Newspapers distribution of DVD on radical Islam raises sharp questions

The glossy color insert greeting some readers of the St. Petersburg Times Sunday featured searing graphics: images of New York’s ground zero after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a masked fighter and a child holding a rifle.

Emblazoned across the placard’s front was the name of the controversial film included with the flier: Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. Touted in glowing quotes on the flier from notables such as film critic Michael Medved and Howard Gordon, executive producer of Fox TV’s action series 24, the film compares the danger to America from radical Islam to the danger the world faced from Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

And the insert Times readers received Sunday was part of an effort aimed at distributing 28-million copies of the movie on DVD to Americans across the country through 70 different media outlets, including dozens of newspapers ranging from the St. Petersburg Times and every other major newspaper in Florida to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

“I got almost all the way through it, and I turned it off,” said John Brough, 70, a retired businessman in New Port Richey who feared the film might encourage Americans to react harshly to all Muslims, despite the fact that it begins and ends with a disclaimer noting most Muslims are peaceful and do not support terror.

“When I first read it, I was angry . . . it seemed (designed) to get people up in arms,” said Brough, who was among just 13 people who had complained about the insert to the Times by Monday afternoon (the newspaper said eight more people called to complain they hadn’t received a copy). “I found it offensive.”

Other critics wonder about the timing of the insert – placed in newspapers nationwide to coincide with the 7th anniversary of 9/11. The list of newspapers included in the distribution feature publications in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa and Colorado – all states hotly contested in this year’s presidential election.

With polls indicating that Republican candidates and specifically GOP presidential nominee John McCain fare well on questions of national security and terrorism, some wonder if the nonpartisan, nonprofit group funding the inserts aren’t attempting a subtly political maneuver.

“This seems to demonize a certain political candidate and benefit another,” said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Washington D.C. “We would call on all political candidates to repudiate this fear-mongering. It’s as if someone sent (pro-Nazi film) Triumph of the Will or (pro-Ku Klux Klan film) Birth of a Nation into people’s homes.”

Greg Ross, a spokesman for the New York-based Clarion Fund, a nonprofit created to spread distribution of the film, has been working his cell phone for days offering answers to journalists covering the growing controversy.

Ross said: No, the film isn’t designed to benefit one candidate over another (federal rules for nonprofits prohibit political stands). Yes, the film’s Web site briefly featured a column praising McCain, but it has been removed and doesn’t represent the group’s views.

He also said this: Yes, the mailings were timed to reach the public on the anniversary of 9/11 in swing states, but only to generate headlines and build donations to Clarion. Yes, the film was once marketed and supported by pro-Israel groups, but groups connected to other religions have also supported it.

And despite the fact that controversial terrorism experts such as Steve Emerson and Daniel Pipes appear prominently in the film – some critics accuse both men of unfairly targeting Muslims – Ross insisted the movie has no political agenda beyond exposing the anti-Western and anti-Semitic actions of radical Islam.

“We’re only attacking a small swath of people in a giant religion who are bent on doing harm to Americans,” said Ross, who would not reveal the identities of donors who have supported their effort, saying contributors fear reprisals from terrorists.

“Whoever wins this election will have to deal with this,” the spokesman added, noting that Clarion has a film assembled with a $1-million budget, The Third Jihad, ready for limited release in theaters in October. “In our movie, you see very clearly the radicals speaking for themselves. No one is putting words in their mouths.”

Donnie Ali, a spokesman for the Tampa office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, noted that area Muslims were surprised and offended that the insert arrived during the Muslim religious holiday of Ramadan. But Ali declined to criticize the distribution of the film, despite noting that up to 40 people called his office to complain about the insert.

“Running from a film like Obsession would be like pouring gasoline of the fire of Islamaphobia,” he said. “People who have nothing to hide, don’t hide from anything . . . And sometimes we have to define ourselves by showing the world what we are not.”

I haven’t yet gotten an official statement from the St. Petersburg Times on how the newspaper determined it would allow this insert, though the publication has faced controversy for other ads. More to come tomorrow . . .

* 

Comments

[Lin]

I was shocked to see the DVD, I mean shocked by the existence of something that - according to my read of the accompanying advertising literature - was surely inflammatory and biased against Muslims. And yes, seeing the DVD did bring the horrid "Birth of a Nation" film to mind. But in terms of advertising, the DVD and insert was somewhat less objectionable than the dinnertime TV ads on constipation products etc., because I didn't have to watch the DVD and haven't.

But I found this blog when trying to find out who the Clarion Fund was. It is a non-profit, which seems to be acting politically, according to this blog: http://popprog.blogspot.com/2008/09/clarion-fund-puts-lipstick-on-terrorism.html

[Rob Dewey]

I agree, this is simply paid advertising. I may have a problem with Big Oil and its environmental impacts but I cannot deny that if they put up the money, they get the ad space. After all, that is what funds the papers, not subscriptions.

But what exactly is being advertised here? Are we being sold a product? The movie is free. The move is funded by the Clarion Fund, a non-profit, but if they can afford to produce the film, make 28 million copies with glossy inserts and pay to put each one in a newspaper, without disclosing information about where it gets its funding, I don't think they are looking for donations.

The reason this is objectionable is that we are being sold a politically charged philosophy, during election season, by a non-profit 501(c)(3), which is prohibited from endorsing any candidate or political party. If you take a look at the insert you will see that this ad went out in all the projected swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Minnesota, North Carolina, and of course Florida.

But is that alone, unethical as it may be, enough to raise the public alarm? Probably not.

However, how many of you have actually seen it? It is not just a film about radical Islam. It is a brilliant piece of marketing. Anyone familiar with the Motivational Research conducted on Madison Avenue in the 50s and 60s will instantly recognize the image-concept association throughout the film that make the tacit case the Islam is a threat, despite the fact the the disclaimers say that only a small minority of Muslims are violent. The implication of the juxtaposition of images of young Muslims with those of Hitler Youth make the tacit case that although only a small minority of Muslims are radicalized to the point of violence, just like the Nazis were at one point a small minority of the German population, if we don't do something now we will end up with an unstoppable wave of anti-Western, radical Islam that spreads to all Muslims and puts all Americans in danger.

I hate to say it, and I know many of you will balk at idea, but this kind of marketing was used decades before Madison avenue to turn latent anti semitism into systematic and wide scale genocide by a very clever Austrian who not only sold himself to the German people, but also sold his party and all their nefarious ambitions.

It is a simple formula whereby you play on the latent fears, anxieties, and insecurities of a people who feel threatened. You personify the cause of their fear in the form of out-group, "foreigners" if you will. In the case of the Nazism, it was easy to vilify Jews because anti semitism was, and still is, rampant in Europe. (Sadly, it's not much better here).

In the U.S. we have a latent fear/hatred of Arabs and Muslims. In fact, thanks to Hollywood, we often equate the two terms. Honestly, if some says terrorist, we all think Arab/Muslims. The Oklahoma City bombing was blamed on Middle Eastern Terrorists in the news stories that broke first. In film after film, we have seen the Arab as the dark, exotic, non-rational, sexually perverted personification for evil. We are so used to it that we just assume all Arabs/Muslims want to kill us and we are therefore not obligated to treat them with dignity and respect.

This is the dangerous and disgraceful situation that has allowed this propaganda film (I use this term in the strictest sense) to make its way into 28 million homes without more than a few dozen alarmed citizens such as myself (and Eric) raising their voices. Picture for a moment that the film is about radical Black Power movements in the U.S. and juxtaposes images of Black Americans with Al-Qaida terrorist training camp and claims that Black Nationalism is a threat to all white people and Gospel Music is the music of the devil. (On of the films interviewees, Walid Shoebat, an Evangelical Christian who falsely claims to be a former Muslim terrorist actually says Islam is the religion of the devil)

Would we stand for that? I should say not. Would we stand for a similarly virulent attack on Judaism and Jews? Absolutely not. So we are we so complacent about this hate-mongering film about Muslims? Because Hollywood has taught us they are the Bad Guys?

I understand that the difference is that Al-Qaida has already attacked us and that this is not pure fantasy, but that does not gives us the right to vilify all Muslims, or all Arabs, tempting as it may be. It is simply wrong and we are better than that.

I'll stop here and simply ask that you view the film with an open mind and an eye towards History. This is just the beginning of a long-overdue public debate and all of your opinions matter. Even if you disagree, please speak up. Silence is most deadly accomplice.

[beltwaybandit]

Understood.

Given the givens in Florida, does it take a movie promotion like this material to get the population riled up against you and your family? Heck, if you follow the wrong college football team around here that alone can get you in trouble.

And on a broader note...because of the nature of the attacks from radical Islam, can anyone blame a person from feeling a certain way towards Muslims when they pass laws, police communities, make hiring decisions and vote for political candidates?

And why do people constantly try to force people to FEEL a certain way, and criticize them when they FEEL that way if it does not match "society trends"?

Feelings are neither right nor wrong. They just are. And they are not able to be "governed" or "legislated".

To manage those feelings (as they pertain to Muslims), destruction of the radical Islam movement would go a long way. It doesn't matter who does it, either. (Americans, British, Russians, Iraqis...Muslims.)

[Eric Deggans]

All I can say, is there is a difference between not liking something and being afraid that something will feed prejudice and incite oppression of you and your family.

So often in cases like this, people want to act as if this is about hurt feelings. This is much more about how peopel feel when they pass laws, police communities, make hiring decisions and vote for political candidates...

[beltwaybandit]

Eric -

I've been in the media business 30 years. I also, like everyone else, am a consumer of media products of all kinds. Additionally, I have been close to and sometimes involved with (as a consultant) federal level politics.

My point: I've seen A LOT of publications, TV shows and TV ads, movies and heard radio content, that I disagreed with and sometimes found objectionable.

I never once felt that because I had a problem with it that it should not have occurred. I recognized long ago that people have different preferences and make different choices from me. I am not the center of the universe...and neither is anyone else.

I have no problem with someone complaining about the flier. I wonder why we care that 13 out of 5,000 who actually viewed the material complained? I also wonder why the gentlemen in NPR bothered to call and complain. If he doesn't like it, throw it away and ignore it.

It honestly doesn't sound like an issue to me with a vast majority of the population who either never saw the material or did and don't care.

From your original post, I don't see what is so objectionable. All I read in the post was they are focusing on radical Islam as an on-going threat to the U.S.

That is indisputable.

[DoctorDoom]

I certainly can see your point - a newspaper is a private institution and can print whatever they choose. How much discovery can you (StP Times) do when you are constrained by budget and falling revenues? Do you have the staff to investigate all these requests?

I am conflicted about these things, however. How much truth is required in a document to be acceptable? It is true islamic extremists do mean America harm. Do you really want to try to uncover motives for every advertising decision? Why only these states? Why this time of year? Do you believe their answers or make your own conclusions?

One of the largest criticisms I hear about modern journalism is the amount of editorializing people see in news stories now. (I know this is a blog, but someone mentioned above the implication of "only 13") If you ask and get the same answers as above, is it your responsibility to decide they are not truthful and therefore we won't run the advertisement. That can be a area for bias to seep in though. If someone comes to the ad department and this were form the Swift Boat and that is turned down because it is harmful to Kerry, who the person who makes this decision supports, might he not be influenced but his bias to make a different decision when the roles are reversed?

In this case, I think Donnie Ali is right let it be seen and let the people decide. Plus the Times makes some coin, win-win.

[Eric Deggans]

I was explaining why others found the DVD objectionable, actually.

What concerns me, is that there seem to be a host of hidden agendas at work in this mailing. And I'm not sure we considered the implications of those agendas before accepting the advertising.

That's something we often criticize other media outlets for doing. So it's worth thinking about in this case, as well...

[DoctorDoom]

Eric,

What, pray tell, do you find objectionable about this? That the paper is trying to raise advertising revenue?

Do you think the newspaper is to avoid any objectionable material? Or, that is someone's view this is pro-McCain (or any other politician)?

I really want to know the basis for your objection?

[Eric Deggans]

The flyer was a glossy insert, like an advertisement you might get from a detergent maker or retail outlet.

To Beltway -- if we put something that you found objectionable in the newspaper as an advertising supplement -- say, a racy ad for Playboy or something -- would it matter to you that only 5,000 people may have read it?

[former tampanian]

I'm no longer in the Bay area or receive the Times; did the flyer and DVD seem like part of the Times or more like the ad/coupon inserts?

[beltwaybandit]

The fact "only 13" people complained about the distributuon implies that more people SHOULD have complained.

That makes two assumptions not in evidence:

1. that most people who received it actually paid any attention to it;

2. that the material is somehow inaccurate.

Regarding point #1:

I believe the national average of public acceptance of non-permission marketing pieces is less than 1% nationally. Newspaper inserts may be better than, but how much better? 3%? 5%?

That would mean that out of what...100,000-200,000 or less in the Bay Area...a MAXIMUM of 5,000 or so even viewed it. And out of that 13 called to complain.

So very few people even saw it, and only a micro-fraction of those complained. What is the issue?

Regarding Point #2:

I read in the post that the film disclaimers twice that most Muslims are peaceful. It focuses on "radical Islam" as the problem the U.S. is facing.

How is this wrong? We have multiple data points confirming that radical Islam is in fact a big time threat to the U.S. (Twin Towers, Pentagon and Shanksville on 9/11; Twin Towers in 1993; USS Cole Bombing; etc.); we have constant calls from within Muslim groups like Al Qaeda for death to America; and we have the failure of Muslim nations like Pakistan to pursue Al Qaeda and to allow the U.S. to do the same.

While I have not seen the flyer or the film, from what Eric Deggans has written about it, I see no reason why this should be a problem for anyone other than those who feel no one was to blame for 9/11 except America and its history of economic domination.

I don't doubt that certain American policies probably had consequences for some around the world.

I definitely do not agree with the notion that somehow, America's policies justify the Islamic attacks on the U.S.

Others obviously feel differently.

[Mr News]

Qui deficio ut non bulla preteritus es fatum ut revolvo is.

[Haytham Mahmoud]

Please do not promote anything that create hate towards muslims. I think the west has alot of crimes that they comitted aganist humanity that we can talk about !!!!!!!!!