue is a story about the Chile rescue, an ongoing, dramatic rescue with real lives at stake. The old stories about the Jersey Girls ere generally in the context of some very real governmental deliberation and action: the design and land use decisions for the actual WTC site.
The post above has a serious point to make, and one that is non-ideological. As you note, the fact that the story exists mainly on-line doesn't mean it's left or right-leaning. Your the one introducing slant. That seems to be more about your issues than anything else.
#10 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 10:46 PM
Hahaha. I thinks it's a bit far-fetched to say the MSM "missed the boat" here (at this point, there is no room even left in the boat).
Fox news was covering this months ago, and their talking heads signed off on it, saying that since Bloomberg was alright with it and religious leaders in the area were alright with it, they were alright with it, too.
This turned into a real issue when the Tea Party and other like-minded people got ahold of it and used scare tactics to push it to the forefront. And let's be honest, if the Tea Party is upset about something, there is no way Fox News is going to ignore the issue.
Now, to actually answer the question posed...It all depends on what size publication I am an assigning editor at and where I am based. If it is in New York or very large, you have to cover it; simple as that. I would try to contact and interview the Imam, someone in charge of an anti-Cordoba group, and someone for it.
I think what needs to be addressed is the laundry list of charges being thrown around with regards to the imam. He is apparently an unsavory character who is funded by...someone. The fear seems to be based in the fact that he has the money (or is backed by the money) to build this place. I want someone in the anti-Cordoba camp to show me a trail of money that justifies this fear. Despite your ability to get on cable with your opinions, if you can't give me more than your sincerest suspicions (something like, facts, perhaps), you won't be in my news section. It's not complicated.
And I want the imam to give me his side, too. We have too quickly abandoned the reality of his existence in this debacle, instead turning him into a caricature.
Seriously. Let's just take a step back and think about this objectively. Please?
#11 Posted by Kyle, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 11:03 PM
gar, your cordial disagreement is always appreciated, and I guess I'll have to let what I wrote stand on its own merits or demerits. I'll add that I think you are being just a little disingenuous is absolving CJR of political rather than journalistic motive. There is a political context here, and CJR is taking sides by trying to marginalize the protests by saying the issue is just talk on the blogosphere.
#12 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 26 Aug 2010 at 07:15 AM
I asked a talented young Pakistani-American reporter, Nida Khan, to interview demonstrators for and against the project without telling anyone she was Muslim. She got great interviews that I played on my radio show and I chatted with her for about 10 minutes about her reaction to the whole scene. Made for great radio.
There are more Muslims than Episcopalians in America. More of us ought to be finding out what they're thinking and saying.
#13 Posted by Errol Louis, CJR on Thu 26 Aug 2010 at 10:05 AM
Among the Americans killed on 9/11 were a number of Muslims. One idea would be to interview, in some depth, their families, about all of this. Questions could include why they think more moderate Muslim leaders have not talked publicly about terrorism.
#14 Posted by Mike Hoyt, CJR on Thu 26 Aug 2010 at 10:49 AM
I think this story has lots of legs...first off, religon in America, what does it mean to be a Muslim in America? For example, compare how Jews and Muslims, both about 8 million, are treated in America, the two biggest non-Christian minorities....many easy comparison, why are Jewish Americans considered more 'American' than Muslims? How would we feel about Muslim participation in the Supreme Court, the White House, the media and the Fed if it comparable to Jewish participation? What would be the difference? Why did the ADL come out agianst it? Do they have another agenda other than tolerance?
The other angle I see is what are the comparisons to the build up in the war in Iraq? Is there a foreign policy agenda behind this story and if so, who really made it a story. Follow the timeline, study the google traffic to see when it became big, what was the impetus, was it random, or organized.
This is my blog http://www.thecactusland.com/
#15 Posted by Robert Bonomo, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 02:06 AM
It is NOT a Ground Zero Mosque!
Never was, never will be, something invented by media.
Frankly, I am shocked the headline is even in CJR.
#16 Posted by Curtis Walker, CJR on Tue 21 Sep 2010 at 06:25 PM