|
|
|
|
Steven Emerson,
Executive Director
|
September 14, 2018
|
|
|
Character
Assassinations by New Jersey's Star-Ledger
by Noah Beck
Algemeiner
September 13, 2018
|
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the
first of your friends to like this.
The Star-Ledger's smear of terrorism expert Steve Emerson and
Arab-American Emilio Karim Dabul is a textbook case of journalistic
malpractice, providing the quintessential example of what honest journalism
should avoid.
On August 5, the Star-Ledger called for the removal of Dabul, a
New Jersey US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office
spokesperson, in part by attacking Emerson with a variety of false or
misleading claims. At least three other NJ papers then published similar
stories about Emerson and Dabul: WNYC (which incredibly sought comment from the
Council on American-Islamic Relations — CAIR — but neither Emerson nor
Dabul), NorthJersey.com, and MSN.com. Adding to the damage, La Opinion ran a similar piece in Spanish. The
Hill also ran an article inspired by Star-Ledger's August 5
article, but promptly removed it after hearing Emerson's objections.
The Star-Ledger's attack was severe enough for Emerson to involve
his attorney, Richard Horowitz, who, on August 9, demanded that Emerson be
afforded "an opportunity to respond" and submitted a letter to
the editor by Emerson. The Star-Ledger published Emerson's response
on August 24.
In the interim, six New Jersey members of Congress, all Democrats, wrote
a letter to ICE, demanding that Dabul be fired, claiming that he
"edited and wrote for anti-Muslim hate groups," as alleged in the
Star-Ledger's op-ed trashing Emerson.
Furthermore, the paper's editors refused to publish Emerson's response
unless he agreed to the removal of key details.
Emerson asserted that the Star-Ledger's editors made no attempt
to contact him or verify any of the facts assumed by the paper's
allegations, but those important points were deleted from Emerson's
response by the Star-Ledger's editors, presumably to avoid exposing
their unprofessionalism.
Similarly, Emerson's response tried to set the record straight about the
Star-Ledger's materially false suggestion that Emerson blamed
Muslims for the 1993 Oklahoma City bombing — an allegation that he says has
been "manufactured and peddled by radical Islamic groups" — but
the editors deleted that as well.
Thus, the edited version of Emerson's defense produced by the Star-Ledger's
editors effectively extended Emerson's character assassination, while whitewashing
the paper's journalistic malfeasance.
For the sake of setting the record straight and exposing the extent of Star-Ledger's
journalistic negligence, it's worth reviewing the many problems with the
paper's August 5 op-ed.
While the article is titled "ICE's spokesman in N.J. has disturbing ties to hate groups,"
about 30% of the actual word count is devoted to attacking Steve Emerson, a
well-respected expert on the issue of Islamist terrorism. The
disproportionate attention on Emerson almost suggests that the ostensible
topic (an allegedly objectionable ICE spokesman) was a mere pretext to
indict Emerson. Indeed, the article — at various points — viciously labels
Emerson an "anti-Muslim celeb," "a peddler of anti-Muslim
lies, hyperbole and innuendo," and "a vile guy who the SPLC and
CAP consider a dangerous anti-Muslim extremist."
But the paper's proof for such nastiness quickly crumbles when exposed
to the slightest scrutiny or research.
The Star-Ledger distorts facts to smear Emerson, falsely stating
that Emerson criticized former Governor Chris Christie merely for
nominating a Muslim: "In 2011, Emerson accused Gov. Chris Christie of
having a 'strange relationship with radical Islam' after he nominated a
Muslim, Sohail Mohammed, for a state judgeship."
In fact, Emerson criticized the former governor for appointing "a longtime mouthpiece for radical
Islamists," and for embracing Hamas-supporting clerics, like
convicted Hamas terrorist cleric Qatanani of Passaic County. That the Star-Ledger
omitted these key details and grievously distorted such a basic fact
suggests either incorrigible incompetence or maliciously motivated libel.
As additional support for its thesis that Emerson is anti-Muslim, the Star-Ledger
notes that he was "one of the first to claim that lawless 'no-go zones' exist in Europe that non-Muslims can't
even enter, overrun by Islamist thugs enforcing Shariah law." It is
true that Emerson apologized for his mistaken characterization of
Birmingham, UK. But the Star-Ledger fails to note that Germany's
political leader, Angela Merkel, admits that 'no-go zones' do in fact exist
in Germany. So, will the Star-Ledger now label Merkel an
anti-Muslim leader?
The Star-Ledger writes that Emerson "claimed before the
Oklahoma City bomber was caught that the 1995 attack showed 'a Middle
Eastern trait' because it aimed to 'inflict as many casualties as
possible.' In fact, it was a white guy, Timothy McVeigh." But here,
too, the Star-Ledger seriously distorts the record, effectively
defaming Emerson.
In an April 19, 1995 CNBC interview, Emerson gave the following
reply in response to Geraldo Rivera's question "does it [the Oklahoma
City bombing] sound dreadfully familiar to you?":
Unfortunately, the scenes are — are really reminiscent of the '93
bombing of the World Trade Center and the [AMIA] bombing in Buenos Aries
last year. Obviously, there's no hard evidence pointing in — in terms of
specific names. But I can tell you from the FBI's perspective, they're now
saying it's a 50:50 chance at this point, based on the circumstantial
evidence they have, that it was Islamic extremists who mounted this attack.
In a CBS News interview on the same day, Emerson said, "This was
done with the attempt to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a
Middle Eastern trait and something that has been generally not carried out
in this soil until we were rudely awakened to in 1993." Emerson's
detractors cut the second sentence at the word "trait," creating
the false impression that Emerson was claiming that Middle Easterners are
more predisposed to terror and could be blamed for the 1993 attack.
But the rest of the quote indicates that Emerson was reflecting on the
characteristics of the attack and not ascribing blame. Emerson's detractors
also ignore other statements that he made in the first few days after the
bombing, such as "there is no specific evidence about which groups are
responsible" (CBS, April 20, 1995) and "there's no hard
evidence at this point" (NBC, April 20, 1995).
This
article also confirms that Emerson's
comments about the Oklahoma attack were just his report of what FBI and
other law enforcement agencies suspected in the aftermath of an attack that
had some similarities to prior Islamic terrorist attacks. Indeed, the
editors at Politico published an extraordinary correction to a 2015
op-ed by Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center after his article
made the same false claim about Emerson.
Politico's correction reads: "The original version of this
article misrepresented Mr. Emerson's comments. ... In fact, as the article
now notes, many commentators and local and federal law enforcement focused
suspicions on the possibility of Middle Eastern terrorism in the hours
after the attack, up until when Timothy McVeigh was arrested. At the time,
Mr. Emerson's full comments and press interviews reflected the views of
those law enforcement personnel and the reasons behind their
suspicions." The Star-Ledger article could use such a forceful
correction of its own.
Finally, the Star-Ledger piece claims that "in 1997, Emerson
gave Associated Press reporters what he said was an FBI dossier
showing ties between Muslim American organizations and radical Islamists, which
the AP concluded he had made up himself." Emerson asserts that
this allegation is baseless and was demonstrated as such in court
documents. Given the Star-Ledger's abysmal bias and/or sloppy journalism
with respect to the other details about Emerson in its op-ed, and given the
extensive praise that law enforcement has for Emerson's work, it's hard to
imagine that the paper would be more accurate than Emerson on this point.
Besides the specific examples that the Star-Ledger incompetently
used to make its non-case against Emerson and his think tank, the
Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), the paper also marshalled the
tendentious and unreliable views of the think tank Center for American Progress
(CAP). The Star-Ledger points out that CAP considers the IPT part of
"the Islamophobia network in America." But the
paper fails to mention that CAP has been associated with some antisemitic
bloggers and writers, as noted by the Anti-Defamation League and a Washington Post columnist.
To make its case against Emerson and the IPT, the Star-Ledger
also relies on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), even though the
organization's assessment of who constitutes an anti-Muslim extremist was
thoroughly discredited. Indeed, the SPLC had to remove the entire section of its website
dedicated to so-called anti-Muslim extremists. The SPLC also recently had to issue a formal apology and pay millions of
dollars to a Muslim reformer after wrongfully attacking him.
Another hallmark of biased and shoddy journalism is a failure to
acknowledge or include facts that inconveniently contradict a certain
narrative. Many government and law enforcement officials, authors, and
media figures have recognized the value and importance of the work done by
Emerson and the IPT, as is clear from their statements
quoted on the IPT web site and on the SteveEmerson.com
site. But the Star-Ledger fails to include these important facts,
preferring to portray Emerson in a simplistically unfair and inaccurate
way, in its unconvincing attempt to attack Dabul.
Absurdly, the Star-Ledger's indictment against Dabul mostly
amounts to guilt by association and is based on "research" that
the Star-Ledger admits was "done with help from the Southern
Poverty Law Center." The Star-Ledger apparently didn't care
that the SPLC was totally discredited on the very topic on which the Star-Ledger
accepted SPLC's "research."
Surprisingly, the Star-Ledger seems to acknowledge the weakness
of its case against Dabul. The paper includes a video of Dabul and notes
that it "has some reasonable stuff in it. Dabul says he is not looking
for all Muslims to be profiled, and not all terrorists in the US are Muslim.
He argues, rightly, that terrorism is a real problem in the Muslim
world."
And yet, the paper still chooses to find Dabul guilty by association, by
emphasizing his link to Emerson: "But the bottom line is that [Dabul]
is promoting Emerson, a vile guy who the SPLC and CAP consider a dangerous
anti-Muslim extremist."
The Star-Ledger also makes a bizarre statement that may reveal
some of its own bias about Arabs and Muslims: "[Dabul] calls himself
Arab-American, though he does not say he is Muslim." The Star-Ledger's
statement seems to imply that anyone who identifies as an Arab-American
should reveal his Muslim credentials as well. But of course, there are Arab
religious minorities (Christian, Druze, etc.) who are not Muslim and plenty
of Arab-Americans who were born Muslim but no longer identify as such. So
why would the Star-Ledger find it necessary to highlight that an
Arab-American has failed to self-identify as a Muslim? Because he has been
critical of Islamists? But even self-identified Muslims who have been at
least as critical of Islamists were not spared by the SPLC that the Star-Ledger
so heavily relies on. The SPLC attacked Maajid Nawaz, a practicing Muslim and
prominent Islamic reformer. So why exactly does the Star-Ledger
expect Arabs to self-identify as Muslims?
The video of Dabul that the Star-Ledger included in its attack
piece is probably the most honest part of the whole article. There, Dabul
comes off as an imminently reasonable and courageous person: an
Arab-American who has spoken out in support of Israel and against Islamism.
He has reportedly received death threats for those views, and deserves
praise and support, not the Star-Ledger-led smear campaign.
The reckless disregard for the truth demonstrated by the Star-Ledger's
character assassinations, and their refusal to correct the record raise
questions about the paper's agenda. Why would the Star-Ledger devote
about 30% of an article ostensibly about an ICE spokesman to the purpose of
trashing the reputation of someone else? Why would the paper be prepared to
resort to falsehood and distortion in its character assassination of Steve
Emerson, and then refuse to accord him a fair opportunity to defend himself
with a public response that isn't detrimentally distorted by the editors?
Why would the paper go to such lengths to attack a brave and decent
Arab-American like Dabul?
The Star-Ledger has already done quite a bit of damage, but it
can still issue a correction and an apology, in the hope that the other
newspapers follow suit, as well as the six House Democrats who followed the
Star-Ledger's lead in attacking Dabul.
Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about
Iranian nuclear weapons and other geostrategic issues in the Middle East.
He has published extensively on the Middle East and national security
issues.
|
The IPT accepts no funding from
outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or
religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative Project on
Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All
donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The
Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3
organization.
202-363-8602
- main
202-966-5191
- fax
|
|
Print
Send
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment